# Life after DrMike



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

So... _DrMike_ has retired from his job as Religion's Defender here. Not only will I miss him as a TC entity (he's a decent and articulate guy), I will miss him in his Defender's role. Now the atheist members can only agree with themselves, which makes for short _and_ boring threads.

:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Speaking personally, in "real" life, I have encountered more rabid atheists than zealoted Christians or religious dogmatists, etc.

I've worked with a woman for years and never known she is deeply religious. But atheists just love making it known that they are that, and one of them in particular ram things down my throat all the time. I am censored about certain topics when conversing with them. You know how I like to simply speak my mind. I can't with them so no joy in that.

I'm not defending religious zealots, but zealots can be atheist as well.

As for where I am re religion, I think that the old institutions in mother England - the pub, the town hall, and the church - which stood in the town square of every town, big or small, I think this "trinity" is still important, and it's been imported here to the other side of the world, Australia. Like the UK, we are more secular than religious, but religion does have a place in the scheme of things. Whether it's a big place or a small or smaller one is up to the individual. But churches of all kinds - also mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. - are at the heart of many communities here.

So I do see the place of religion as a part of the wider society. There are good people working in all these religions here today, not just bad ones that we hear about through the media that feeds off negativity.

I think we should be holding back from casting the first stone, as you-know-who said to the mob attacking Mary Magdalene...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've known both passionate atheists and passionate Christians, both eager to assert their position and insult people who disagreed. 

Definitely more of the Christians than of the atheists. It probably depends on where you live.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, that was off-topic actually. More relevantly, I hope Dr. Mike comes back someday, and I figure he probably will.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well I try to stay clear of things like climate change, Darwinian evolution, politics and religion. Or mainly stick to music on this forum. As I said, I worked with that colleague for years until only recently learning that she's religious. In the end, what difference does it make? As long as we all abide by the laws and have a level of decency, respect, etc. I am not going to comment on Dr. Mike's posting style, but let me say again, if we want to criticise, I think most of us here have gotten emotional and written things we maybe regret later (I know I have, definitely, and it's like absurd arguing something like this stuff from here in Australia, writing to someone looking at a screen on the other side of the world)...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Have to say, this is the only board I've ever been on that is dominated by skeptics and liberals. The other board that I participated on greatly related to American football, and it was heavily dominated by conservatives, and fairly split on religious lines.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Don't assume someone is a liberal because they criticize republicans. Dr. Mike did this a lot. For the record, I can't stand any of these politicians today. I'm a progressive, and nobody in Washington fits the bill. 

One shouldn't assume someone is an atheist because they disagree strongly with true believer/religious people. These types of discussions/arguments work best in person where there is less room for misunderstandings, and when a discussion doesn't have to be abandoned for 10-15 hours due to personal responsibilities.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Radical and evangelical atheism exists, but it's hardly that ironic. Every idea--no matter how progressive--eventually gets warped into just another way to control people. That's just how humans are wired, I think.

Likewise, there are "leftists" out there who would like nothing more than to legally forbid you from saying anything insensitive or nonegalitarian. That's just as bad as the right, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, I agree! Left or right is not the issue. Personal liberty is the most important right under and form of government.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I must have missed this.
Shame, I always enjoyed debates with him, and havent yet had the opportunity since I returned.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I wasn't aware that _DrMike_ had left. I spotted a "farewell" post from him a few months ago, but it wasn't long before he returned. I used to have a high regard for him. I see that he has lately turned up in the "other" place, but any discussion on religion and politics on that site is currently banned. Maybe he's working on it.

Much earlier, I used to try to lend _DrMike_ the occasional bit of of support in one or two religion-type threads from a R.C Christian perspective, but I rapidly got fed up with all that. That was after I realised, yet again, that there is a massive anti-religion bias in forums of this nature compared with the more pro-relgion attitude and views you find typically in the the real world. I should have known better from some previous uncomfortable experiences on another Board I once frequented.

As regards people who are strongly attracted to religious discussion on forums, there are two types of people I am mainly suspicious of. They are the religious converts who have switched from one extreme to the other, either from strong believer to strong disbeliever, or vice versa. I'm not including people who drift around in the middle area, either side side of the divide, who generally cause other people no great problems extolling their new-found beliefs in a mild sort of way.

Rather it's the types with extreme views, and a mission in life to persuade others, for whom I have no time. It's a sad fact that such types seem to dominate most discussions on religion on message boards that I've ever seen. And the material they come out with is all so well-known, and yet it's dressed up as if they've got some new angle on it, or on the meaning of life etc. In my view a far better more comprehensive and less biased understanding of all the relevant issues can be obtained from places like Wikpedia. That's where I tend go, or similar places, if I need to find out something I'm not too sure about on any aspect of religion/philosophy.

Why such people wish to bother filling up these columns with their scribblings trying to rubbish the other part's view I can't imagine, especially since time is a very precious commodity and several of them are suposedly students. I know that when I was a student I wouldn't have had the time to devote a huge amount of it to scribbling on places like this on a topic like religion. Maybe students have a lot easier time these days, but I doubt it and it makes me wonder ....


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Artemis said:


> ...That was after I realised, yet again, that there is a massive anti-religion bias in forums of this nature compared with the more pro-relgion attitude and views you find typically in the the real world...


Down here, most people are not overtly pro or anti religion, mainly they get on with their lives and don't care. Maybe they go to church once a year, xmas and Easter. There was a joke ages ago, before my time, that C of E or Church of England stood for Christmas & Easter, for that very reason.

But as I said, atheists I've come across waste no time in telling you that they HATE religion. & if you are a moderate, like I am & most people are, they start kind of losing it a bit. With a number of people I simply cannot talk about these issues, from any angle, or more importantly my angle, which is moderate (as in my earlier posts, I do see some value in all religions, I try not to tar religion with the same brush, throw the baby out with the bathwater, etc.). I think it's like anything in life, you take/connect with the bits that you like, and you don't pay attention to the others because it's no use to you, or little use. Doesn't mean it can't be of some use to others who are different.

I agree with the gist of what others are saying, eg. in response to me earlier. It can get about control, out of hand, nothing to do with being atheist or religious, just about human nature, which in itself has potential to be good, bad or ugly. Same as with starthrower's opinion, just because a person is one thing (eg. politically) doesn't mean it's a false dichotomy, eg. you're against another thing, or have dogma that's rigid and inflexible, etc. Once you say you're of this or that persuasion, even mildly, people start putting you in boxes, which is what I really dislike...


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Sid James said:


> Down here, most people are not overtly pro or anti religion, mainly they get on with their lives and don't care. Maybe they go to church once a year, xmas and Easter. There was a joke ages ago, before my time, that C of E or Church of England stood for Christmas & Easter, for that very reason.


 I don't doubt that in some "Christian" countries, probably Australia included, most people are generally ambivalent towards religion. In other countries there could be a bias either for or against. 

 What I'm referring to is the fact that on message boards such as this religious discussions tend to attract a disproportionate element from the two extreme ends of the religious spectrum. More moderate opinion tends to be drowned out under the weight of mud-slinging emanating from either end, mostly at each other.

  As a consequence, you get a distorted picture of what people in general believe or not as the case may be in respect of their religious views, because the "middle ground" become severely under-represented. To this extent, these discussions are a waste of time, as they represent extreme opinion only.

Personally, I'd ban all overtly religious threads because they can't be made to work satisfactorily on forums of this nature, and are too disruptive and offensive to most ordinary people. Besides, since the main participants seem to be students, a ban might do them some good so they can concentrate their energies on what they ought to be doing rather than wasting time trying to preach their "gospel" of either belief or disbelief to the other side that is clearly not going to budge one iota.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... _DrMike_ has retired from his job as Religion's Defender here. Not only will I miss him as a TC entity (he's a decent and articulate guy), I will miss him in his Defender's role. *Now the atheist members can only agree with themselves, which makes for short and boring threads.*
> 
> :tiphat:


Are you referring to me by any chance? Sounds like something I would do anyway...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think a point that has been missed with regards to the zeal of religious and irreligious people is that we _don't_ live in a society where theism and atheism are treated equally. Theism is strongly supported, in many cases institutionalised. Atheists have frequently taken the top spot for "most distrusted" group in America. Many atheists feel the need to be zealous for the sake of consciousness raising, which is why Dawkins promoted a "coming out" campaign, mimicking what the gay rights movement did. Be wary of emulating lines like "I don't mind gay people, I just wish they didn't rub their sexuality in my face." Of course, even given this, people need to learn to vent in the right places - i.e., not at work and not so ideologically on a casual internet forum.

It was certainly interesting talking to DrMike because, though I disagreed with him on everything except Brahms, and though he had some very peculiar beliefs, I felt he was more open to conversation and less in-your-face insane than certain religious posters I can think of.

Throughout all these conversations about religion though, I wish the theist/atheist divide wasn't the focus. I wish people cared more about _secularism_, which both religious and irreligious people can be, and which, I think, is one of the hallmarks of a truly democratic society. Public policy should not be informed by religious belief of any sect. The most ridiculous things I hear are when Christians say that giving rights to one group means forcing it on Christians. No it doesn't; it's just letting everyone have their turn with happiness. It seems that some Christians believe that marginalisation is where anything less than 100% of society and policy is Christian.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I _wasn't_ really into John Tavener ...

I do like a lot of secular music. Sacred is interesting but it all sounds so similar.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I may finally be realizing that no matter what I do someone is not going to like it, and in consequence I'm more inclined to do what I enjoy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Artemis said:


> I don't doubt that in some "Christian" countries, probably Australia included, most people are generally ambivalent towards religion. In other countries there could be a bias either for or against.
> 
> What I'm referring to is the fact that on message boards such as this religious discussions tend to attract a disproportionate element from the two extreme ends of the religious spectrum. More moderate opinion tends to be drowned out under the weight of mud-slinging emanating from either end, mostly at each other.
> 
> As a consequence, you get a distorted picture of what people in general believe or not as the case may be in respect of their religious views, because the "middle ground" become severely under-represented. To this extent, these discussions are a waste of time, as they represent extreme opinion only.


This is a pretty accurate summation of the type of mythical pseudo society the media has created here in America. And yes, it's a gross distortion of the true diversity that exists in a country of this size. Everything has to to dumbed down and oversimplified in order to tell the story between commercial breaks.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Are you referring to me by any chance? Sounds like something I would do anyway...


I phrased that ambiguously. Should have typed _among_ themselves.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I phrased that ambiguously. Should have typed _among_ themselves.


Never mind about that.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I, too, was not aware of the Doc's departure...if his previous one was any sign then he shall be back...definitely one of the cool dudes around here.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

The atheist vs. religious argument on TC is as old as Bach. Will it ever be forgotten?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

TrazomGangflow said:


> The atheist vs. religious argument on TC is as old as Bach. Will it ever be forgotten?


Probably not, due to unresolvable ambiguity on both sides. The argument resides in the cracks.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Artemis said:


> ...I don't doubt that in some "Christian" countries, probably Australia included, most people are generally ambivalent towards religion. In other countries there could be a bias either for or against.




Yeah, well there's a lot of apathy here, we're not as ideological on the whole as some other countries/societies, but not as consensus based as I think of say Scandinavia to be. The advantage is less divisiveness overall, although of course there are problems here as anywhere, and it's good to be aware of them. The downside is political disengagement, esp. by those under middle age & definitely the youth, which means there's a certain element of "ignorance is bliss" which is like the opposite of zealotry. Not good, both extremes in a way.



> ...What I'm referring to is the fact that on message boards such as this religious discussions tend to attract a disproportionate element from the two extreme ends of the religious spectrum. More moderate opinion tends to be drowned out under the weight of mud-slinging emanating from either end, mostly at each other.
> 
> ...As a consequence, you get a distorted picture of what people in general believe or not as the case may be in respect of their religious views, because the "middle ground" become severely under-represented. To this extent, these discussions are a waste of time, as they represent extreme opinion only...


I do agree that online there is a lot of partisan feel sometimes. I myself have often gotten into people here, which I regret, but I'm impulsive by nature, it's not malice, I hope. But I argue about music usually, religion and politics bore the hell out of me. I have friends and acquaintances who are not the same as me regarding politics or religion. But we live with our differences. It's a free country, in terms of if you want to practice religion, you can, if you don't want to, that's fine as well. Same with politics, you can be as involved or not as you want.

*@ Polednice *- I know what you mean re the politics of the far right (eg. gay issues), but I have met here a fair amount of gay people who are religious. Not dogmatically, of course.

But the "new" church, in many denominations (I'm speaking of here) is nothing much like the "old" church. I do go to church on the rare occassion, and often what I hear coming from the reverend is more common sense and applicable to my daily life than some mumbo jumbo of a politician here or a shock jock on the radio. The "old" church often coexists with the "new" church. The strict divisions between them are vanishing or maybe even gone. Most churches here, on Sundays, have a traditional service, usually in the morning, more for the older people, say middle aged, but there's no strict age boundary. Then in the Sunday afternoon service, that attracts younger crowd, "youth" in their teens up to say thirties. These services are run in the same church, but often by a different minister. The minister in the morning is often older, the afternoon one is younger.

I don't do often to church but I know that things have been changing in our churches of all denominations for like two decades or more. In the Catholic Church, an attempt at modernisation came with the Second Vatican Council in the late 1960's. A lot of deadwood was cleared then, but of course there's more work to be done for sure.

In other words, like other social institutions, the churches are living evolving things part of the wider society. A number of reverends here do support things like gay rights, and other things like that. I'd say the majority, maybe depending on denomination, are up with the times and think close to an average person. Also, things like grassroots involvement of the churches in various charitable causes has been established for ages, there is a strong element of social justice there...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

TrazomGangflow said:


> The atheist vs. religious argument on TC is as old as Bach. Will it ever be forgotten?


I don't exactly know what side I would take. I'm not part of any religion as such, but I find all of them very interesting.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't exactly know what side I would take. I'm not part of any religion as such, but I find all of them very interesting.


If you are free to pick one, the Eastern ones tend to be more interesting. Zen is probably a hoot.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you are free to pick one, the Eastern ones tend to be more interesting. Zen is probably a hoot.


Yeah, and Rastafarians have a good excuse as any to smoke dope, which can indeed turn out to lead to "interesting" experiences :lol:...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Yeah, and Rastafarians have a good excuse as any to smoke dope, which can indeed turn out to lead to "interesting" experiences :lol:...


The enhancements to _deep_ contemplation potentially provided by cannabis are largely unappreciated by abstainers. Unfortunately, the unenhanced consciousness sometimes rejects the results next morning. Who is to say...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've always wanted to start my own religion - I'll let you all join for just pennies a day, and for a few bucks more you can even be initiated into the Priesthood of the Sweet Leaf.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If I could cry on demand like Jimmy Swaggart, the bucks would be rolling in!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> I've always wanted to start my own religion - I'll let you all join for just pennies a day, and for a few bucks more you can even be initiated into the Priesthood of the Sweet Leaf.


No no no, MY RELIGION is already like that, we were first at doing this ritual, we know how to enjoy "the Sweet Leaf" indeed...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> No no no, MY RELIGION is already like that, we were first at doing this ritual, we know how to enjoy "the Sweet Leaf" indeed...


What this? Is this a ritual? Very interesting... Do you worship anyone in your religion?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What this? Is this a ritual? Very interesting... Do you worship anyone in your religion?


I believe the Rastas consider Haile Salassie to be their messiah.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Related:

"4 Things Both Atheists and Believers Need to Stop Saying"

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying/


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ralfy said:


> Related:
> 
> "4 Things Both Atheists and Believers Need to Stop Saying"
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying/


The article does the job of pointing out that the concept of God is flimsy with the potential for a thousand different definitions, allowing for followers to claim a thousand different divine intentions, but I think it's misguided to conclude that we should all just play nice and let everyone say and think whatever they like. Concepts like religion _need_ to be mocked - _not_ because the idea of a god is intrinsically bad, and not because believers are even remotely bad people, but because the fundamental process of believing in something in the absence of evidence is a _very_ dangerous thing as you can see not just from fundamentalist acts of violence but also in pseudoscience and other areas.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Polednice said:


> Concepts like religion _need_ to be mocked - _not_ because the idea of a god is intrinsically bad, and not because believers are even remotely bad people, but because the fundamental process of believing in something in the absence of evidence is a _very_ dangerous thing as you can see not just from fundamentalist acts of violence but also in pseudoscience and other areas.


I understand the need _of someone_ to mock beliefs with which he disagrees, which I consider to be an issue distinct from the above.

The larger issue was brought up back in this post, but I suppose bears repeating:


Chi_townPhilly said:


> *"if you're here to save our souls, free us from superstitious ignorance, or save the world from your perception of the dark side of world politics, you might consider the possibility that your activity is taking place in the WRONG internet forum!"*


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Are classical music fans not worthy of being saved?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... _DrMike_ has retired from his job as Religion's Defender here. Not only will I miss him as a TC entity (he's a decent and articulate guy), I will miss him in his Defender's role. Now the atheist members can only agree with themselves, which makes for short _and_ boring threads.
> 
> :tiphat:


Agree with the opening post. As it's probably no secret that I have *DrMike* on my friends list, I, too, will miss his input and believe that things will be a little more monochrome without his contributions.

(Looking forward to the _next_ *on-topic* message.)


----------

