Is a dudeist an atheist?

[BikerDude]

This is my problem with your statement that Theists can not be Dudeists.

Your entire argument relies on christian quotes from the bible, there are other theists apart form Christians and the abrihamic faiths.

I am a theist and I am not a Christian.

What I actually said was this...

However  I think that belief in a personal 'ie' "involved in human" affairs kind of God inevitably leads to very undude outcomes. It inevitably suggest judgement, and of course the judgement takes the form of those who purport to know his will. There is never a shortcoming of those and they are almost universally paraquat.

Now if there is an instance in the pagan world that doesn't support this then I stand corrected. But forgive me for noticing that while it is admittedly wrong to paint 100% of anything with one brush choosing to color all theist based on pagan beliefs is also a bit over reaching. The percentage of theist who are pagen's is clearly very very very small.
While my knowledge of pagen god's is limited I admit that I'm still unaware of any that do not exercise judgement upon mankind. And I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of druids around to tell us why those judgement befell the unfortunate.

[Masked Dude]

Sorry, I was sidetracked by the beer comment. What day is this?

[BikerDude]

Actually it has occurred to me once again that there is scarcely a topic that one can't apply a Spinal Tap song to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETOEhMXEkdI

[claird]

@BikerDude - Please hear this in the spirit in which it's meant.  I have two degrees in theology and religious studies and that certainly doesn't make me an "expert" in any way but having read your rant where you string together a collection "proof texts" from the Hebrew Torah to make an "airtight case" that all people of theistic belief are uptight and thereby "UnDude", you're clearly out of your element. This is not the place to discuss with you the relevance of ancient cultures and their religious texts to modern day expressions of that tradition and suffice it to say, this is not the issue. The problem for me @BikerDude is the you sound exactly like the hard-ons that you are allegedly crusading against. Take the following quotes for example: 

"For me it's pretty simple A person can't be a circle and a square."

You ever hear of a physics theory called relativity or "quantum theory" where the old "either-or" rules of the universe are toppled?  Your "circle or square" wisdom is not only outdated but it is the source the uptight rancor and railing against those who you are afraid may be corrupting Dudeism (Administrator Dude rightly referred to it as "dogmatic"). That very problem that we are discussing on this post has to do judge and define those who we don't agree with i.e. "atheist" or "theist" can/ cannot be a Dudeist.  Again, it is the question itself that is the fucking problem! People won't let go of all their uptight-dogmatic-binary-code-either-or thinking. Now I get why this kind of reductionistic thinking might be attractive to you; for as you say it's really "pretty simply" but fyi there are some people out here who are simply not prepared to live in a world that is regulated by such unimaginative and repressive constructs! A world in which people self-apply "justice crusader" and just won't shut up about all the unenlightened infidels and how they, unlike themselves, are not qualified to participate in this generous ethos known as Dudeism. You apparently have failed to see the dripping and disgusting irony in all of this. 

(you say) "But the chasm between Dudeism and most organized religion is so wide that the type of practitioner of the other faith would have to be so "not evangelical" as to render them no longer of the faith by any reasonable measurable."

Says fucking who, man?!!! You? I'm sorry if you're stepmother was a nympho and your father was Jerry Falwell but where do you get off consigning all people of faith or belief to the narrow tradition of "evangelical"?  Sorry to go all Freudian on your ass but it sounds like someone has had a bad experience with the First Church of Religious Assholes. But here's the thing @BikerDude, in your effort to fight those "assholes", you are only perpetuating the problem with all of your uptight intolerant, paint with a broad-brussh rhetoric here on this friendly page. There are some of us out here who are quite content with living our lives as "square-circles" (rationalism is one of the most uptight religions of all) and we're not too happy about you coming out here sticking a fucking "either-or" gun in our face and demanding that we "mark it zero" just because you think you know what "the rules" of Dudesim and theism are.

"A person would need to either bend the rules of the faith to accommodate a Dudeist stance or be less Dude to be of the faith."

This is why I asked if you were a "fucking (theological) park ranger" because the nature of the spiritual journey for some people, such as yours truly, is all about staying on the path even while "bending the rules." If I recall correctly, one of the great Dudes of history, J.C. got in some "hot water" for bending "the rules" of his religious community. So on the one hand I agree with you about "bending the rules" but on the other hand I'm afraid its your "rules" that I'm going to have to bend. When you set up your "either-or" propositions with regard to theism and Dudeism you come off like any other hard-on who is all about "keeping the rules." Let me say that I have personally taken great pains in my life in the last ten-plus years to integrate Dudeism into my life with J.C. It turns out that the integration is a very natural and "righteous" blend, which is why I'm responding to you to say that I do not relate nor do I feel like I should have to defend myself in the face of your "rules", nor am I willing to evaluate Dudeism in light of this very narrow, "either-or", binary-code logic. You can keep on erecting your straw-man argument about how people of theistic belief are categorically disqualified blah, blah, but you'll be having it without me. Now on a more conciliatory note, you are abso-fucking-lutely correct, when you say that

"A Dudeist would have to cut a Christian or a Muslim or whoever endless slack"

I say Amen Dude! But then instead of staying on the path, you turn around and reject the entire basis of that enlightened view when you say,

"But when answering questions about Dudeism and how it relates to other religions we need to step outside the role of the Dudeist to answer."

The problem with that mentality is that it reduces Dudeism to a mere "role," something that we put on and take off like a Halloween costume. In truth, Dudeism is a way of life, an orientation if you will, which is why the people who put this beautiful ethos together are ok calling it a religion. Now, if you're not willing to learn how to abide when dealing with and talking about the "thorny" issues of life such as, details surrounding a ransom drop, stolen cars, conflict of religious commitments with a bowling tournament. Well, maybe BikerDude, you need to ask yourself if the Church of the Latter Day Dude is the place for you. Peace! 

[BikerDude]

You lost me at the theory of relativity. Not because I don't understand it but because I don't think it applies in any way.
And couldn't care less if anyone "corrupts Dudeism."

My point is that Dudeism is about tolerance and theism is very very challenged in that regard.

Take this for instance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

You have degrees in religious studies and  then you may have studied under him.
Sorry I'm not moved.
I just don't think there is any way that even an extremely cursory look at Christianity can possibly give any hint of tolerance. All of the apologetics in the world just isn't going to change that. I've heard it all. The problem is that it is almost retreats to a place where there simply is "no there there".
The beliefs and meanings of the religion according to the apologist are simply anything at all and that simply is not the case. It is disingenuous and a move that I and just about anybody else who has discussed this stuff to any extent has seen over and over. It is just not unreasonable to say that Christianity is represented by the scripture and doctrines of the church. Should we all go by what the greeter at our local Walmart says constitutes Christian beliefs? Or Mulim beliefs or whatever. No clearly not. These beliefs are well documented and it's just not something that is up to each individual to make up as they go along. Never has been and the fact that it has come to be like that in this day and age is not surprising. Lowering the bar that is.
If we agree that the Episcopal church for instance would generally be viewed as one of the most liberal of all christian churches then looking to that we see.

Episcopal Church Core Beliefs and Doctrines

Baptismal Covenant

"Do you reaffirm your renunciation of evil and renew your commitment to Jesus Christ?" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 292).

A mini catechism used at baptisms and on Easter and other special occasions, the Baptismal Covenant opens with a question-and-answer version of the statement of faith that is the Apostles? Creed and adds five questions regarding how we, as Christians, are called to live out our faith.

The Bible

"Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 236).

It is our foundation, understood through tradition and reason, containing all things necessary for salvation. Our worship is filled with Scripture from beginning to end.  Approximately 70% of the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from the Bible, and Episcopalians read more Holy Scripture in Sunday worship than almost any other denomination in Christianity. (See Revised Common Lectionary of readings.)

Book of Common Prayer

"It is a most invaluable part of that blessed ?liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,? that in his worship different forms and usages may without offence be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 9).

The Book of Common Prayer is a treasure chest full of devotional and teaching resources for individuals and congregations, but it is also the primary symbol of our unity. We, who are many and diverse, come together in Christ through our worship, our common prayer.

The Catechism

"It is a commentary on the creeds, but is not meant to be a complete statement of belief and practices; rather, it is a point of departure for the teacher" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 844).

Offered in a question-and-answer format, the Catechism found in the back of the Book of Common Prayer (pp. 845-862) helps teach the foundational truths of the Christian faith.

Christ-Focused

?In him you have brought us out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life? (Book of Common Prayer, p. 368).

As Episcopalians, we are followers of Jesus Christ, and both our worship and our mission are in Christ?s name. In Jesus, we find that the nature of God is love, and through baptism, we share in his victory over sin and death. 

The Creeds

?The Creeds are statements of our basic beliefs about God? (Book of Common Prayer, p. 851).

We will always have questions, but in the two foundational statements of faith ? the Apostles? Creed used at baptism, and the Nicene Creed used at communion ? we join Christians throughout the ages in affirming our faith in the one God who created us, redeemed us, and sanctifies us.

Holy Baptism

?Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ?s Body, the Church? (Book of Common Prayer, p. 298).

In the waters of baptism we are reminded that we belong to God and nothing can separate us from the love of God. We also find ourselves part of an extended family, one with Christians throughout the ages and across the world, what we call the ?one, holy, catholic [meaning 'universal'], and apostolic Church.?

The Rite of Holy Baptism can be found on pp. 297-308 of the Book of Common Prayer.

Holy Communion

"We thank you ... for assuring us in these holy mysteries that we are living members of the Body of your Son, and heirs of your eternal kingdom" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 366).

It goes by several names: Holy Communion, the Eucharist (which literally means "thanksgiving"), mass. But whatever it?s called, this is the family meal for Christians and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. As such, all persons who have been baptized, and are therefore part of the extended family that is the Church, are welcome to receive the bread and wine, and be in communion with God and each other.

The Sacraments

?Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace? (Book of Common Prayer, p. 857).

Besides baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Communion), the church recognizes other spiritual markers in our journey of faith. These include:

    Confirmation (the adult affirmation of our baptismal vows), pp. 413-419, Book of Common Prayer
    Reconciliation of a Penitent (private confession), pp. 447-452, Book of Common Prayer
    Matrimony (Christian marriage),  pp. 422-438, Book of Common Prayer
    Orders (ordination to deacon, priest, or bishop), pp. 510-555, Book of Common Prayer
    Unction (anointing with oil those who are sick or dying) pp. 453-467, Book of Common Prayer

These help us to be a sacramental people, seeing God always at work around us.

Spiritual Growth

"Lord, make us instruments of your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 833).

The promises we make in our Baptismal Covenant are reminders that we are not yet perfect, that we are called to move deeper in our faith and make a difference in our world. We do so together as the church, always professing that we will indeed live into our baptismal vows as followers of Christ, but always ?with God?s help."

[claird]

"And good day to you sir!"

[Hominid]

@claird:  you're confusing intolerance of the intolerant (BD) with tolerance of everything (you).  It sounds nicer, but it's a logical impasse.  Dudeism is tolerant.  But *NOT* of intolerance!  It's undude to have a strict world view that says everyone else has to have the same belief.  My gawd man, with all your education, you not witnessed what intolerant religious people (who are following their religion to the tee BTW) have done to this world?

[claird]

@Hominid - in answer to your last question - of course I have witnessed way too much intolerance among "religious types" but my point is that assholes come in all different flavors. I've know a quite a few uptight, judgmental "religious types" and I've known a few uptight and equally judgmental "atheist types." Have we forgotten that Hitler's regime of terror, which was based on some mix of racist-religio ideology about God, country and blood was only matched by the mass extermination in of Stalin's gulags (a regime which was explicitly atheistic)?

Again, assholes come in all kinds of flavors and no one group corners the market on "enlightenment", which is why I'm convinced that the whole "intolerant of the intolerant" thing is a trap, one where you quickly and unwittingly turn into that thing that you're so adamantly fighting against. This mentality is truly "uptight thinking" and it sounds like a "scam" to me - it still sounds like someone trying to take the moral high ground and protect the kingdom from the infidels . . . and that's cool . . . that's cool. I for one just don't want to engage in either the religious crusade or the anti-religion "counter crusade" and I'm personally persuaded that there is nothing in either Dudeism or my faith in J.C. that obliges me to engage that particular battle. Again, the issue here is not who is right or who is an asshole, "We're not trying to scam anyone here." So how about we just take it easy and learn to abide!

Ergo, when you say, "Dudeism is tolerant.  But *NOT* of intolerance!"

At the very least can we just agree "That's just like your opinion man" and suffice it to say, one that you and I do not share. Peace

[Hominid]

Logical fallacy......  in spades.

[claird]

Nice. If you can't claim the moral high ground, you presume to claim the "logical high ground" (that's fucking brilliant  Socrates).  My entire argument from the first post has been, can we knock off all the fucking judging and labeling and controlling with all the de facto exclusion of people that we have ruled to be "wrong" or "intolerant" or "illogical" and can we all just take it easy, man?! It's not that I approve of intolerance it's that I'm not comfortable with those who would presume to be the "tolerance police." I would contend that the issue is more about civility than "intolerance" (a euphemism for "Nazis"). It's about getting out of the "right-wrong" scam and learning how to abide and take it easy.

So in light of the central tenant of Dudeims of, "Would you just take it easy man?!" I say to you and BikerDude, No, Walter,  I'm not trying to make you wrong here. I'm just saying that I don't want to live under your fucking judgments with you waiving the fucking "label gun" around, as you tell the rest of us who is in and who is out and who is a Dude and who is not. In other words, "I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you're an asshole!"  Peace

[forumdude]

I'm trying to wade through this on claird's request. He feels slighted by the harsh attitudes being flung his way. I've decided not to address each point and get stuck in the morass but just try to define how I feel Dudeism stands on the theist/atheist divide:

Dudeism as I see it and have said before is a non-theist religion. That is not to say it's against Theism but only that we are uninterested in it and it doesn't apply to us. They are non-overlapping magisteria (to use Stephen Jay Gould's neologism). Is capitalism anti-theist? No. It's got nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God. Similarly, mystical notions like God and the afterlife and reincarnation and telekinesis and any action-at-a-distance or theories about creation have no place here.

Nevertheless, just as we can use Jungian theories or examples in literature or philosophy to try and triangulate what Dudeism is, we can also use Biblical references - not because they are canonical or true, but because they are part of our common culture. Comparing the Dude to Falstaff is no different than comparing the Dude to Jesus in this regard. So long as the comparison to Jesus is figurative and not literal since we consider the bible as literature and not fact. Christians who misuse it that way in this context will be called out and if they feel insulted, that's their problem. Dudeism is open minded but this is not 'Nam. There are rules. It goes without saying that Theists who take their religion to be literally true, especially when it comes to scripture, better have a thick skin or edit themselves carefully. Just as we don't care to hear about what you ate for dinner (because it's irrelevant) we don't care to hear about how Jesus saved you.

Having said that, I'd like to see the more aggressive atheists here try and take it a little easier on the Theists. A little bit too much anger sometimes seeps out, and I don't blame them. It's frustrating dealing with people who don't subscribe to logical arguments. Dudeism is built primarily on logic, not on feelings. That may sound unDude to some, but I believe that's because they take the Dude at face value and don't see that he is actually the only rational character in the movie, Walter being his irrational Theist antithesis. What we need is a statute of parameters that we can refer people to if they run off the rails rhetorically. If someone comes in and starts saying how Dudeism needs to be more like Christianity all we would have to do is send them to a link that defines Dudeist comportment rather than get into the same arguments over and over.

Does anyone want to start working on this? We could start it on a new thread and edit it down as a group.

[Hominid]

@claird: 

Ergo, when you say, "Dudeism is tolerant.  But *NOT* of intolerance!"

I stand behind that claim, as testament to the MANY observations you'll find on this here forum of dudes agreeing that something is undude.  Which means we're using an established value system to judge what is "dudely" and what isn't. That's rather obvious, so your moral high ground is therefore offensive, claiming that any kind of "labeling" is wrong.  You label Hitler as offensive. WE label religious intolerance as undude.  Not much more to say there...

@forumdude: I like the idea of a link to refer people to........  but don't like the idea of having to become dogmatic because the tenants of dudeism have been challenged.  On the flip side, deferring to NOMA is like deferring to political correctness and not putting your foot down on the fundamentals.  Something is either logical, or it isn't.  Stating that two opposing points - particularly in the same realm of study -  are compatible just doesn't work for most people.  Think "cognitive dissonance".

But then, who am I?  It's like, my opinion man!

The next person to insult me for being like Socrates - gets ... um..   a jug of beer!

[claird]

You can stand behind that claim all you want. The problem that I have with your brilliant "claim" is that I have a sickening feeling that you assume that you are qualified to know who is "tolerant" and who is not - that's my problem, sir. For example, I challenge you and anyone else on this thread to look at all of my posts and show where I am shoving my personal theistic beliefs on anyone. From beginning to now its the same fucking mantra, "Who the fuck are you to tell me that because I believe in a god that I'm automatically narrow and uptight for Dudeism?!"  The shit that I've been wading through here is without a doubt some some of the most uptight and intolerant than I've ever encountered in a Forum. No offense to the Administrator but yeah, I've fucking thick skin that's why I've been able to hang in there with all this fascist bullshit for days but your assesment of this situation is really disappointing.

The fundamentalist fury that I've encountered rivals anything you'll find out there say among the Moral Majority. Again, I get and appreciate that Dudeism is non-sectarian and I understand the problem with letting the "religious nut jobs" dominate the forum but it seems to me that you have apparently left the back door open for their equally intolerant "anti-religious" twin - the ones that are so uptight and angry about religion that they won't shut up about it. This has been re-god-damn-diculous! All I have been saying for two days to these hard-ons was, "Hey, I'm not trying to scam anyone" so why do you have to keep judging and hating (again check the record if you please). I was told on more than one occasion, "your are either a theist or a Dudeist. The two are mutually exclusive." Well excuse me if I say that this is the biggest load of narrow-minded horse-shit that I've ever heard and if that is the policy of this site, then all I can say is, "And a good day to you sirs!" you all deserve each other!

Personally speaking, my path has been a winding road having all but lost my faith on several occasions (I used to me a licensed Christian minister back in the day) but I've learned that rules are meant to be bent and even broken (despite what @BikerDude insists).  I always thought Dudeism would be a very take'r easy place to live with people from all walks of life. I never would imagine that it would be a community where you were constantly being confronted by people running their uptight ideological scam -  "make-you-wrong/ make-me-right."  Well, I was wrong. My experience here has proven to me that its not clearly not belief or unbelief that is the problem but a certain strain of "self-righteousness" that can invade any ethos taking many different forms. Yeah, that's a shame. . but at least as it reYeah, that's a shame

[Hominid]

If YOUR take on "take'r easy" is so easily offended, I'd be asking myself "...why do my buttons get so easily pushed?"  Beyond the logical fallacy of tolerating the intolerant, is the obvious emotional charge you have with all this.  I hear your struggle dude - I also was a licensed preacher, and anyone who offended my sensibilities at the time were recipients of my wrath.  Well deserved I thought at the time.  Then after many years (decades actually) of introspection, I realized it was me who was intolerant.  So, I now have some experience and wisdom in this area. 

To get personal as you did (and I respect that), it became patently obvious to me that the god of the bible was a man-made concept.  And more importantly, the emotional requirement to believe in such a being is a basic human requirement for many people and many reasons... your studies may or may not have included the understanding of archetypes.  VERY insightful when trying to understand yourself, and human behaviour in general. 

So, after 59 years of living, when someone tells me I must tolerate intolerance, I'll enjoy having an intellectual/logical/philosophical sparring match.  I respect you dude - but I don't have to agree with your take on what you think dudeism should be.  Just another way of saying " - that's like, my opinion man!"

[forumdude]

Took a look through this thread and sorry, claird. I don't think your skin is as thick as you contend. Maybe we're using different sets of calipers.

Discussions about the relative validity of God and the Bible are pretty much guaranteed to result in an impasse. We should avoid these kinds of subjects. Perhaps that could be one of the tenants of this forum - "Don't mention the unmentionable" or something like that. I've always contended that discussions about God are like discussions about zldflkkslkj (or some other random string of letters). No one agrees on the definition of the word so any discussion naturally devolves into a logical fallacy.