• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
As for those ghastly Semitic cults (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Randian Objectivism, etc.), I would like to think that their more pathological followers were either physically exterminated, or - as inspired by Greg Bear's 1982 LitSF novel Strength of Stones - they pooled their money, bought themselves some shithole desert planet orbiting a star very far from Sol and relocated there en masse to continue engaging in their blood-splattered mythomaniacal power fantasies without bothering the neighbors. :)

TGT

Did you even bother typing this paragraph, or did you just shit it out?
This crosses the line - such a combative attitude won't do you much good around here. Warning for flaming. Comments to PM.

To All:

Most of the posters in this thread are discussing this divisive issue in a reasonable, mature manner. I'd like to see that continue.
 
When someone thinks they know to the extent that they will derive authority from it, they frequently become dangerous to others. The non-believers must be shown or slain.

This works both ways, you know. ;)
Since religion and belief are not automatically one and the same and may indeed be different and separate things, it worked all ways already, exactly as it was stated originally by USS_Triumphant, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, other than A) to show an unwarranted preemptive defensiveness or B) (more likely, given the employment of winking smiley) to illustrate that you think you know something which the rest of us do not.


M', pretty sure there are more than two ways things can work ;)

I think what he was pointing out is that there are locations in the world and times in history when religion marked you for death. Russia. China. And don't forget, early Christians were fed to the lions as entertainment in Rome.
 
... Often a born again Christian like my brother will often say that ...

At least now I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with your brother's religion and thus you consider all religion to be a threat. You respond with an avatar and a signature designed to insult anyone that might have the slightest association with those the "corrupted" your brother. Before you can really discuss religion you need to purge yourself of the hate inside that prompts you to compare people who believe in kindness towards others with monkeys.

I believe the point he's making (and a point I agree with) is that all to often a religion or philosophy that is ideally about being kind to others is more often than not used as an excuse to harm in some way those that do not believe the specifics of that religion or philosophy. As a reborn (a term I only use to distinguish myself from the brand name "Born Again" :) )Christian, I feel that Christianity is an excellent religion that is rarely actually practiced.

OT, this is most likely where Roddenberry was coming from when speaking about a non-religious future. As others have posted, people will have the various religious beliefs in the future but hopefully they will have moved past the need to cram those beliefs down the throats of "non-believers". This may be the result of the aftermath of the Third World War that is coming in 42 years. So plan ahead.
 
... Often a born again Christian like my brother will often say that ...

At least now I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with your brother's religion and thus you consider all religion to be a threat. You respond with an avatar and a signature designed to insult anyone that might have the slightest association with those the "corrupted" your brother. Before you can really discuss religion you need to purge yourself of the hate inside that prompts you to compare people who believe in kindness towards others with monkeys.


Please I don't have as much hatred as you seem to think. I DO think religion is man-made, a buerocracy that's poison to progress. Believing that there's a god is different
 
... Often a born again Christian like my brother will often say that ...

At least now I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with your brother's religion and thus you consider all religion to be a threat. You respond with an avatar and a signature designed to insult anyone that might have the slightest association with those the "corrupted" your brother. Before you can really discuss religion you need to purge yourself of the hate inside that prompts you to compare people who believe in kindness towards others with monkeys.


Please I don't have as much hatred as you seem to think. I DO think religion is man-made, a buerocracy that's poison to progress. Believing that there's a god is different

Exactly. If there is a God (as I and multitudes of others believe), my communication with him is direct. I need no middle man. It says that in some book I keep finding in hotel rooms.
 
... all to often a religion or philosophy that is ideally about being kind to others is more often than not used as an excuse to harm in some way those that do not believe the specifics of that religion or philosophy. ...

I'll agree that it sometimes happens, but more often it comes down to someone making a play for power. Greed and power is the basis for most of the wars in this world. Religion, like race, tribe, borders, language and many other traits that bind people together can be used as a rally cry to unit people for a cause. That cause is usually a move for land, resources or wealth. Sadly, it is a routine that has been with human time much longer than religion.
 
but that book was written by people. Seriously. No offense.

Honestly though, there are many priests even who beleive that this book shouldn't be taken literally. One priest on youtube I found compared the Bible to a library, with many different books within, many sections. Historical, fable, et. People seem to have forgotten that.

The dangers are:

a) people forget that this book was written by People, and it was for people who lived at a simpler time who didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today.

b) Even for thos people, the book is not meant to be literal. They are stories meant to provide nothing more than a moral compass. Since that time, much too much importance has been placed on this book.
 
I think religion will be with us for a very long time. It's been with us--in one form or another--for thousands of years now. I see no evidence that this will change anytime soon, certainly not within the next 300 or 400 years or so.

I always saw Star Trek: TNG as being very smug regarding how superior they felt to us "low-life primitives" in the past. Aside from this obnoxiousness, TNG was an interesting fantasy that showed what life might be like in the future, but it's just one point of view. I never figured for a moment that it might actually turn out that way.

I believe our future will be more like Babylon 5, or Dune, where religion--and the manipulation of people through it--will still be a fact of life for many people. And there will always be fanatics of every viewpoint who will unfortunately work very hard to make folks see that their way is the best way, no matter what their beliefs.

Sean
 
Last edited:
Here's the context of that quote:

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end... Plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists. B those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it... Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas... And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a littany of getting shit dead wrong... This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a horrible price... If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.

Wonderfully articulated.
 
Robespierre even tried to establish a church/cult of Reason in Revolutionary France.

:lol: Word of advice there, slick...you may find that bringing up the Reign of Terror to argue your own position was not a particularly wise choice. ;)

I think you missed my point - even the supposed rationalists recognized the religious urge; but then tried to channel it towards deifying merely reason.

And failed.

I just don't see religion with a real deity or deities going away. It would have already. Nice St. Francis tag by the way.
 
Yeah sure, but the real; problem with what your saying is that the discrimination runs much deeper. Often a born again Christian like my brother will often say that if you follow another path other than Christianity that might be fine but tehy won't ever be saved. Compare it to a mountain, and there is more than one path to God, each side of the mountain is a different path to God, but the problem is that if you are following one of these paths, (not you in particular, but I'm talking each path as a major religious denomination) it always must be that the other paths ...the ones other than your own, will never reach it. And the guy on another path up will say the same about you. An atheist once said sopemthing like "when you understand why you dismiss all the other gods than your own (and this could apply to paths to god) than you will know why I dismiss yours."

I don't feel it is any one's place to say who will be saved and who will not. As a Christian I believe that only Christ can say who will be saved and who will not be. It is my responsibility to take care of my own salvation.

But in regard to your mountain illustration I view it like this. There are many different paths to get to the top of the mountain. They are not all the same but they all reach there. A person on a beginner couldn't make it on the expert trail. And an expert on the beginner trail would have a trail not suited to his abilities. An expert shouldn't say to a beginner that the beginner trail is wrong and the expert trail is the only true path. A beginner couldn't make it on the expert trail.

Even if you disregard God and put anything as the top of the mountain. You could put self improvement there. Maybe one person can improve them self best through atheism. But another person would be unable to improve themself as much through atheism as they could through Christianity. A person should find whatever path is best for them, and it may change over time too.

When I served as an LDS missionary my job wasn't to convert everyone to Mormonism. It was rather to find those willing to listen to the message and teach them. In other words I wasn't trying to force everyone to become Mormon, but to find those who could better progress through the LDS church.

Ryan8bit said:
I'm not sure I've ever seen such a close case of circular reasoning as this.

I was simply stating that, because if I didn't believe in the Bible then I couldn't use it as the basis for my theory.

Here is what Roddenberry said:
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes

Hey I have no problem here then. I don't believe that an all-knowing all-powerful God created faulty humans and then blames us for His own mistakes.

I believe God created perfect humans. The humans then became imperfect through our own actions. So it seems that I am on Mr. Roddenberry's side.
 
If they had no faults, then they couldn't by design make mistakes.

So then we wouldn't have the ability to choose anything. We would just be puppets. The ability to choose is not a fault. Choosing badly is a fault but it is our own since we are the ones who chose.
 
If they had no faults, then they couldn't by design make mistakes.

So then we wouldn't have the ability to choose anything. We would just be puppets. The ability to choose is not a fault. Choosing badly is a fault but it is our own since we are the ones who chose.

Funny thing is that I agree with you there, but my point is that it all debunks your original point and makes it moot. If a person has no faults, then by design they can't make mistakes. so your original point doesn't make sense, unless, of course, your looking for a loophole in your own logic.
 
The objection to God, as far as I can see, by these types - people who, without batting an eye, can accept entities like Trelane and the Q, whom each shoe god-like abilities, is that God is (through religion) a moral authority - which is the real sort of resentment.

Show my one person who believes Trelane or Q are actually, literally real, and you'll have a point.

People "accept" them as fictional characters in a fictional world. When religious types can admit the same about god, there will be no objection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top