Religion Has No Place In Science Fiction

Religion plays a large part in the lives of most people. What role, if any, does religion play in science fiction?

Moderator: Moderators

Religion Has No Place In Science Fiction

Postby SaintLucifer » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:16 pm

Upon review of recent world events, everyone who displays a modicum of intelligence knows religion is a force that must be crushed for it serves no purpose other than to confuse the masses. Science is based on fact. Relgion is based upon fairy tales. The sooner we crush religion the better. Matters of science can be proven. Fantastic myths cannot for they are the meanderings of a non-intellectual mind. Do not children make up stories to make their lives more bearable? Religion serves exactly the same purpose thus it is my contention religion is for nutcases who need something upon which to grasp in their ridiculous and pathetic lives.
Individuals speak of a God that creates. According to religion, GOD created the Sun. In every major metroplis humanity does the exact same thing on a daily basis. These are called <b>nuclear power plants</b>. GOD created life. We are close to doing the same through DNA mapping and eugenics. We grow closer every day to discover the ultimate secrets of the Universe. Where was your GOD when all this was happening? GOD creates cancer. We lost the battle to Him but on many occasions we defeat him in his purpose as it should be (if there were a GOD at all). Our medical technology grows by leaps and bounds. This is all MAN. Your GOD had absolutely nothing to do with this. Seems this GOD is capable of destroying the earth many times over. So are we. I beg of you all, deny religion a place in your hearts. Accept the TRUTH which may be found in science.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint :twisted:
SaintLucifer
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:52 am

Then why?

Postby hegemon » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:25 am

If what you say is true, why have so many religious sf stories come to be considered classics? I'll only mention Blish's A Case of Conscience, Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet.

Yes, religion is the opiate of the masses. But you just try to take an opiate away from someone who is addicted, and watch what happens. All science can offer is comfort and long life -- in a universe that will eventually suffer heat death and the end of everything. Religion offers love and eternal bliss. Which would you choose, if you were not educated enough to tell the true offer from the false?

Religion belongs in sf because it is part of human nature, and everything human is fair game for sf writers.
This is the race that will rule the sevagram!
hegemon
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:15 am
Location: On the road

Postby jdalton » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:19 pm

For someone who is against religion, against mythology of any kind, against using religion or non-scientific thinking for any purpose whatever, you have chosen a rather non-scientific name for yourself. Wouldn't your cause be better served by choosing a more truthful name?

Besides, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists in favour of the reworking of society along scientific principles (okay, pseudo-scientific) and they were hardly model human beings.

I say crush nothing. Only resist the crushers.
Jonathon Dalton
Lords of Death and Life
jdalton
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: 1 hr east of Vancouver (currently)

Crush Religion

Postby SaintLucifer » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:14 pm

jdalton wrote:For someone who is against religion, against mythology of any kind, against using religion or non-scientific thinking for any purpose whatever, you have chosen a rather non-scientific name for yourself. Wouldn't your cause be better served by choosing a more truthful name?

Besides, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists in favour of the reworking of society along scientific principles (okay, pseudo-scientific) and they were hardly model human beings.

I say crush nothing. Only resist the crushers.


MAO ZEDONG, JOSEPH STALIN and POL POT were all Communists. Their society was not developed based upon scientific principles. It was developed as a means to obtain and hold power. Religion attempts to gather all of humanity together and create a brotherhood under GOD. The Communists attempted the same thing but under MAN. How is this science? Communists merely refuted a GOD because HE interfered with their march to power.
Watch any science fiction movie and you will see the same subject broached time and again. A subject whereupon a quasi-religious or political group attempts to gain power via the use of force.
If you have any modicum of intellect you will know religion has killed more of humanity than any other force including Communism. Go back thousands of years up to our present day and you will discover I am indeed correct. It is not assumption. It is FACT. Think about the Crusades. Thing about the wars in Britain between the Catholics and the Protestants. No religion and we would not have the Crusades or William the Orange. We would not have almost a thousand years of JIHAD. If not for religion BESLAN would never have happened. IRAQ would never have happened. AFGHANISTAN would never have happened.

<b>SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint</b>
SaintLucifer
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:52 am

William of Orange

Postby admin » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:46 pm

William of Orange! What on earth have you got against William of Orange?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

Postby Guest » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:40 am

William of Orange! What on earth have you got against William of Orange?


....he was a fruit?
Guest
 

Re: Crush Religion

Postby jdalton » Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:34 pm

SaintLucifer wrote:If you have any modicum of intellect you will know religion has killed more of humanity than any other force including Communism. Go back thousands of years up to our present day and you will discover I am indeed correct. It is not assumption. It is FACT. Think about the Crusades. Thing about the wars in Britain between the Catholics and the Protestants. No religion and we would not have the Crusades or William the Orange. We would not have almost a thousand years of JIHAD. If not for religion BESLAN would never have happened. IRAQ would never have happened. AFGHANISTAN would never have happened.


I won't even bother to mention the economic factors at play in the wars you have mentioned. You clearly place more weight on religion to influence people's decisions.

Anyways, disease has killed more of humanity than any other force. It is still our number one killer. When Europeans arrived in North America, murderers claiming to act on behalf of European religions could not come anywhere near the devastation that European diseases wrought. The flu, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, the black plague, and other illnesses killed off 90% of the New World population. I could list further statistics if you like. If I were you I'd be more worried about cancer than jihad.
Jonathon Dalton
Lords of Death and Life
jdalton
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: 1 hr east of Vancouver (currently)

Postby temp » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:52 pm

I don't believe in any religion myself...this suits me because I'm a person who relies on facts and logical reasoning. I don't have to pray at an alter to believe that 1 plus 1 equals 2...I just know that it is because it's fact.

However, I also recognize that every person is different, and that everyone sees the world differently. As such, I don't think it's right to force one view on another...let each person believe what they want. I don't care if John Doe is religious...I might not agree with him and I might think that he is not correct, but if it provides something in his life and gives him guidance, then who am I to say what he should or should not believe in.

Ironically though, religion seems to impose rules who's very purpose is to force belief's upon people...you will go to hell and be punished terribly if you do not belong to religion abc, so perhaps most religions don't share my easy going nature on the subject :-)
User avatar
temp
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Toronto

religion

Postby admin » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:19 pm

Even those who don't believe in religion can't seem to stop fiddling around with it.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

Postby temp » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:12 pm

yep, it's one of the big subjects that is of interest to folks regardless of whether you are religious or not.

Call me a hypocrite, but I still "celebrate" christmas...not because I believe in the religious aspect, but because it's a fun holiday, and exchanging gifts and all that good cheer etc really doesn't have anything to do with the religious part of it.

...so anyway, back to the topic of religion in sci. fi...even if the subject matter of the story is all hard science and/or speculative science, there are still characters involved in the story..and these characters should have some belief system in place...makes them more interesting and "human" I think. Well, I guess I'm just reiterating what is already said here by someone else...
User avatar
temp
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Crush Religion

Postby SaintLucifer » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:00 pm

jdalton wrote:
SaintLucifer wrote:If you have any modicum of intellect you will know religion has killed more of humanity than any other force including Communism. Go back thousands of years up to our present day and you will discover I am indeed correct. It is not assumption. It is FACT. Think about the Crusades. Thing about the wars in Britain between the Catholics and the Protestants. No religion and we would not have the Crusades or William the Orange. We would not have almost a thousand years of JIHAD. If not for religion BESLAN would never have happened. IRAQ would never have happened. AFGHANISTAN would never have happened.


I won't even bother to mention the economic factors at play in the wars you have mentioned. You clearly place more weight on religion to influence people's decisions.

Anyways, disease has killed more of humanity than any other force. It is still our number one killer. When Europeans arrived in North America, murderers claiming to act on behalf of European religions could not come anywhere near the devastation that European diseases wrought. The flu, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, the black plague, and other illnesses killed off 90% of the New World population. I could list further statistics if you like. If I were you I'd be more worried about cancer than jihad.


'Murderers' from Europe?? Let me guess. We intentionally killed off the native populations did we? Hmm. This was the 1600s and 1700s. We knew nothing of the effects our presence would have upon the 'natives'. Let us not forget we were still relatively new to the science of medicine. It is not our fault we had become immune to such diseases whereas your precious 'natives' had not. I would deem the deaths of the 'natives' accidental since no one had foreknowledge that the weak immune systems of the 'natives' would leave them vulnerable. Your count of 90% is truly inaccurate. Many of the 'natives' killed each other off via warring amongst themselves for territory. Read your facts. The native death toll due to disease brought to the New World by colonists is nowhere near 90% of their total population. You must be reading someone's anti-colonialist propaganda or making up your own. When the white man arrived and successfully settled in the New World, they were vastly outnumbered by a violent country of 'natives'. The only reason the whites were not wiped out would be thanks to vastly superior intellect and technology. Nothing more. Honestly what would the 'natives' be expected to do against firearms and cannons when they are armed with inferior bows and arrows? It is in the New World where the saying 'the survival of the fittest' truly was appropriate. As per Darwinian theory, those better suited to adaptability will survive whilst the inferior die. This is exactly what happened. Do you attempt to claim the 'natives' had no diseases of their own? I beg to differ. The 'natives' had absolutely no medical technology to speak of. They relied on 'shamans' and the like (spirit doctors). Due to such this would mean they had ZERO medical technology. The white man was at least 2000 years ahead of the 'natives' when it comes to medical technology. Yet you blame us for killing them off via disease. If we could not stop the diseases with our vastly superior technology what hope did their tribes have? It is their own ignorance that killed them. We were not 'murderers' and never attempt to brand my ancestors as such ever again. It is inflammatory, insulting and slanderous. Please attempt to rewrite history on your own time. Do not bother to do such around me.
If you compare 'jihad' with 'cancer' then you are a nutcase. Cancer is a natural disease we are currently fighting. We have made many strides in the elusive battle to defeat cancer altogether. All peoples of all races come together in this battle which is a wonderful thing. When you speak of 'jihad' you insult everyone's intellect and display your own lack thereof. 'Jihad' is man-made. If anyone were murderers as you claim my ancestors were it would be the Muslims. They INTENTIONALLY seek out innocent victims and kill them all off. One could only imagine if the religion of Islam had been brought to the New World I can GUARANTEE there would not be one single 'native' left in the New World today. You know it, everyone else knows it and I know it. The Islamic religion is the most racist barbaric and murderous religion the world has ever seen. It is the duty of all civilised states to eradicate this religion from the face of the earth or if not possible contain it.

<b>Saint Lucifer
The Dark Saint</b>
SaintLucifer
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:52 am

Re: Crush Religion

Postby jdalton » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:48 am

Most of your comments damn themselves so I will only respond to the two for which evidence is needed to refute them.

Reread my post. I never claimed that Europeans were knowingly responsible for the viral decimation of the American population. The lowest number I have read for the percent of Natives killed by the introduction of European diseases is 20%. Think about it, that's one in every five people you know. This is a much higher number than could possibly be killed in wars with Europeans. Most books written in the last ten years quote much higher numbers- I have read some as high as 95%. I recommend reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel as a very well-written explanation of the many reasons your ancestors were able to successfully conquer the world.
SaintLucifer wrote:Do you attempt to claim the 'natives' had no diseases of their own?

At least when it comes to fatal viruses this is pretty much what I'm claiming, yes. The historic origin of syphilis is still a mystery, but nearly every other virus that afflicts humans originated either in European and Asian domesticated animals or in animals in Africa's rain forests. The Americas had very few domesticated animals and even fewer diseases inherited from domesticated animals. I have read about a dozen books on this subject and wrote a paper on it in university. What research have you done?

The history of disease has all sorts of potential implications for science fiction writers. I expect we will see more stories based on this information written in the future. The manner of death of the Buggers in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and the xenocide conducted by the robots in the posthumus Foundation trilogy based on Asimov's books could both be seen as fictional representations of this.
Jonathon Dalton
Lords of Death and Life
jdalton
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: 1 hr east of Vancouver (currently)

Postby rox » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:05 am

Nice article I found on this website.. thanks for the info. hydroderm womens shoes ink cartridges area rugs shoes
rox
 

Re: Crush Religion

Postby k1w1taxi » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:22 am

SaintLucifer wrote:Murderers' from Europe?? Let me guess. We intentionally killed off the native populations did we? Hmm.


YOU might want to check Official US Government policy of the Period. They used the disease of 'lead poisoning'.

SaintLucifer wrote: The only reason the whites were not wiped out would be thanks to vastly superior intellect and technology. Nothing more.


Bollocks

SaintLucifer wrote:We were not 'murderers' and never attempt to brand my ancestors as such ever again. It is inflammatory, insulting and slanderous. Please attempt to rewrite history on your own time. Do not bother to do such around me.
<b>Saint Lucifer
The Dark Saint</b>


Refer above. As to inflammatory, insulting and slanderous you might want to check those against the extreme right wing rantings you pass off as postings here.

Lee
k1w1taxi
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:16 am
Location: New Zealand

tribes

Postby hegemon » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:00 am

It is always a mistake to try to judge the past by the moral standards of the present. Tribal warfare was the universal rule, not the exception. Native Americans fought constant tribal wars among themselves, so did Native Europeans. When the two cultures came into conflict, more tribal wars.

Until the invention of birth control, there was no other option but to steal food from the tribe on the other side of the river, or starve due to overpopulation. Warfare kept the human race alive, after we got too smart to have any natural predators. Now, with birth control, we don't have the Hobson's choice of fight are starve -- which makes it easy to look down with smug superiority on our ancestors, who had no such choice.
This is the race that will rule the sevagram!
hegemon
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:15 am
Location: On the road

Next

Return to Religion in Science Fiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron