Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[JustKate]

You're saying that conflicts are the fault of religion even if it's non-religious people that are doing the persecuting?

If non-religious people are persecuting religious people because of their religion, then yes, I would posit that without religion that particular disagreement would not exist. Again, a disclaimer for those who like to make hasty assumptions: That does not mean that disagreements would never happen, that people wouldn't still fight over things, or that they might not just try and persecute each other for varying reasons.

What is the point of your logic then? What is the good of it? Yeah, sure, so that particular disagreement would cease to exist. Agreed. But...so what? If people would still find reasons to fight and bicker and persecute each other, and you say that you agree they would, what would change?

Oh, I get it. What would change is that people who just don't care for religion for whatever reason just wouldn't have to hear about it any more. Ah. You can dream, I guess.

I think people need to think about spirituality and religion and eternal matters even if they decide they don't believe it and can't accept it. They still need to make a conscious choice. The discussion, the thought that goes into it and the questions that it forces us to ask about ourselves, the people around us, our world, our universe, are necessary for a person's development. So the idea of a world in which nobody ever even thinks about religion sounds awful to me.

 

[Stardate]

This video get's interesting at about 3 minutes

Yes, its get so ludicrous that i cant believe people are buying this shit. This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkkWiKHqRWM&feature=related easily refutes.
what for me was most ludricus was the old Zeitgeist list trying to connect Christ to the Nordic gods. Odin the Scandinavians and his son Thor of the Gauls(never heard Thor connection to Gauls before) but the final idiocy is the last name Mahamud of Arabia. This has to be Muhammad the founder of Islam, 600 years AFTER Jesus crucification. Muhammad had natural birth, was a sinner and died out of poison.
This was so crap that people behind Zeitgeist had to make a new list and remove Mahamud of Arabia from the new list.

 

[Ryan8bit]

What is the point of your logic then? What is the good of it? Yeah, sure, so that particular disagreement would cease to exist. Agreed. But...so what? If people would still find reasons to fight and bicker and persecute each other, and you say that you agree they would, what would change?

It was only a reply to the original statements which implied religion as a cause. An atheist said religion caused people to create war. A theist retorts that religious people have been persecuted for their religion. Both of them implied religion as the cause for the conflict (not simply the nature of humanity), so it makes sense that if the conclusion is that religion causes conflict, then without it that particular conflict would not exist.

I wasn't specifically championing the removal of all religion or spiritual thought, but rather that the theist's own argument sort of works against their goal. Turning the argument the other way just further demonstrated the original point; it didn't change anything. That was my point.

Oh, I get it. What would change is that people who just don't care for religion for whatever reason just wouldn't have to hear about it any more. Ah. You can dream, I guess.

You have quite an adversarial nature when it comes to these threads. My particular "dream" would not involve the removal of religion. I am not a hard atheist. I think that certain aspects of various religions could be done away with or changed, but not outright removed.

I think people need to think about spirituality and religion and eternal matters even if they decide they don't believe it and can't accept it. They still need to make a conscious choice. The discussion, the thought that goes into it and the questions that it forces us to ask about ourselves, the people around us, our world, our universe, are necessary for a person's development. So your world in which nobody ever even thinks about religion sounds awful to me.

Yes, such a world does sound terrible. And some people already behave this way in our world. Instead of thinking for themselves, they let others dictate their behavior and ideas, without questioning the nature of their self or the universe around them. The world can be this way with or without religion. And a world without religion wouldn't necessarily be void of these things either. I also feel it necessary to define that when I say "religion" I mean it in the context of organized practices, rituals, and rules relating to the relationship of one or more deities. None of those things are really necessary to philosophize about where we come from, who we are, and where we go when we die.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

This video get's interesting at about 3 minutes

Yes, its get so ludicrous that i cant believe people are buying this shit. This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkkWiKHqRWM&feature=related easily refutes.
what for me was most ludricus was the old Zeitgeist list trying to connect Christ to the Nordic gods. Odin the Scandinavians and his son Thor of the Gauls(never heard Thor connection to Gauls before) but the final idiocy is the last name Mahamud of Arabia. This has to be Muhammad the founder of Islam, 600 years AFTER Jesus crucification. Muhammad had natural birth, was a sinner and died out of poison.
This was so crap that people behind Zeitgeist had to make a new list and remove Mahamud of Arabia from the new list.

Even if everything and I mean everything in the Zeitgeist video I posted was proven false, it is still more believeable than what the Bible tells us of the same events. it's like any fiction.. it might not have happened but it matters how believeable it is

 

[JustKate]

So, Ryan8bit, you're not one of the ones who think Roddenberry is "right"? If I've confused you with another poster, my apologies - it's a pretty long thread. I don't think I've been adversarial, but I'm prepared to believe that I come off that way sometimes. My apologies for that, too.

Yes, such a world does sound terrible. And some people already behave this way in our world. Instead of thinking for themselves, they let others dictate their behavior and ideas, without questioning the nature of their self or the universe around them. The world can be this way with or without religion. And a world without religion wouldn't necessarily be void of these things either.

Agreed. An unthinking faith or unthinking atheism or unthinking anything, really, means nothing. A choice has to be made, even if that choice is, "I'm not sure what I believe." You've still got to think about it, at least I think so. And that's the inherent problem with utopian ideals of "and no religion, too."

I also feel it necessary to define that when I say "religion" I mean it in the context of organized practices, rituals, and rules relating to the relationship of one or more deities. None of those things are really necessary to philosophize about where we come from, who we are, and where we go when we die.

This is always a difficulty in these religion threads, because the word religion is used, rightly and wrongly, many different ways. It is quite correctly used to refer to one of the main religions (Christianity, Buddhism, whatever), and it can also be correctly used to refer to a denomination (e.g., Catholicism), and it can mean "spritual," but it sometimes means "organized religion," and sometimes it means "ritual." It is often very difficult to tell what somebody means without elaboration...and even there, you can still get into an argument. Messy.

But on the other hand, what else can be used? Spritituality doesn't work - it's too vague. I've known people who don't believe in a god or gods but who still say they are "spiritual," and for all I know, they're right. It's not for me to judge, thank goodness.

 

[Ryan8bit]

So, Ryan8bit, you're not one of the ones who think Roddenberry is "right"?

I'm not really sure because I don't know his absolute stance. I think some people are putting their own agendas towards what he meant, especially the original post in this thread. They're almost doing it in the same way that some religious people say they know what God thinks. And even if they did know what GR thought, do his thoughts on religion always apply to Star Trek? Are his thoughts even relevant?

 

[JustKate]

^ I definitely agree there - with every single statement you made. Consensus! (Between you and me and for the moment, anyway.) Woo-hoo!

 

[Cakes488]

What part in the story of Noah are we talking about that God made a mistake or changed his mind?

The flood is pretty much a global do-over. God was displeased with the way things were going and tipped over the board. Destroy everything; begin new game. Noah (being a righteous man who, it was hoped, knew how to follow instructions) was spared, along with his family.

You do realize that these bible stories are not actually true right?

 

[JustKate]

^ Star Trek's stories aren't "actually true" either, but we spend a lot of time talking about them. Just because something isn't history doesn't mean it has no validity. Really.

 

[Praetor]

There is also a subtle difference between 'actually true' and 'literally true.'

 

[Cakes488]

^ Star Trek's stories aren't "actually true" either, but we spend a lot of time talking about them. Just because something isn't history doesn't mean it has no validity. Really.

I didn't say that the stories in the bible had no validity......just that they aren't true. When I used to be catholic a priest actually told me that. I actually feel that there is quite a bit of merit to the "life lessons" taught in the bible. There is also a lot of crap in there too...surely you know how women were looked upon in the bible and actually you probably know a lot better than me!
It seems like you're a bit defensive; which I can understand just from the thread title alone, it's bound to get heated...but I'm not here to rip apart your religion or your beliefs...I respect them even if I don't believe them!

 

[Cakes488]

There is also a subtle difference between 'actually true' and 'literally true.'

Ok then....In my opinion <----key phrase there... they are not LITERALLY true.

 

[Vance]

Cakes, you have to remember, history was simply not recorded for scientific value back then. Hell, it's a relatively new science when you think of it. Biblical stories not literal history, but metaphorical history. A great flood did happen, about the time the Bible states - but the purpose of the Bible wasn't to give us the dates, times, and names, but to provide a moral narrative.

Yes, there are religious people who completely miss that point, and I'm not defending them. But to demand that the Bible be held up as a historical trestise of the ages, when such things didn't exist into recently, in order to prove the validity of faith, seems like a fallacious argument to me.

 

[Praetor]

That's pretty much what I was going to write, Vance.

And that's an opinion you're completely entitled to have, Cakes488. I don't think anyone is trying to make you feel persecuted.

The Catholic Church is, IMO, an entity the merits and demerits of which could almost be discussed entirely separately in its own thread. In my experience, it is quite a different animal than most Protestant churches.

 

[Cakes488]

Cakes, you have to remember, history was simply not recorded for scientific value back then. Hell, it's a relatively new science when you think of it. Biblical stories not literal history, but metaphorical history. A great flood did happen, about the time the Bible states - but the purpose of the Bible wasn't to give us the dates, times, and names, but to provide a moral narrative.

Yes, there are religious people who completely miss that point, and I'm not defending them. But to demand that the Bible be held up as a historical trestise of the ages, when such things didn't exist into recently, in order to prove the validity of faith, seems like a fallacious argument to me.

I'm thinking we're agreeing here and you got me mixed up with another poster....but just to set the record straight there has been no flood that has wiped out all life on planet earth, period. Yes great floods have occured and will continue to occur but not with the magnitude that the bible states, once again this flood was a punishment for the inhabitants of earth...we never can get anything right can we!!! The god in the bible dishes out punishments right and left...and with little mercy.

The purpose of the bible which was written by a bunch of guys way after Jesus died is to keep people in line thru fear and repurcussions. All growing up all I friggin heard was if you sinned you're going to hell hell hell, I mean what a turn off to having any fun LOL.
I agree that there is also moral narrative in there as well, but some of it is really quite quite dated and I defintley wouldn't of wanted to be born a woman in biblical times!
I don't think I demanded that the bible be held up to historical accuracy...did I?

 

[Cakes488]

That's pretty much what I was going to write, Vance.

And that's an opinion you're completely entitled to have, Cakes488. I don't think anyone is trying to make you feel persecuted.

The Catholic Church is, IMO, an entity the merits and demerits of which could almost be discussed entirely separately in its own thread. In my experience, it is quite a different animal than most Protestant churches.

I can't comment since I don't know that much about Protestant relgion...but I will anyway LOL. I think they are more similar than different. I'm sure everybody will chime in and let me know how wrong I am!

 

[JustKate]

Cakes, I don't mean to nitpick here, but the Old Testament was written long before the time of Jesus - it's the Torah (at least the part with the story of Noah is), and it's much older than the New Testament. Much.

 

[Balthier the Great]

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?

Not in the near future anyway. A lot of people believe in some sort of God. I do, I'm sure there's more than one Orthodox Jew hear, probably a few nice Muslims, etc. I think we'll be religious for a long time. Humans have had religion for as long as we've been humans.

I think we'll learn to disagree argeeably about religion. I doubt 100 years from now we'll be exectuting apostates of any religion anywhere on Earth.

 

[Cakes488]

Cakes, I don't mean to nitpick here, but the Old Testament was written long before the time of Jesus - it's the Torah (at least the part with the story of Noah is), and it's much older than the New Testament. Much.

I'll be glad to make that concession...it still doesn't change anything.

 

[I am not Spock]

In TNG, they do seem to have gone 'beyond religion'. See 'Who Watches The Watchers' or 'Devils Due'. But its ironic that as soon as they move beyond needing religion; they meet alien beings who for all intents and purposes are Gods (Q, the Prophets, etc)