Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I've been thinking about it last night. If a being was all-knowing, meaning it knows EVERYTHING about the ENTIRE universe at all times, including all thoughts and ideas of everyone in it all the time in the past present and future across infinite light years, than that being, that god, would have to be the universe itself. so perhaps, people just want to personify the universe. Kind of like anthropomorphizing a teddy bear, and talking to it as if it will talk back

 

[Vance]

What I find sort of ironic is that if people were created without faults, I would contend that they were gods.. right? I mean, God (with a capital G) is defined by being all-powerful and not having faults. So therefore his creations (by your logic) are also just like him, and therefore they are still Gods (yes still a capital G).

Actually, one of the points of the story of Noah is that God is not perfect, and the flood is an admission of His mistakes. A lot of Christians actually totally miss this aspect of the story, because the concept of a perfect God was so important to the Catholic church. The whole infallability thing.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, if he's not perfect, than he's not all-knowing, which means he's just a flawed being, which means he's not really God.

 

[Vance]

Well, if he's not perfect, than he's not all-knowing, which means he's just a flawed being, which means he's not really God.

Now you're doing the reducto ad absurdium style of arguing. You're also conflating a lot of Dark Age-era Catholic dogma and mapping it to all believers in God in order to 'support' your arguments.

It's one thing to say that the Catholic interpretation of God is likely incorrect. But it's another to then take a leap of logic and continue the statement of 'therefore God himself cannot then exist.'

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Perhaps thats what i did, but it does follow logic. A couple of posts above, I did consider God as an all powerful being, before i responded to that other post, and I reasoned something different... that God and the Universe, they by nature have to be. That being the case, by the Universe being god .. its really just a way of anthropomorphizing the universe so we can understand it in human terms

 

[perigee]

Wow - a great couple of posts here...

Just so we can better understand terms, can we differentiate between the concept of "creator" - which could be some flawed critter with a mighty big test-tube - and "God," which in this context apparently denotes the Judeo-Christian Santa Claus? I don't think the two terms are interchangeable.

Certainly the concept of God began a little like Tuln suggests - an anthropomorphism of nature. God got pissy, so he smote that tree there with lightning. Ralph pissed God off by being left-handed, so he sicced a bear on him. That "God" was to be placated. And, if he could be placated, one could curry favor with him. If one could curry favor with God, then he could act as an intercessor, and if he could act as an intercessor, then he had the power of "God" over his fellow man. He could tell his fellow man what God wanted, and come up with all sorts of stories about how God created women out of spare ribs and so forth.

Over the course of time, these stories become institutionalized, until eventually mankind grows up sufficiently to say "Heeeeyyy.... a Rib?? Really? Pull the other one..."

On the other hand, refutation of the "God" stories dos not deal with the concept of theism. If I could "beam" my house, replete with electricity and cable and Internet, back in time to the 1700's, I would be a wizard. If I "beamed" it back to the 1100's, I'd be a God.

Our ability to see the completion of Everything isn't quite there yet. I've heard we can now see the edges of the universe... but a long time ago, the universe had an edge too - people thought it was some kind of chocolate shell with stars hung off it. The envelope of defining what "Is" comes to our ability to recognize what is. Our sense of scale is relative. We may be carried around by a giant CGI elephant on the end of a dandelion, for all we really know.

Our conception of what consciousness is remains undefined; why, for instance, do you like Star Trek, and other people don't - what physical, biochemical genetic component determines this? According to the latest version of "Cosmos," apparently all matter is just "slow light" - like glass is slow-flowing frozen liquid. You're sitting on light, typing on a construct manufactured from light... this stuff is major class weird.

 

[hellsgate]

The three most important words for the future of mankind when it comes to religion are these: I don't know.

People can believe whatever they want. You can be an athiest, he can be a Christian, she can be a Muslim, and I can be a Discordian, and that's all well and good, so long as we all acknowledge that while we feel what we do and those feelings may be backed up by the dogma and doctrine of our sects, we don't know.

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.

THAT, actually, is what I believe to be the fundamental difference between humans now and the humans depicted in Star Trek: by their time, they have matured to a point where, rather than needing to pretend they know how the whole universe works, they are willing to humble themselves enough to accept that there is great wonder in the things that are out there to be discovered when one doesn't know.

Some people are like that today. Growing numbers, in fact, I believe - and that gives me hope.

I'm with Roddenberry & Triumphant on this one.

 

[JustKate]

^ Me, too. Triumphant said what I've been thinking, except that as Babaganoosh (I think it was) pointed out, sometimes it's the believers who:

must be shown or slain.

By that, all I mean is that both believers and non-believers have been guilty of harsh adherence to ideology.

 

[Ryan8bit]

^ Me, too. Triumphant said what I've been thinking, except that as Babaganoosh (I think it was) pointed out, sometimes it's the believers who:

must be shown or slain.

By that, all I mean is that both believers and non-believers have been guilty of harsh adherence to ideology.

If this is the logic then the general idea is that without religion this problem would not exist on both sides.

 

[SFRabid]

random relevant quote:
Phillosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Of course, neither part of that quote has any basis in truth, but it sounds good, doesn't it. That's all that matters.

 

[SFRabid]

^ Me, too. Triumphant said what I've been thinking, except that as Babaganoosh (I think it was) pointed out, sometimes it's the believers who:

must be shown or slain.

By that, all I mean is that both believers and non-believers have been guilty of harsh adherence to ideology.

If this is the logic then the general idea is that without religion this problem would not exist on both sides.

But then you would have to get rid of race, and borders, and language variances. Yet, in Africa you have areas without religious, racial or border differences where people still go to war. When you try to annihilate a group because they are from another tribe, and there are not other differences, it shows the true source of the problem. Humans seek to dominate each other. Period. Blaming religion is going through life with blinders on.

 

[JustKate]

If this is the logic then the general idea is that without religion this problem would not exist on both sides.

Oh, Ryan...

In the first place, this isn't "logic" - it's historical fact. Believers and non-believers have been doing nasty things to each other for a very long time. Sure, there were the Crusades, but there were also the purges in Stalinist Russia.

In the second place, by your logic, as SFRabid points out, the "crime" - that is, the cause of all the trouble, according to your logic - is being different from the majority. And there are lots of ways to be different - is everyone different to be punished for nonconformity or pushed into conformity? Is that really the kind of world you want?

No, of course it isn't. I'm just yanking your chain. But I think it would be fair to say that you do want one particular group to conform to your truth. Good luck with that.

(Tuln, this is an entirely new topic! I've never seen anybody make this particular argument before!)

 

[SFRabid]

I always wondered if people misinterpret John Lennon's "Imagine" when he sings about a world without religion, borders, race, etc... He names many things that make people different. When you have a world without differences you lose individualism, and individualism is something that was very important to him. After paying that price do you really gain peace or do people continue to find things to fight about? It makes for an interesting twist and deeper meaning to the song.

 

[Strider]

What I find sort of ironic is that if people were created without faults, I would contend that they were gods.. right? I mean, God (with a capital G) is defined by being all-powerful and not having faults. So therefore his creations (by your logic) are also just like him, and therefore they are still Gods (yes still a capital G).

Actually, one of the points of the story of Noah is that God is not perfect, and the flood is an admission of His mistakes. A lot of Christians actually totally miss this aspect of the story, because the concept of a perfect God was so important to the Catholic church. The whole infallability thing.

I'm interested in hearing how you arrive at this interpretation. You might be on to something, but the opposing viewpoint wasn't arrived at simply because Christians can't or won't accept the idea of an imperfect God. They just interpret things differently than you, and apparently don't see the Noah's Ark story as a contradiction of that interpretation.

 

[Praetor]

I always wondered if people misinterpret John Lennon's "Imagine" when he sings about a world without religion, borders, race, etc... He names many things that make people different. When you have a world without differences you lose individualism, and individualism is something that was very important to him. After paying that price do you really gain peace or do people continue to find things to fight about? It makes for an interesting twist and deeper meaning to the song.

That's a very interesting proposition. I've never thought of the song that way.

 

[Strider]

I always wondered if people misinterpret John Lennon's "Imagine" when he sings about a world without religion, borders, race, etc... He names many things that make people different. When you have a world without differences you lose individualism, and individualism is something that was very important to him. After paying that price do you really gain peace or do people continue to find things to fight about? It makes for an interesting twist and deeper meaning to the song.

That's a very interesting proposition. I've never thought of the song that way.

Contradicted by the final verse, though, assuming of course that the "I" of the song is referring to Lennon himself:

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

"Was it a millionaire who said imagine no possessions?/A poor little schoolboy who said we dont need no lessons?"

-"The Other Side of Summer" by Elvis Costello

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm interested in hearing how you arrive at this interpretation. You might be on to something, but the opposing viewpoint wasn't arrived at simply because Christians can't or won't accept the idea of an imperfect God. They just interpret things differently than you, and apparently don't see the Noah's Ark story as a contradiction of that interpretation.

I interpreted it simply that God changed His mind. He can do that.

 

[Green Shirt]

I've been stewing on this for a while now but I believe that Gene Roddenberrys vision that by the 23rd century mankind would have moved passed the need for religion is absolutely spot-on correct.

Man would have long-ago realised that it was a complete waste of time devoting time and bizarre religous practises to a divine being that plainly doesn't exist.

Where is the evidence? There is none. (That is just my opinion and for those that disagree fair play to you and your delusions)

People tell me that no evidence is needed to believe in God and that its all based on faith.
How can I have faith in a cruel God that lets children suffer? --- what sins have they committed? NONE

Anyway rant over. I now I may be opening a sensitive can of worms here but what do people think of Roddeberrys notion that religion on Earth will be redundant in the future?

Crack kills.

 

[Aquehonga]

If religion were an algebra equation, it would be:

religion = f (fear_of_death)

The more than understandable fear of dying & then ceasing to exist & becoming nothing is the heart & CPU of the need for religion(s), & why they exist.

Fear of death being religion's fuel is more true in recent times & now, than centuries ago, or millenia ago.

Before scientific rationality, religion also served as society's “science”, in addition to comforting death. What I mean is things not understood were attributed to gods, goddesses, demons, angels & devils.

Of course rationality & the scientific method showed & continue to show, that the Angel/God/Goddess/Demon/Devil Hypothesis is wrong. Dead in the water.

Folks continue to be faitheists due mainly to death, but after that its tradition, repetition, & going with, continuing the flow.

What's an atheist? Ought be just folks who don't believe in afterlife & the supernatural.

What's a faitheist? Ought be just folks who believe in life after death & the supernatural.

Obsessive, militant atheism is effing WEIRD. Why? No need for buttmunches like Madolyn O'Hair & her group or the banana brains on YouTube.

Fanatical faitheism is utterly ridiculous & bizarre. Creationism & Celibacy Oaths are effing WEIRDNESS to say the least.

But so what? Puritan faitheists & militant atheists aside, we're all free to be garden variety atheists, faitheists, or something “intermediate”.

Gotta have fun aficionados.

Tell you this:

One thing, alot of obsessive militant atheists & puritanical fanatic faitheists, have in common:

An inability to enjoy “The Life of Brian”, “Bedazzled” (1967), “Brimstone”, ”Reaper”, & like things etc et al,

Why?

Militant obsessive atheists would moronically see such things as “promoting religion” for some twisted reason & hate them.

Fanatical puritan faitheists would hate such things, labeling them tools of the Devil & magnets for sinning.

Both militant atheists & fanatical faitheists are Herberts.

Termites, strictly out of the wood.

PS: I didn't mean to have such a longhaired reply

Hypocritical of yours truly

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Tuln[/B],, this is an entirely new topic! I've never seen anybody make this particular argument before!)

I'm not sure what you mean My "sarcastic meeter isn't on!

It could be sarcastic, because I've debated religion in other forums.

It could be genuine, because the analogy I used above about God actually being the universe anthropomorphized is entirely new. I always kind of thought about it, but I had never expressed it in words before until I typed that post. What's odd is that I still think it's an intriguing idea and can't believe I expressed it that way.

Or do you mean something else?