Mike Interview #2 Is Up

[LordKaT]

We need to ask Mike if he likes pudding, and, if so, will he join the army?

[yousonuva]

sampo said:

yousonuva, thanks for throwing in with us. I'm not going to enter into a debate here, nor will I try to convince you of the existence of God.

But there's one thing I think you need to acknowledge: What you described in your post is a religion. You have created (adopted) a faith system that you hold as more true than other faith systems. Even your statement that "the one thing all sets of religions... apart (sic) is inconclusive theories which usually lead to hatred" is an inconclusive theory that you choose to believe.

You can be skeptical of religion. But don't deceive yourself that in believing none of them you don't believe in something. Or that in believing none of them, you're somehow smarter than the rest of us. That's the exact attitude you were speaking out against.

Oh you have a really good point about my theory being nothing but a theory but I admitted it as much and find it is NOT the same as religion. Religion has always been and always be about 'God'. It's the same arguement as your statement that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

I also think you got 'me being smarter than every one else' a bit backwards. I only know what I've experienced and have seen. MonsterX once had a word describing what I believe as me finding it impossible to act like I know what is beyond me. That is quite the opposite with most religions where they try to say that they know and that's what gets people into fights and such.

I have absolutely no problem with people believing in god as a comfort but me personally, I just wasn't raised that way. But I do believe in the metaphysical world. I'm not saying I know it exists because I don't but I believe in it.

[yousonuva]

Did this just become that "Religious Thread" we were talking about?

I think I said I didn't want to talk about it...oh poopie.

[mightyjack]

Yousonuva, your philosophy seems to have a touch of pantheism And monism in it. You sure you never read Spinoza?

>>>>>>Since were in it, we might as well go all the way: On Christianity:

I've been thinking how the pendulum swings through the ages. From Augistine's battles with the Donatism to Luther against the Roman Catholic traditions. From scholasticism to humanism.

In Europe during the 18th century there was this thing called the "enlightenment". It called for an emphasis on human reason and autonomy.

The very idea of "needing" Jesus, of God taking on the sins of the world was viewed as ridiculous. Man wasn't that bad and man certainly didn't need that kind of sacrifice from God.

The enlightenment grew and grew and built up a head of steam and more people across he world began to accepted this idea.

Then Hitler reared his ugly head. And the pendulum swung and the enlightenment evaporated almost overnight.

Man could be cruel, ugly and so in need of redemption.

If religeon is the opiate of an infantile mind it's because we still are as children. Despite all of our advances and high ideals and our arrogant beleif that we are 'enlightened" beyond the need of God; Monsters live among us. And when they make themselves known, many of us turn to God, to prayer, to something which can make sense of it all and swing the pendulum back.


Just a thought I was having. Not meant as an attack on anyone, just a meditation on an idea.




Edit: for stupd typos! Grrr

[jamminec]

Had to throw my pseudo-scholarly two cents in on this. (Hi, folks. I'm jamminec.)

Many, many MSTies, including myself, consider themselves atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or simply non-religious, and Mike's words were a big, juicy slap right in the face. (How'd you like it if he said people like you were responsible for Naziism and Communism?)

Religion's historical horrors have been mentioned in this thread (to reiterate: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, justifications for slavery, imperialism, anti-semitism, racism, spousal/child abuse, among countless others).

If you want to argue that religion is not responsible for these things, then you can't turn around and say that atheism/secularism, etc. is responsible for this or that. You can't have it both ways.

Blaming complex historical/social phenomena on any one thing is a simplistic way of looking at the world. For example, Naziism is a product of many things, such as the poor economic conditions and long history of anti-semitism in Germany. Hitler's religious beliefs were complex: he was basically an Aryan Volkist Christian who had deep Catholic roots, with strands of neopaganism and a touch of the occult. (And he did indeed admire Luther.) He believed he was doing "God's work" by getting rid of the Jew, and said so several times in his writings and speeches.

And Forrest: the church was the only civilized thing before the Dark Ages...? Hardly. For starters, the founders of modern philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Eurypides, etc.) and medicine (Hippocrates and practitioners in the Islamic world) lived a couple thousand years before medieval times, not to mention countless great civilizations. During the Dark Ages, most of Europe's knowledge of science and medicine was lost, and most people relied on incantations, prayer, and "miraculous healing".

Also: morals were NOT started by religion, and you don't need a religion to teach them to you. A sense of morality is ingrained in us as a species; we treat others in a "moral" fashion because it helps us survive, as individuals and as a species. Religion was simply a way of codifying it (and throwing in some arbitrary B.S. in the process). I don't "do the right thing" because some invisible man in the sky is ordering me to - I do it because it's simply the right thing to do.

Wow, sorry for the long-winded post. Not mad at anybody, this stuff is just important to me, and I feel a duty to share facts with folks who may not have them, and to cool down potential prejudice against the non-religious.

You can resume your lives now.

[MonsterX]

jamminec said:

Had to throw my pseudo-scholarly two cents in on this. (Hi, folks. I'm jamminec.)

Many, many MSTies, including myself, consider themselves atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or simply non-religious, and Mike's words were a big, juicy slap right in the face. (How'd you like it if he said people like you were responsible for Naziism and Communism?)

Religion's historical horrors have been mentioned in this thread (to reiterate: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, justifications for slavery, imperialism, anti-semitism, racism, spousal/child abuse, among countless others).

If you want to argue that religion is not responsible for these things, then you can't turn around and say that atheism/secularism, etc. is responsible for this or that. You can't have it both ways.

Blaming complex historical/social phenomena on any one thing is a simplistic way of looking at the world. For example, Naziism is a product of many things, such as the poor economic conditions and long history of anti-semitism in Germany. Hitler's religious beliefs were complex: he was basically an Aryan Volkist Christian who had deep Catholic roots, with strands of neopaganism and a touch of the occult. (And he did indeed admire Luther.) He believed he was doing "God's work" by getting rid of the Jew, and said so several times in his writings and speeches.

And Forrest: the church was the only civilized thing before the Dark Ages...? Hardly. For starters, the founders of modern philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Eurypides, etc.) and medicine (Hippocrates and practitioners in the Islamic world) lived a couple thousand years before medieval times, not to mention countless great civilizations. During the Dark Ages, most of Europe's knowledge of science and medicine was lost, and most people relied on incantations, prayer, and "miraculous healing".

Also: morals were NOT started by religion, and you don't need a religion to teach them to you. A sense of morality is ingrained in us as a species; we treat others in a "moral" fashion because it helps us survive, as individuals and as a species. Religion was simply a way of codifying it (and throwing in some arbitrary B.S. in the process). I don't "do the right thing" because some invisible man in the sky is ordering me to - I do it because it's simply the right thing to do.

Wow, sorry for the long-winded post. Not mad at anybody, this stuff is just important to me, and I feel a duty to share facts with folks who may not have them, and to cool down potential prejudice against the non-religious.

You can resume your lives now.

Well spoken.

Oh, and good interview by the way.

[Unsavory]

I'm not even about to get into the history of religion and I'm not going to try to pick apart individual beliefs. I simply don't have the knowledge to do these things. I personally see the world as a much more simple, primitive, and dark place.

Okay, here's my theory. Tear me apart for it if you must.
We exist to reproduce. That's it. It's the base instinct that exists in all animals. Meaningful relationships are formed only out of obligation and for survival. Everything we do is for our own personal benefit alone. We conform out of fear. Love is just an illusion and attachment is an instinct developed only to keep the human race safe from extinction.

Every human on this planet believes that they have something special to offer society that nobody else can. We believe that we are observing the crowd around us and are not actually a part of it. Our thoughts are deeper than the thoughts of others. We have an edge. We are special. All just an instinct to drive our desire for continued existence. So that we can one day do the great thing we were destined for.....

To be honest, I hope you guys don't agree with me, because these aren't pleasant beliefs to have.

[vanhagar3000]

Unsavory said:

We exist to reproduce.

You know it may be true ideology, but trust me, it's not a good pick up line.

[yousonuva]

VanHagar3000 said:

You know it may be true ideology, but trust me, it's not a good pick up line.

LMAO! heheh..yeah.

Although to add to this statement I'll say we also exist to learn and advance ourselves (which we recieve from some form of existing intelligence) and that's what makes us and every other living thing adapt to a more suited survival. I love thinking about this stuff but it's so much to write here....I'm lazy too

[nightfalcawk]

I believe in divine guidence, or the God of reason. I think the the Big Bang was intitialized by a divine force that created exactly the laws of physics (Calabi-Yau shapes) of this universe, seeding it for life.

[jamminec]

I take back the snarky "invisible man in the sky" remark. That's no way to keep the discussion civil. Sorry 'bout that.

[Dr. Ted Nelson]

i take back my whole last post on this thread. I realize now how little it had to do with anything.

I can't believe Mike is a Republican. STILL! I mean, I can understand growing up rep in that area of the country, but now? The man is clearly distracted by his own life to be reading any news of importance. I think that happens to people with young kids.

[mightyjack]

Unsavory:
That's actually pretty acute thinking. Probably why I hold onto God is because deep down I beleive what your saying and I'm holding onto my faith in a desperate bid for imortality. God at least gives me the hope for meaning and a chance at something beyond this life.

Forrest:
Within my philosophy of balance.
I think the enlightenment had its purpose, but it went too far. Man started getting smugly self involved. And along come the Nazi's to smash this thought that we'd really advanced beyond evil and the need for a higher power (or at least a standard of ethics and law in which to guide us as a society)
... and we swing back to maintain our balance.

On Papal Infalibility:
Papal infalibility is also something that was debated among the Popes themselves.

It is beleive the idea took hold when a Franciscian monk was looking for some way to get some provision and having an "infalable" Pope to give this would mean that it could never be revoked.

For one thing. Francis of Asisi probably spun in his grave as this grasp for power would be against everything he held dear. Second, not every Pope embaced the idea, PopeJohn(??) -do I have to dig out my old books - years before Pope Leo and Vatican 1, called papal infalibility a tool of the devil!

So which Pope was speaking the word of God? I beleive you have to do what Sampo alluded to, and see who had their eyes on the kingdom of God and who set them on the kingdom of man?

Studying Pope Leo's life I have to call into question his "motivation" for Vatican I (and that's a Looong story I can tell If anyone is really interested)

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE:
We are dealing with issues which have often sparked angry wars at other boards.

PLEASE be respectful and chose your word carefully. This is a very personal and important subject for many people. Debate the ideas but don't slam the person. No name calling, no "You Moron" or "Idiots" are allowed okay.

We've done good so far, lets keep it in "mature adults" mode.#nosmileys#nosmileys

[BoB3K]

The other night, I was sitting out on my front porch. Just thinking about life...the universe...you know, everything. And I looked up into the starry sky. I don't know what I was looking for. Answers, I guess. But, I saw something. I strained my eyes and looked closer (I have pretty good eye-sight) and, would you believe, it was a little dog-bone shaped satellite. I looked a little closer (did I mention I have really good eye-sight) and through it's little window I saw this guy in a jumpsuit. Standing at his side was what looked like a gumball machine and what I could only describe as a golden reindeer. Wierd, I know. Anyway, I don't know what they're doing up there, but maybe, just maybe, they're sending out a transmission that people can sit and watch for a couple of hours that will make them smile and take their minds off of life for awhile...



(Just throwin in my view in a silly way (which is how I try and keep my views--silly). Great discussion. I enjoyed reading it.)

[mightyjack]

Well, I wouldn't say evolution is proven as fact. There are conflicting elements which leave the subject open to debate. We have bones and we speculate, based on archeology, history, biological discoveries etc, what it means to our orgins. But there's still a great deal we simply don't know. There are gaps in the puzzle yet to be filled.

Science wears the banner of being irrefutable but often Science deals with theories and probable cause. For example, The rings of Saturn were thought for years to be constructed of gasses, years later we learn that it's basically made up out of a bunch of little rocks.