A bit of a read. Just sharin'....
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/wolfspeak/escape.html
Is this your story?
Then I like this ...I like it a lot!
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Great video; he argues like I do about rational evidence. As to whether or not I'm an atheist depends on your languaging. I don't believe in any single deity being responsible for creation (because none exist), but I do believe that there is some kind of inherent intelligence behind the evolution of biological life. To me, DNA isn't some random mistake. I have no theories or answers, but I don't have enough faith to think it's all just random accidents. But that's like, my opinion man...
Don't know if this may be what you have been searching for, but I finally put Poly-Solipsism back on the web. It's on g+:
https://plus.google.com/118067270898779712769/posts
Quote from: Hominid on June 26, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Great video; he argues like I do about rational evidence. As to whether or not I'm an atheist depends on your languaging. I don't believe in any single deity being responsible for creation (because none exist), but I do believe that there is some kind of inherent intelligence behind the evolution of biological life. To me, DNA isn't some random mistake. I have no theories or answers, but I don't have enough faith to think it's all just random accidents. But that's like, my opinion man...
It's the illusion of intelligence. It's natural selection.
Random mutation with the "good" ones being selected as being advantageous in a given set of conditions. I take the outcome as resembling intelligence. But really how else could it come out? Giraffes with a longer necks won. For obvious reasons, and that fact "makes perfect sense" which of course resembles an intelligence.
But it's really just the ghost in the machine and of course in the same breath we have to realize the intelligence is not something appart from natural forces it's just another outcome. Rational thought is an advantage. Pair that with opposible thumbs and the ability to manipulate objects, build tools etc etc on and on. It grows out of it's utility just like a giraffes long neck.
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: Hominid on June 26, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Great video; he argues like I do about rational evidence. As to whether or not I'm an atheist depends on your languaging. I don't believe in any single deity being responsible for creation (because none exist), but I do believe that there is some kind of inherent intelligence behind the evolution of biological life. To me, DNA isn't some random mistake. I have no theories or answers, but I don't have enough faith to think it's all just random accidents. But that's like, my opinion man...
It's the illusion of intelligence. It's natural selection.
Random mutation with the "good" ones being selected as being advantageous in a given set of conditions. I take the outcome as resembling intelligence. But really how else could it come out? Giraffes with a longer necks won. For obvious reasons, and that fact "makes perfect sense" which of course resembles an intelligence.
But it's really just the ghost in the machine and of course in the same breath we have to realize the intelligence is not something appart from natural forces it's just another outcome. Rational thought is an advantage. Pair that with opposible thumbs and the ability to manipulate objects, build tools etc etc on and on. It grows out of it's utility just like a giraffes long neck.
I hear you... but there's much more than natural selection going on - there are specific adaptations that come from local environmental pressure, such as birds that evolve their beaks from year to year to adapt to different seeds. It isn't "just another outcome". This direct, non-random adaptation demonstrates what I'm referring to. Similar to butterflies that have eyes painted on their wings, or frogs that are poisonous to their predators. They weren't random natural selection... there's "brains" behind these micro-evolutionary adaptations.
To me, anyways. ;-)
Quote from: Hominid on June 26, 2012, 02:17:11 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: Hominid on June 26, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 26, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Great video; he argues like I do about rational evidence. As to whether or not I'm an atheist depends on your languaging. I don't believe in any single deity being responsible for creation (because none exist), but I do believe that there is some kind of inherent intelligence behind the evolution of biological life. To me, DNA isn't some random mistake. I have no theories or answers, but I don't have enough faith to think it's all just random accidents. But that's like, my opinion man...
It's the illusion of intelligence. It's natural selection.
Random mutation with the "good" ones being selected as being advantageous in a given set of conditions. I take the outcome as resembling intelligence. But really how else could it come out? Giraffes with a longer necks won. For obvious reasons, and that fact "makes perfect sense" which of course resembles an intelligence.
But it's really just the ghost in the machine and of course in the same breath we have to realize the intelligence is not something appart from natural forces it's just another outcome. Rational thought is an advantage. Pair that with opposible thumbs and the ability to manipulate objects, build tools etc etc on and on. It grows out of it's utility just like a giraffes long neck.
I hear you... but there's much more than natural selection going on - there are specific adaptations that come from local environmental pressure, such as birds that evolve their beaks from year to year to adapt to different seeds. It isn't "just another outcome". This direct, non-random adaptation demonstrates what I'm referring to. Similar to butterflies that have eyes painted on their wings, or frogs that are poisonous to their predators. They weren't random natural selection... there's "brains" behind these micro-evolutionary adaptations.
To me, anyways. ;-)
You can display the opposite in the nature of natural selection also.
The giraffe neck that I mentioned is the classic.
The nerves that control the muscles in the giraffe's face run all the way down it's neck, U turn and go all the way back up to the face.
This happes because it was not until quite a long way along the process that this became a ridiculous design. But of course by then all of the giraffes had differentiated completely from the ancestor.
If it was an itelligence it would have done it differently.
It's a process. And in certain instances it's flawed.
Intelligent design != perfection - look at George Dubya Bush... :D
Quote from: Hominid on June 26, 2012, 02:48:57 PM
Intelligent design != perfection - look at George Dubya Bush... :D
I agree. Intelligent design is Gibberish. Dressed up in incomplete pseudo science.
But that's just like my oppinion man.
I just wish someone could explain the duckbilled platypus to me.
I don't believe in intelligent design, but if it turns out to be real, then this was definitely some project intended to use up the leftover spare parts.
Evolution is a tricky concept I think because as children of the modern age, we sometimes can't handle the time aspect. We're so use to our societies own rapid development that genetic adaptions are not happen with humans as we change the world to suit us but just look at the urban fox, it's changed to the environment we have made.
Quote from: milnie on June 28, 2012, 05:22:40 PM
Evolution is a tricky concept I think because as children of the modern age, we sometimes can't handle the time aspect. We're so use to our societies own rapid development that genetic adaptions are not happen with humans as we change the world to suit us but just look at the urban fox, it's changed to the environment we have made.
Agreed. It is established FACT that our species is about 200,000 years old, and we didn't start settling down and developing agriculture till about 20,000 years ago (Or is it 12,000?) Still, these numbers are so insignificant when you consider how long it took our planet to evolve. All very mind boggling. To say it's all only 8 to 10,000 years old is such hogwash. Until I have God himself visit me and turn me into a pile of ash, I'm sticking to what I can interpret as actual evidence. I'm NOT a theist, and definitely not a creationist. All that is bullshit. But my instincts tell me something's at play here...
So I'll reiterate: I believe biological life isn't just an accident. To me, DNA is far too organized and complex to be a random accident. Although anything is possible, the probabilities are too vast. Like putting a monkey in front of a computer and having it come up with a Shakespeare novel - by accident.
Just my opinion man!
I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. It does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and so those are more often passed on. More of those individuals with the trait breed and live longer so breed more often and the same is true of their offspring. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed. But the process that produced the trait is very very gradual and is shaped by the environment.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".
As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".
As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related
You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions. To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.
My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions. There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:
1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut, have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.
In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment. No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times... ;-)
H
Quote from: Hominid on June 29, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".
As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related
You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions. To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.
My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions. There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:
1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut, have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.
In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment. No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times... ;-)
H
I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.
I think the next obvious changes for humans won't be until we leave this planet. Look what happened in Wall-e, 300 years in space and we turned into cartoon characters! ;)
Quote from: milnie on June 29, 2012, 05:13:35 PM
I think the next obvious changes for humans won't be until we leave this planet. Look what happened in Wall-e, 300 years in space and we turned into cartoon characters! ;)
Ya, real fat ones!
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: Hominid on June 29, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".
As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related
You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions. To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.
My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions. There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:
1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut, have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.
In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment. No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times... ;-)
H
I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.
We're starting to split hairs here a bit, but I'll still defer to the clear evidence that immediate adaptive mutation rules out selective breeding in may cases, which you suggest is the explanation for micro evolution (as well as the "harem effect"). That does indeed happen, but it comes short of explaining those cases where offspring are nothing BUT adapted.
It often comes down to interpretation of evidence, which is influenced by our world view. One man looks at an eyeball and goes "Just random adaptive evolution". Another looks at mammals and says "wonderfully amazing engineering", where the organism is so smart, that all the separate organs work in concert with each other in homeostatic balance, with each organ's structure determining its function. To me, the fact that biological organisms have been becoming more and more complex over millions of years says there's a creativity behind it. *WHAT* that creativity is, I haven't a clue. But the rules of Newtonian physics (specifically the law of entropy) state that matter should only ever break down, not evolve into a more and more complex state.
There's somethin' about that thar DNA....
Not sure if you dudes can access uk channel 4 but Michael Johnson (the super athlete) just fronted a documentary on how the slave trade and it's selective practises may have lead to black athletes domination of many sports. Granted this considers a direct manipulation of the gene pool but does illustrate a form of natural selection through survival of the fittest.
Quote from: milnie on July 06, 2012, 04:20:48 PM
Not sure if you dudes can access uk channel 4 but Michael Johnson (the super athlete) just fronted a documentary on how the slave trade and it's selective practises may have lead to black athletes domination of many sports. Granted this considers a direct manipulation of the gene pool but does illustrate a form of natural selection through survival of the fittest.
Ya, there's lots of examples such as this. My fear is that our gene pool is becoming so watered down with weak traits thanks to modern medicine, that we're racing against time waiting for the next "black plague" to hit our species. These days, survival of the fittest in the western world either means you own lots of guns, or are born privileged and have lots of money. Funny how it works...
Quote from: Hominid on June 29, 2012, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: Hominid on June 29, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on June 29, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".
As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related
You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions. To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.
My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions. There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:
1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut, have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.
In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment. No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times... ;-)
H
I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.
We're starting to split hairs here a bit, but I'll still defer to the clear evidence that immediate adaptive mutation rules out selective breeding in may cases, which you suggest is the explanation for micro evolution (as well as the "harem effect"). That does indeed happen, but it comes short of explaining those cases where offspring are nothing BUT adapted.
It often comes down to interpretation of evidence, which is influenced by our world view. One man looks at an eyeball and goes "Just random adaptive evolution". Another looks at mammals and says "wonderfully amazing engineering", where the organism is so smart, that all the separate organs work in concert with each other in homeostatic balance, with each organ's structure determining its function. To me, the fact that biological organisms have been becoming more and more complex over millions of years says there's a creativity behind it. *WHAT* that creativity is, I haven't a clue. But the rules of Newtonian physics (specifically the law of entropy) state that matter should only ever break down, not evolve into a more and more complex state.
There's somethin' about that thar DNA....
I would say that complexity is not the issue.
Complexity alone has no advantage. It is complexity that yeilds positive results.
An eye from light sensitive cells. The fact that the eye is more complex is less important than the fact that it is more useful. Therefore it gets passed on and further improved.
I just never can make the leap to inuiting anything resembling some un named and ill deifined "intelligence". Expecially when the process is so evident. I don't find the need to infer an intelligence or creator even for things that are not provable through evidence.
I still believe that they are explainable without making that leap.
Once upon a time people found it absolutely evident though similar inferance that thunder and lightning where the work of a God that they called Thor.
I mean what else could it be?
This type of inference just never flushes for me.
I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning. ;-)
Quote from: Hominid on July 09, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning. ;-)
And still no matter how you cut it the entire leap is science of the gaps. It's an intuitive leap. I still contend that there is no EVIDENCE of intelligence. I see ample evidence of a system that produces ever increasing complexity as long as it continues.
I still don't see that the increase in complexity is to "serve" anything. It is an outcome.
Usefullness is not because of any imperative of survival. The life form does not will it's self to change. Nor does anything else that can be demonstrated. It either has what is required or it dies. 50 people stranded on an island don't have children with wings to fly home.
In the large my problem is with seperating biology and life forms from the system that made them what they are.
They are one and the same. We are not an onlooker. We are part of the natural order.
Human intelligence is not that unique or special. When viewed in the grand scheme of things is a gnat fart in the wind. It also is an outcome.
To view otherwise is like a dog barking at it's own reflection in a window.
We see a complex and natural order to all things and say "that is intelligence".
In reality there is no "that". Our intelligence is a continuation of the very same order.
Quote from: BikerDude on July 09, 2012, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: Hominid on July 09, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning. ;-)
And still no matter how you cut it the entire leap is science of the gaps. It's an intuitive leap. I still contend that there is no EVIDENCE of intelligence. I see ample evidence of a system that produces ever increasing complexity as long as it continues.
I still don't see that the increase in complexity is to "serve" anything. It is an outcome.
Usefullness is not because of any imperative of survival. The life form does not will it's self to change. Nor does anything else that can be demonstrated. It either has what is required or it dies. 50 people stranded on an island don't have children with wings to fly home.
In the large my problem is with seperating biology and life forms from the system that made them what they are.
They are one and the same. We are not an onlooker. We are part of the natural order.
Human intelligence is not that unique or special. When viewed in the grand scheme of things is a gnat fart in the wind. It also is an outcome.
To view otherwise is like a dog barking at it's own reflection in a window.
We see a complex and natural order to all things and say "that is intelligence".
In reality there is no "that". Our intelligence is a continuation of the very same order.
Biological life forms do indeed have an imperative - to survive! And reproduce. And thrive. To me, that is obvious. 50 people may not grow wings in one generation, but Darwin's finches evolved different beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they were eating.
So as usual, the longer it's discussed, the more philosophical it becomes... and because of that (in my opinion) we're expressing our own interpretation of what we observe (our world view so to speak). On the other hand, when 2 people's opinions differ when looking at the same evidence, it does make for interesting analysis. I know I'm muddling up the conversation, but there is something called the philosophy of science and cognition, where volumes have been written on the subject. (Google Daniel Dennett.)
Sometimes though, when different conclusions come from different observers looking at the same evidence, there is missing evidence, and possibly some interplay of prejudices. A false dichotomy is created because of that. Hey, maybe we're both wrong.
Maybe :)
At any rate... Great posts and thanks for sharing your story.
Your experience is unfortunately more of the rule than the exception with "Christianity". Too many take things on "Faith" and when confronted with apparent contradiction pull out the "God is mysterious" card or worse yet create backwards science in the face of what appears to challenge their belief system (6-8000 year old earth anyone?).
I am also not a big fan of relative truth philosophies (that's a big one in Scientology). But we can respect others without attacking them or respecting their belief system in how we choose to interact with them. Understanding why someone does or does not believe something (even truth) is key in respecting their opinions... which is pretty hard to do when you find out that the core of their belief is based on nothing other than what they were brought up to believe or some other whimsy. At least when someone can say why they believe what they believe (and logically establish it based on what they have to work with... new shit can and will comes to light) you can respect their convictions. AND most importantly that they will have strong convictions if new shit does come to light that changes their minds.
And as you observed with the 1000's of variations of Christianity alone (the majority of them uptight)... the real problem comes when someone can't just say... "I don't know". The pieces you had to work with didn't fit and you moved on... and that's cool. No one ever really believes something they are told they have to or when they are merely told they are wrong (they just blow with every wind with no real conviction till the next thing comes by). Everyone needs to come to what they believe to be "Truth" base on their own knowledge, experience, and understanding... "Faith" without knowledge will never abide. Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge..."
Abiding in Christ,
Christian Dude
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Maybe, sometime I'll point out how the bible does not support 6 days as we know them. There are parts that point to the earth is pretty darn old. Not now though, as to many people hate me in here. Keep abiding and take it easy.
I'd be happy if Christians would concede that any form of Christianity at least believes all of the things that Christ is credited with having taught.
The insistence on the part of Christians that any baseline set of beliefs to define themselves is difficult is simply another tactic that makes any discussion an exercise in
(http://futility.http://onefuriousllama.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/531425_10150941956067736_965042377_n.jpg)
You get no disagreement with me on that point at all.
Christians, more often than not, cop out on there even being a standard when they are called to it. They fall back on vague generalities that allow them to write their own rules for fear of there actually being something they can't squiggle out of in the guise of "interpretations". To say it's difficult removes from them the responsibility to let it interpret itself (inductive study) and understand what it's saying verse using it to support what they want it to say.
I am not a Trinitarian myself... So I dig what the Dudely Lama and the the Arch Dudeship laid out in reference to the Council of Nicea in the Abide Guide (p68) (it's irrefutable really... so that makes me a heretic... Arianism I believe... me and you are equally damned by Roman Catholic accounts... lol). My intent as a Dudeist Priest who abides in Christ is to simply promote the Dudeliness of my Lord (not God) Jesus Christ and work to remove the dust off the First Draft in reference to it contributing to Dudeism. And while I have my point of reference grounded in that... I am cool with someone else being where they are (it's their deal not mine).
So do you think we can move forward given that my focus is the Dudeway in light of First Draft Christianity? As the Dudeism FAQ says (It is written!)...
Q: Is there a God in Dudeism?
A: Like Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, Dudeism is a non-theistic religion. That isn?t to say Dudeists necessarily don?t believe in God or a godlike power in the universe, only that passing judgment on this issue is not one of Dudeism?s goals. Like the Eastern religions just mentioned, Dudeism is interested in the here and now, not the there and then. The Dudeist objective is to make our lives more pleasant and meaningful to ourselves and each other.
In other words... I am not here (in this forum) to lay out Theism or evangelize as a Christian (I can do that if I choose on my own site... This site is for Dudeism)... but to promote Jesus and First Draft Christianities contributions as they align with being a Dudeist (let me know if I cross that line:)
But as it is, the "The Jesus" forum is cluttered with off topic anti-theism/anti-Christian content that in no way supports the goal of the thread. If you want to see Christians stop being so uptight... that's not the way to accomplish it. That's my only concern... you can find a on-topic/general area of the forum and say whatever you want regarding your opinion or facts about the evils/un-dudely acts of PEOPLE in Christianity and leave this section to discuss the TEACHINGS that do align with Dudeism:)
I am eager to embrace the DudeWay in this manner...
Can we get a reset or fresh start on "The Jesus" section and try again? Admin's? Is that possible? Clean slate for "The Jesus"?
Now... Let us Abide,
The Christian Dude
This has been hashed over many times. It's becoming tiresome. There is very good reason why all these "anti theism" threads end up at the same place. If you don't get it, then no one can explain it to you. Coming from your world view, it takes a paradigm shift to really "get it". Been there. The truth you believe in should always be challenged by new shit that has come to light. Let that be your motto, and you'll do okay.
I don't really see anything I said being addressed or acknowledged in your reply. What place are they ending up? WWTDD?
Saying, "Coming from your world view, it takes a paradigm shift to really "get it"", implies that I am unenlightened and in need of a paradigm shift to be freed of something limiting my understanding. But here I am saying that within Dudeism... by all accounts I have seen... there is no place for regarding others that way.
I get it... People were fed information that they just accepted at face value from the pulpit, Sunday School, media, what have you... And when they either had a moment to actually give it some thought, had someone who had give it some thought against it... Or got wiped out when they found their "beliefs" were about as solid as quicksand... Or they were "blessed" by some pedophile... etc... They decided they either hate God, he/or any god doesn't exist... or whatever... The intrinsic value of what can be utilized to live in a more Dudely fashion is not in any way diminished no matter what the source...
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
There is no positive spin possible for spending anytime at all producing negative energy demeaning, attacking, being bigoted/prejudiced against others beliefs. Not when we can focus on applying positive energy towards taking it easy and ruminating on things leading to a better life.
A good motto... the desire to seek truth should override the desire to be (or think you're) right... The paradigm shift I experienced brought me a deeper knowledge of my "world view" that put me at odds with accepted "dogma" and resulting in a stronger foundation not full of confusion and contradiction.
Now Dudeism has brought on a deeper reflection on what that world view should present to the world in my attidude. This should be the central goal to every Dudeists own personal Dudeway... to the point that as Brother D said to me, "So there's Christian dudes, hindudes, Buddudes etc, which is cool, unless they use their belief to judge others, then they become undude and that shit just don't fly round these parts". I think that goes for the agnostics and atheists too.
We should be hard to tell apart within the manifestation of our Thankie to the universe. Stripping away the God vs. No God(s) from our being as it pertains to Dudeism... To Paraphrase Morpheus, "Do you believe that whether or not there are gods has anything to do Dudeism or with your walk as a Dude in this place?" The need to attack or ridicule those beliefs is... Fuck it. "If you don't get it, then no one can explain it to you." ;)
Cheers
I personally agree that Dudeists shouldn't demean, attack, insult, or otherwise express negativity towards other people and/or their beliefs in general. If someone wants to follow Christianity, or Judaism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so be it. But if people have had negative experiences with any of those organizations, it's human nature to want to share them with others.
Most of us here have dabbled in those religions and, for one reason or another, found them to be unsatisfying; extremely so, in some cases. Others have found a way to incorporate some of their previous beliefs into their understanding of Dudeism. And that's cool if it works for them and doesn't conflict with Dudeist beliefs. But, and I mention this with all due respect ChristianDude, all of your posts so far appear to be strongly advocating the infusion of Christian tenets into Dudeism, and that won't work for the majority of us here. Yes, there are Christian Dudes, Hindu Dudes, Buddhist Dudes, Pagan Dudes (well, at least one, anyway), and so on, but they are Dudeists first and foremost.
Is there value in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and/or whatever other isms you can think of? I believe there is, to some degree; wisdom is wisdom regardless of whether it comes from the Bible, the Torah, or something someone anonymously scribbled on the wall of a public rest room. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. The difficult part is in the way we incorporate that wisdom into Dudeism. What I mean is, if you go around quoting the Bible, you're labeled as a Christian. If you go around quoting the Torah, you're labeled as a Jew. There's nothing wrong with that, but we're not Christians or Jews. We're Dudeists. Granted, "Dudeism" is ill-defined at the moment, but the slowest-growing religion in the world is still a work-in-progress.
Perfect:)
I am not looking for infusion... just inclusion of Dudeist supporting wisdom from that particular influence... sans the overt Theism (and hopefully unimpeded by trolling). As far as the quotes... that is just my personal strongest source of WFTO and frame of reference for my Dudeism. Movies come in as a close second:)
I come from a varied background to include the martial arts... in fact... the most Dudetastic martial arts ever IMHO... Jeet Kune Do (JKD). It also came from a variety of influences (26 originally) and is plagued by dissenters over what is original... and this person spends too much time in this aspect... that person added number 27 a screwed it all up... All the while people missing the point that JKD is a personal expression of an individuals path that is merely guided by principles that vary in application for each individual... Pretty Dudeistic right!
?Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.? ~ Bruce Lee
(I think he should make the list of Great Dudes in History for sure!)
Thanks for the solid Dude-clarification Reverend Al :)
QuoteAs far as the quotes... that is just my personal strongest source of WFTO and frame of reference for my Dudeism. Movies come in as a close second:)
Just for clarification please: in your world view, which comes first - Dudeism, or Christianity? Simple question, and... I'm not baiting you, so a simple answer would be appreciated. Your posts are well articulated and non-reactive/emotional.
QuoteJust for clarification please: in your world view, which comes first - Dudeism, or Christianity? Simple question, and... I'm not baiting you, so a simple answer would be appreciated. Your posts are well articulated and non-reactive/emotional.
Simple answer... Yes :)
Dudeism is the outward expression of how we interact with the world and the dudes we encounter. The inner way we ruminate and allow things to affect our lives and attidude... abiding. "Passing judgment on this issue is not one of Dudeism's goals".
Christianity, should I be considered a Christian by some, guides my desire to be a good dude based on my conclusion that there is something more than the here and now. And a being... a Stranger to some... that would like me to follow a few suggestions as to how to do it better. And in Christianity's case... since we could not do it if our after lives depended on it... he gave us a Dude for all days and times to make the path less uptight and dependant on our own efforts... enabling us to be Takin' 'er easy. Passing judgment on this issue is not a Christians' place... You know a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous... and none of it is up to my opinion.
So they are both seperate... and synergistic in my world view.
Smart ass.
;-)
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 10, 2016, 12:44:56 AM
QuoteJust for clarification please: in your world view, which comes first - Dudeism, or Christianity? Simple question, and... I'm not baiting you, so a simple answer would be appreciated. Your posts are well articulated and non-reactive/emotional.
Simple answer... Yes :)
Dudeism is the outward expression of how we interact with the world and the dudes we encounter. The inner way we ruminate and allow things to affect our lives and attidude... abiding. "Passing judgment on this issue is not one of Dudeism's goals".
Is that some kind of Eastern thing? ;D
:)
From what I can tell, in this case, (correct me if I'm wrong), Christianity came first, dude second.
This is common to all, as dudeism arose from Taoism among others, even before we came to it, though influence can be found anywhere.
As with many religions and worldviews, take what you want from teachings of prophets, ministers, clerics etc, but IMO, the only person who can save you, is yourself ultimately, no one or no thing, can do it for you. No amount of reading self help books, religious texts or evangelism will make you live a righteous fulfilling life unless you are prepared to practice whatever truth you hold dear.
Belief in yourself to live a good life and do the right thing, ethically and morally etc, IMO, is better than putting your faith in a higher power that has seemingly forsaken it's creation.
This whole first draft Christianity thing, is Jesus's take on the teachings of John the Baptist, much like the dudeist take on Taoist ideals.
Now I apologise for any confusion or offence, I am by no means an expert and am not judging, but just think that all faiths can't be right, except for the whole "do no harm" thing.
Abidingly,
Brother D.
It was known as "The Way" before it was labeled Christianity... funny enough.
I believe that Dudeism provides "The Way" and whatever else is floating your boat on the things Dudeism doesn't care about is "The Why".
The Dudely Lama put paper to pen so to speak on his realization of the Dudeist Way based on the filter of his own philosophical what have you... and what he saw as a great expression of it. Obviously heavily seasoned with Taoism (The Way) in his case. When I see The Dude... I see the great expression of mine, all of us, if we find value in our influences rather than seeking a completely new one will see this as the ideal of our "Way". Once again bring my thinking back around to the Great Dude Who Came Before... Sigung Bruce Lee. Jeet Kune Do was "A Way"... What most people think of as JKD is "his" way and not meant to be theirs. Jeet Kune Do is meant to be the finger pointing to "their" way... Don't get fixated on the finger.
Living, Faith, etc... Nay! I say Abiding... is a verb. Without action (or in some cases inaction) there is nothing.
All the rest is definitely... That?s just like, your opinion, man:)
I don't feel forsaken :) ...and from a purely literary perspective of the text supplied, the assessment of John the Baptist to Jesus would definitely be incorrect... anything outside of the text is definitely anyone's opinion (aka private interpretation; idios, one's own) over the inductive study of what was revealed in the "story" much like any analysis outside the scope of the script of "The Big Lebowski" regarding anything not revealed. As far as which faith is right is irrelevant... whether or not someone is walking the path and abiding is the issue (as much as their "Why" lends itself to manifesting as such and they choose to operate in "their Way). Someone can everything 100% right and be of no effect (or a paraquat) if they do not walk the path (as you said very well).
We can almost sum up Dudeism in much the same way as George Carlin summed up Christianity :)
QuoteDon't be an Asshole/Paraquat
Abiding together in the "The Way" of Dudeism and not fighting over "The Why" of each of our Dudeism is the path of being great Compeers... that may or may not share a common "Why"... But it's always cool to have an honest interest really digging other Styles while being true to your own.
I had to come back and add... Even if The Dude or The Dudely Lama himself went full paraquat... The Way... Dudeism is unblemished. And it is self correcting as much as people are able to look at their "Way" in light of the very loosely defined principles of Dudeism... Are they "Abiding"?
You have all been lounging here longer than me... am I on the right track for my "Dudeway"?
Yes, you are on the right track, you are within your rights to question your path and it's quite dudely to help others with their own if warranted. Everyone abides in their own way.
I was curious about what you said regarding first draft Christianity and chose to follow that rabbit hole using history as a basis. I found that pre baptism, Jesus was much the same, trying to find his own way in a harsh world/society, post baptism and after jtb's death, chose to continue his work as he saw fit in his own way, just so happens, people listened.
I am no biblical scholar, so I guess, like the dude, the Jesus, was a man for his time and place. There are alot of agnostics around, that have moved from one faith or another and ended up here, but IMO, no one can 100% prove or disprove anything and to paraphrase some philosophist "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing".
I dig your story, Dude! It's pretty similar to the way I came to find Dudeism, the never ending quest for enlightenment...or something like that.
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 09, 2016, 09:47:10 PM...I am not looking for infusion... just inclusion of Dudeist supporting wisdom from that particular influence... sans the overt Theism (and hopefully unimpeded by trolling)...
Works for me. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 09, 2016, 09:47:10 PM...I come from a varied background to include the martial arts... in fact... the most Dudetastic martial arts ever IMHO... Jeet Kune Do (JKD). It also came from a variety of influences (26 originally) and is plagued by dissenters over what is original... and this person spends too much time in this aspect... that person added number 27 a screwed it all up... All the while people missing the point that JKD is a personal expression of an individuals path that is merely guided by principles that vary in application for each individual... Pretty Dudeistic right!
I have made comparisons between Dudeism and Jeet Kune Do myself...in my mind, anyway. Bruce Lee realized there was a lot of "waste" present in the various martial arts disciplines--actions that did not flow naturally, served no real purpose, and expended the disciple's energies needlessly during combat--so he kept what worked and discarded what didn't; "Casting off what is useless," as he put it. And that's what I perceive Dudeism to be--using whatever works to make your life happier, easier, simpler, more satisfying, less stressful, and diminishing or eliminating any bullshit that prevents that from happening.
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 10, 2016, 12:44:56 AM...Thanks for the solid Dude-clarification Reverend Al :)
You're welcome. But, just to be clear, I'm just another asshole with thoughts and opinions. I think I have a fairly decent handle on what Dudeism is, or should be, but I could easily be wrong. And that's one of the valuable things about this forum--the other members will definitely let you know if your toe slips over the line.
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 10, 2016, 12:44:56 AM...Dudeism is the outward expression of how we interact with the world and the dudes we encounter. The inner way we ruminate and allow things to affect our lives and attidude... abiding...
I think the thing that really separates Dudeism from other religions, especially the so-called Western religions, is motivation. In my experience Christians (in all of their manifest forms) do what they do (when they're behaving themselves, that is) because they're either trying to win that Golden Ticket into Heaven, or because they're afraid of spending eternity burning in the fiery pits of Hell. They're not as concerned with
this life as they are with what will happen to them
after this life. Conversely, most Dudeists either don't know if there
will be an afterlife, or believe there
won't be one, so we're motivated to make
this life the best it can be simply because it's what we know.
Quote from: Brother D on April 10, 2016, 08:46:54 AM...Now I apologise for any confusion or offence, I am by no means an expert and am not judging, but just think that all faiths can't be right, except for the whole "do no harm" thing.
I've come to the same conclusion. I think every religion currently known has a few pieces of the puzzle right, but they've got the "big picture" wrong.
Quote from: Brother D on April 10, 2016, 04:17:10 PM...There are alot of agnostics around, that have moved from one faith or another and ended up here, but IMO, no one can 100% prove or disprove anything and to paraphrase some philosophist "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing".
Mark it eight, Dudes.
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 10, 2016, 12:44:56 AM...Dudeism is the outward expression of how we interact with the world and the dudes we encounter. The inner way we ruminate and allow things to affect our lives and attidude... abiding...
Quote from: Reverend Al on April 11, 2016, 01:28:52 AM
I think the thing that really separates Dudeism from other religions, especially the so-called Western religions, is motivation. In my experience Christians (in all of their manifest forms) do what they do (when they're behaving themselves, that is) because they're either trying to win that Golden Ticket into Heaven, or because they're afraid of spending eternity burning in the fiery pits of Hell. They're not as concerned with this life as they are with what will happen to them after this life. Conversely, most Dudeists either don't know if there will be an afterlife, or believe there won't be one, so we're motivated to make this life the best it can be simply because it's what we know.
Well here is what this manifested form believes... I have my ticket, do not need to win anything, and have no fear of the afterlife. With all that baggage out of the way (and hopefully no one is offended by that declaration)... it gives me total freedom to take it easy and truly abide:)
I am supposed to make this life the best it can be because it's what I know to be the right thing to do. Wait for it... Dudely Biblical quotes coming :)
QuoteEphesians 2:9b Not of works, lest any man should boast.
QuoteMatthew 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
So I would say that they are not abiding in their point of reference... Trust me... if those kinda "Christians" come in here... they won't be crying the Atheist/Agnostics/Anti-Christians are being mean... Because I will be on that paraquat behavior just as quick... and from their own point of reference. And who knows... Maybe they might have a change of heart and figure out that they too can take it easy.
I dig your style, man, I know the mere sight of the word Christianity sends dudes into an "aw shit, here we go again" mode. The beef is with organised religion, the bigotry, hypocrisy and the outdated practices within those beliefs.
People are drawn to it like a moth to a flame, they want to feel safe in the knowledge that there's something waiting for them if they're good.
Dudeism provides a vehicle to live a good life, without the promise of judgement post death or some amazing afterlife. Everything comes from and returns to Tao, or the source/force.
The thing with that is, it means we judge our own actions eg not being a dick, doing no harm etc, so have no reason to excuse our deeds as the work of Satan, or gods will.
Salvation is found within, IMO, there's no point waiting for it, if you want to be righteous, be a dude to your fellow humans, regardless of color, creed or whatever.
That's one of my favorite things about Dudeism and a big part of the reason that I was drawn to it in the first place, There is no cosmic reward system, no carrot, no stick, it's all just Dudes being cool to one another for the simple fact that it's the Dude thing to do. It feels more honest because there is nothing to earn or fear.
Quote from: RandoRock on April 11, 2016, 06:47:29 AM
That's one of my favorite things about Dudeism and a big part of the reason that I was drawn to it in the first place, There is no cosmic reward system, no carrot, no stick, it's all just Dudes being cool to one another for the simple fact that it's the Dude thing to do. It feels more honest because there is nothing to earn or fear.
That is so true.
I can't wait for my next beer
Quote from: Brother D on April 11, 2016, 06:33:18 AM
I dig your style, man, I know the mere sight of the word Christianity sends dudes into an "aw shit, here we go again" mode. The beef is with organised religion, the bigotry, hypocrisy and the outdated practices within those beliefs.
People are drawn to it like a moth to a flame, they want to feel safe in the knowledge that there's something waiting for them if they're good.
Dudeism provides a vehicle to live a good life, without the promise of judgement post death or some amazing afterlife. Everything comes from and returns to Tao, or the source/force.
The thing with that is, it means we judge our own actions eg not being a dick, doing no harm etc, so have no reason to excuse our deeds as the work of Satan, or gods will.
Salvation is found within, IMO, there's no point waiting for it, if you want to be righteous, be a dude to your fellow humans, regardless of color, creed or whatever.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I like the whole Zen/Tao thing for its emphasis on personal responsibility. Old school Abrahamic religions are for lazy thinkers. ChristianDude is not that, though I'm still waiting to see if christianity is his first choice over Dudeism. ;-)
Quote from: Reverend Al on April 11, 2016, 01:28:52 AM
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 09, 2016, 09:47:10 PM...I come from a varied background to include the martial arts... in fact... the most Dudetastic martial arts ever IMHO... Jeet Kune Do (JKD). It also came from a variety of influences (26 originally) and is plagued by dissenters over what is original... and this person spends too much time in this aspect... that person added number 27 a screwed it all up... All the while people missing the point that JKD is a personal expression of an individuals path that is merely guided by principles that vary in application for each individual... Pretty Dudeistic right!
I have made comparisons between Dudeism and Jeet Kune Do myself...in my mind, anyway. Bruce Lee realized there was a lot of "waste" present in the various martial arts disciplines--actions that did not flow naturally, served no real purpose, and expended the disciple's energies needlessly during combat--so he kept what worked and discarded what didn't; "Casting off what is useless," as he put it. And that's what I perceive Dudeism to be--using whatever works to make your life happier, easier, simpler, more satisfying, less stressful, and diminishing or eliminating any bullshit that prevents that from happening.
Cool! Are you a practitioner? I got my start in JKD Concepts and Inosanto Blend FMA and became a level 3 Apprentice Instructor in 1991. I have since kept up but delved more deeply into all of the other Filipino Martial Arts. I'll check around the forum for a good place of that...
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 13, 2016, 11:54:50 PMCool! Are you a practitioner? I got my start in JKD Concepts and Inosanto Blend FMA and became a level 3 Apprentice Instructor in 1991. I have since kept up but delved more deeply into all of the other Filipino Martial Arts. I'll check around the forum for a good place of that...
No, I'm not. I looked into it several years ago, but didn't have the spare time or the finances to pursue it then. Then I got older and developed problems with my lower back a little over 10 years ago that limit my physical activity and cause chronic pain, so except for taking our dog for his evening walk with my wife I can't even exercise. But I've long appreciated Mr. Lee's philosophies and wisdom.