If you find yourself in a debate with a guy who teaches science to grade school children..... Well you know.
You have to fast forward through the silly countdown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)
I watched the whole thing. I agree with Dawkins that you shouldn't debate creationists - I think mostly because they admit they come to the table with the prejudice of faith in god and the bible; that their world view is firmly planted in their skygod and iron-age fairy tales. How can you talk to a fool who doesn't want to use logic, reason, and evidence?
And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.
Man, is so fucking difficult to listen to this kind of discussions without being bias at all when I really believe right out of the bat that Mr. Ham and his pack of dudes to be as looney as a fucking duck! I tried but its just too much to ask out of me... :-\ In defense to all religious folks out there: I don't give two fucks in what magical being you believe in. That is your right and thus I respect it but how in the fuck is this crazy creationism stuff suppose to taken serious? Also, how does Mr. Nye does this with out laughing his ass off listening to all that mess? I guess that is why he is the pro here. This kinda shit really saddens me :-[ to think that people and children are raised believing this stuff... oh well... as long as is not shoved down my throat or my kids, go right ahead :-\
Quote from: jgiffin on February 05, 2014, 08:52:12 PM
And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
QuoteIn 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The validity and the interpretation of the 1988 tests are still contested by some statisticians, chemists and historians.[3] Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[4]
As for Science:
QuoteYou always have to remember that we are all wrong - based on the fact that we know too little to be right.
by Chiara Cuelli
Quoteoh well... as long as is not shoved down my throat or my kids, go right ahead
Even that's a problem. Letting it get shoved down other's throats just exacerbates the problem. I'm all for tolerance, but this shit is poison. Like the saying goes, good men do good, evil men do evil. But for good men to do evil, you need religion.
Some people need that religious placebo, man.
Like BD says, religion is adult thumb-sucking. That pretty well says it all. Instead, we should all be drinking beer actually. ;-)
http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/10-surprising-health-benefits-beer (http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/10-surprising-health-benefits-beer)
Gee, I'm surprised Icon hasn't jumped in.
Quote from: cckeiser on February 05, 2014, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: jgiffin on February 05, 2014, 08:52:12 PM
And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
QuoteIn 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The validity and the interpretation of the 1988 tests are still contested by some statisticians, chemists and historians.[3] Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[4]
I was under the impression they contested the carbon dating because the only bits they let the scientists test were the bits that had been re-built after being damaged.
For my part: I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than life my life as if there isn't and die to find out that there is. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
Seems like you guys have not been around to see that not all christian types take a word for word literal aproach to creation. I dont and know of others that dont as well. Yes there are those that will debate until blue in face that the earth is 6000 years old... Even an antiquity Jewish sage defends it by saying that during the flood something makes it impossible to see past rightly. If I come across it I will share it. However, I see the whole of the allworld or universe as being billions of years old and the earth as very old to. I do believe and I say believe as in science and faith can and do work together like Einstein and Tesla have demonstrated in their works. I believe that there is a creator, nothing that can be defined anymore than anyone can explain and understand everything in seen and unseen space. Light has a speed limit, so we have only seen as far as that limit has allowed. Our planet has been around a few billion years and man as we know perhaps about 20,000 years. It is, as far as I seen in science not been proven of any middle stages of primate to upright man with speech ability. Random mutation in an nearly over night theory is one I have heard but, that would mean we should take Marvel super heroes serious as possible. I believe that the creative force caused things to happen at certain times and by whatever means and purpose it put forth. Not being hung up or pushing this creative force has been part of select scientists that do hold belief in it and have no problem being helpful in great break throughs in science and discovery.
Hamm, to me represents a portion of bleivers, not all. He can do it till he is blue in face, but at the end of day we have to move along and deal with where the pins lay. We can point finger and say anyone that believes in higher power is like Hamm or any of the others on the literalist belief represent all of them. Or we can just say, nice opinion, and move on... Cant be getting our Walter on, nor worrying about this shit argument. Some believe in higher power some dont, but it has no bearing on being dude if one does or doesn't. Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
Quote from: Hominid on February 05, 2014, 09:06:51 PMLike the saying goes, good men do good, evil men do evil. But for good men to do evil, you need religion.
OK, I cannot resist commenting on this particular comment from Hominid. Social institutions (like organized religions) are all very resistant to change, and people in power rarely wish to share their power. I'll give you that . But it's not as if the world of religion is the only venue in which basically good men will to do evil things. What about the world of partisan politics, for example? Or the corporate world? Or even the world of pseudo-scientific "self-help" therapeutic modalities?
It's not fair (IMO), nor is it honest, to single out the world of religion to scapegoat, and hang the blame for All the Trouble in the World on.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 06, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
Seems like you guys have not been around to see that not all christian types take a word for word literal aproach to creation. I dont and know of others that dont as well. Yes there are those that will debate until blue in face that the earth is 6000 years old... Even an antiquity Jewish sage defends it by saying that during the flood something makes it impossible to see past rightly. If I come across it I will share it. However, I see the whole of the allworld or universe as being billions of years old and the earth as very old to. I do believe and I say believe as in science and faith can and do work together like Einstein and Tesla have demonstrated in their works. I believe that there is a creator, nothing that can be defined anymore than anyone can explain and understand everything in seen and unseen space. Light has a speed limit, so we have only seen as far as that limit has allowed. Our planet has been around a few billion years and man as we know perhaps about 20,000 years. It is, as far as I seen in science not been proven of any middle stages of primate to upright man with speech ability. Random mutation in an nearly over night theory is one I have heard but, that would mean we should take Marvel super heroes serious as possible. I believe that the creative force caused things to happen at certain times and by whatever means and purpose it put forth. Not being hung up or pushing this creative force has been part of select scientists that do hold belief in it and have no problem being helpful in great break throughs in science and discovery.
Hamm, to me represents a portion of bleivers, not all. He can do it till he is blue in face, but at the end of day we have to move along and deal with where the pins lay. We can point finger and say anyone that believes in higher power is like Hamm or any of the others on the literalist belief represent all of them. Or we can just say, nice opinion, and move on... Cant be getting our Walter on, nor worrying about this shit argument. Some believe in higher power some dont, but it has no bearing on being dude if one does or doesn't. Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
Personally, I do not believe in the literality of the most OT, and I certainly believe that the Earth is a whole lot older than a mere 6000 years. And has anybody here ever heard of Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)? He's even more loopty-loo than Hamm. I wish that Hamm would just shut up, personally.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 06, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
I think faster than i type so quick edit
Just as there are many Christians that can be quite uptight, let not Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 06, 2014, 10:03:37 AM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 06, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
I think faster than i type so quick edit
Just as there are many Christians that can be quite uptight, let not Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
Amen to that, man.
Maybe not all the trouble Icon, but most. It is in God's name (or Allah, pick your deity) that men believe they are RIGHTEOUSLY doing his will by actually doing evil. Politicians and corporate evils are perpetrated by people knowing they are breaking the law with immoral acts, so that's different. Religious ferver can account for too much of the world's suffering... Think of the Spanish inquisition, the spread of Islam by the sword in the dark ages (the dark ages themSELVES were a result of the church becoming the defacto ruling force for centuries), 9/11, honour killings, stonings and beheadings in the name of Allah, abortion doctor slayings and clinic bombings...
Before you blame the people, not the religion, I point you to the Old Testament where entire cities of men, women, and children killed and raped all under God's direction, because they weren't his worshippers, or the chosen ones. The Koran explicitly directs followers to kill infidels, and gives advice on how to properly beat your wife. I can follow up with specific references if you want, but I gather you know what I'm talking about. Religion is evil, and moderately religious people only give safe harbour to the "extremists" who are only doing what their sacred writings are telling them to do...
Couple short videos to underline my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TasoRGeDHCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TasoRGeDHCc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY)
Religion is evil? Well, in a sense I would agree with that, and I reckon that Jesus Christ Himself would too.
Jesus was not about religion. And in my estimation, Jesus was not here to establish a religion, either. In fact, JC was very much anti-religion (and anti-establishment in general), in my sight. That's why I do not subscribe to "Churchianity", and do not think of myself as being very "religious". Jesus said to the Pharisees (the "religious authorities" of His day), "You're like whitewashed sepulchres: fair without, but full of bones and corruption within."
Hominid, I am not going to show you any more NT Bible verses in order to demonstrate my point, either, lest you accuse me of "preaching" or "Bible-banging". I'll just close with a quote from C.S. Lewis (himself a Christian, and a former atheist):
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
I watched the debate, but I don't think it did any good. I lump the YECs along with people who believe aliens manipulated our DNA: Wackadoodles. They use one tiny piece to make silly claims that prove some asinine idea. Most religious people I know -- Christian and other -- admit that holy books cannot be taken literally. Thankfully Ken Ham doesn't speak for most Christians.
My opinion:
They're two independent things. There are valid religious scientists just there are valid secular philosophical thinkers. To me, science says How and religions say Why. There's no reason the two should have issues.
Science says stars are nuclear furnaces. Religions say God / Adonai / Allah / Brahma made them.
Science says organisms live, reproduce, and die. Religions say it's because their god(s) have a step-by-step process leading to something else.
They need to leave each other alone. The few YECs should not tell science and the world that Earth is only 6000 years old and then use selective literalism in the next breath. The few scientists should stop trying to prove gods are fake; it isn't your duty.
For a lack of better terms, both sides have zealots. The bad thing is, the media loves a good story. They will only showcase the loudmouths. Bill Nye isn't anti-theism. Ken Ham isn't stupid. While Nye is fine with believers, his issue is with education. Ham on the other hand speaks for a small minority and wants his way only.
I dated a wonderful, brilliant lady who was very religious. But she believes dinosaurs are fake fossils. Now, I don't think 90% of other Christians in the world think that, and none of the Christian dudes here. I would never tell her she's wrong as it's not my duty.
In summary, they can live together as long as the zealous loudmouths on both sides get out of the way.
Read up on Kent Hovind (aka "Dr. Dino"), if you'd care to. Now, that guy is a total nutbug who makes Hamm look like Einstein by comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)
That's scary. But I'll look into it. Thanks. :)
Actually, that's a pretty good response Icon, I get where you're coming from - I used to be the same way. But I'm the opposite now: I was a Christian (born again, bible-bashing fundamental evangelical), now I'm what I call an atheist, but with a hint of spirituality. (Edit - not saying YOU are a bible-bashing fundie...)
There is indeed a huge difference between being a follower of Christ, and a follower of religion, however it also has it's contradictions that were too unsettling for me, and I had to leave that belief system behind to rid myself of the massive cognitive dissonance it caused.
Being a peaceful, loving Christian is in contradiction to Jesus' words - I think you know where I'm going with this. Jesus said - "Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be of his own household." - Matthew 10:34-36 Actually, the rest of the chapter pretty well says he is THE only way.
More: "I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" .Luke 12:49-51
That sound all lovey dovey to you? He's more concerned that people follow him ONLY; everyone else can LITERALLY go to hell. Well, fuck him. I don't believe he ever existed anyway... many scholars are now doubting the historicity of Jesus due to the sheer lack of any real evidence. If you try and cite Josephus, his reference to the messiah is a proven forgery, added in later by the church fathers who needed to have a small shred of secular confirmation of the new testament's content.
I respect anyone trying to be peaceful and dudelike, and you don't need religion to be either. I've met many very loving atheists, many loving Christians. I've also met very evil atheists, and very evil Christians (...they were wolves in sheep's clothing, and they knew it). That's not my point. My main issue is how pure devotion to God or any deity leads to justified evil. All Abrahamic faiths provide an abundance of teachings to fill any zealot with enough righteous indignation to justify evil in the name of good.
So, no more cognitive dissonance. Evidence, logic, reason, and common sense keep me from ever taking ANYTHING on faith again. We need to be sceptical and critical thinkers, not believe in things unseen just to make us feel good about ourselves.
IMDO. ;-)
Wow, Hominid, maybe if you are patient with me I'll one day be a truly enlightened, intellectually independent, and fully self-actualized human being, just like you.
But seriously though: you come across as a very "preachy" and evangelical atheist; it's as if you think that it's OK to preach atheism to me (and to others) but I have to be very careful about how I choose my words here, lest somebody accuse me of pushing my beliefs on others (or otherwise accuse me of being "preachy").
Can you see how I see this as a hypocritical double-standard?
Look, I'm not trying to get you to think like me, so please give me the courtesy of not trying to get me to think like you.
Dudeism does not have to equal atheism/anti-theism. I stand by that statement. There's room for all of us here.
What I wrote isn't preachy any more than someone describing why they crossed the floor from republican to democrat. Republicans like guns'n god. Democrats are a little more liberal free-thinking. If you see that as preaching, knock yourself dead. If the ruling principle is to simply and ONLY get along as people, then we'd both be wrong. There's nothing inaccurate or wrong in what I said, I was stating obvious and known facts; seeing that as preachy is your problem dude.
I'm not equating dudeism with any label other than what it calls itself - not sure where you get I'm trying to say otherwise. Yes, there's room for us all, but there's also room for good lively debate.
Quote from: Hominid on February 06, 2014, 02:16:02 PM
Republicans like guns'n god. Democrats are a little more liberal free-thinking.
As I am sure that you realize, he world is not so black-and-white, nor as simple as the way you are presenting things. I like guns (and have some in storage back where I am from) and God too, but I
also like cannabis and voted for Obama twice (and I voted for Clinton twice, too). I am VERY free-thinking, too. My regard for partisan politics is about as high as is my regard for organized religion (that is, not very high at all). I'm as eclectic in my political outlook as I am in my spiritual/religious outlook. You came across to me as very condescending with respect to people of faith, Hominid, and a tad hostile too. But that's just my perception.
In the interest of keeping our peace, may I suggest the thread stay focused on the Nye-Ham debate?
I know threads always go on tangents, but should we keep this one on track? (And before anyone says otherwise, that's not aimed at anyone in particular since so far it has stayed peaceful.)
Tumbleweed
I think at the end of the day everyone here is basically seeing the same thing from slightly different angels. Probably why we are all attracted to dudeism in the first place ( that and the oat sodas). Whatever the group religion, politics, corporations, anytime you get a group that sees only their way as right and everyone else is wrong. People lose touch with their basic humanity to chase the higher " group purpose" and it's that unquestioning singel mindedness that is the source of a lot of the worlds problems.
Quote from: Masked Dude on February 06, 2014, 04:25:28 PM
In the interest of keeping our peace, may I suggest the thread stay focused on the Nye-Ham debate?
I know threads always go on tangents, but should we keep this one on track? (And before anyone says otherwise, that's not aimed at anyone in particular since so far it has stayed peaceful.)
Funny, I just tagged the thread as a tumbleweed.
Right then... I am cool Mask dude, I seen your posts and it appears we can see that Shagbeard is not up with the whole Hamm camp.
Peace to you and abide well
Thank you for the reminder MD - Icon engaged me, and so it started... no hard feelings Icon, I enjoy the back and forth. Anyway, back to Hamm: He more than others makes it clear that it is our world view and personal value systems that govern how we interpret evidence. We make the assumption that someone with a science background has the ability to examine what lays before him, and apply non-biased observations about the nature of said evidence, but he himself says he FILTERS such evidence through his Christian beliefs. At least he admits to the fact he is approaching the table with a bias. Truth be told, we all do this including the non-theists. Each side believes we have an edge over the other; the Christian because they have the word of god and the creator himself on their side; the non-theist because they have evidence, truth, and logic on theirs. The Christian says "But I AM applying logic to the evidence I observe." - The non-theist retorts "But you're interpreting it incorrectly!". Laughable man!
What both must ask is this: is it pure truth we are seeking? If so, how do we determine what this truth is? Are we willing to change our minds when new truths are revealed? All good questions. My opinion (not being preachy here) is that *actual and real* facts and truth are more important that what any of us think they are at any given moment. IOW, are we willing to change our paradigms based on new evidence?
Uh oh - here come the philosophers!!!!! Solipsism anyone? ;-)
Hey Dudes,
Just my two cents on the religion/science intersection. I think it's good to point out that religion and science can coexist with one another, but it's also important to recognize that somebody committed to a scientific worldview privileges beliefs that come from systematic observation and measurement of the physical world over beliefs that do not. To someone with a scientific worldview, the former beliefs are in fact superior to the latter beliefs. And in that sense, not all beliefs are made equal.
Often, science-minded people like to harp on religious people for being "irrational." Now, there are plenty of irrational folks in the world, religious and not. But, actually religion at its best is a system of rational beliefs (i.e., if you grant X, then it follows that Y). It's just not necessarily a system of beliefs grounded in the observable world. So, it's not irrational to believe that the world was created by a divine being, it's just (to a science-minded person) a belief that is inferior to one that is based upon observation of the natural world.
Thoughts?
+1 MA.
Well put.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
Hah! These dudes are so entertaining!
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/)
Quote from: Hominid on February 06, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
Hah! These dudes are so entertaining!
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/)
Honinid, where do you live, man? Do you live in the States?
Why does it matter where I live?
Quote from: Hominid on February 06, 2014, 08:34:12 PM
Why does it matter where I live?
It doesn't. Just asking, man.
Quote from: Hominid on February 06, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
Hah! These dudes are so entertaining!
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/)
The only thing funnier is if Jack van Impe told Ham to shush.: )
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: Hominid on February 06, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
Hah! These dudes are so entertaining!
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/)
Honinid, where do you live, man? Do you live in the States?
He lives in the country of Beer in the county of Vagina........the lucky bastard. ;D
When you agree to publicly debate a clown, you legitimize his clownish beliefs. This is just stupidity as performance art.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 07:34:08 PM"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
Quote from: Albert EinsteinThe word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
From his letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion)
Quote from: Yeti on February 07, 2014, 01:32:43 AM
When you agree to publicly debate a clown, you legitimize his clownish beliefs. This is just stupidity as performance art.
I like your style dude...
Quote from: Yeti on February 07, 2014, 01:32:43 AM
When you agree to publicly debate a clown, you legitimize his clownish beliefs. This is just stupidity as performance art.
Quote from: Bob Smith
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
I always thought this was a Homer Simpson Quote but it seems someone got there first.
Quote from: Albert Einstein
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Quote from: Thomas Sowell
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
Sorry I've just found a whole page of these (http://www.distance-healer.com/html/quotes1.html).
Quote from: Albert Einstein
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
If you like quotes....you will Love this site! 8)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/ (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/)
I have it linked to Bertrand Russell, but after each quote there's a link to more quotes by others on the same subject.
Hours and hours of reading pleasure! 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on February 07, 2014, 03:37:34 PM
If you like quotes....you will Love this site! 8)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/ (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/)...
Damn you CC I have enough trouble with my low concentration quotient and Stumble Upon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/home) as it is.
Now you've given me more distraction.
Thanks mate.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 07, 2014, 05:58:24 PM
Quote from: cckeiser on February 07, 2014, 03:37:34 PM
If you like quotes....you will Love this site! 8)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/ (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/)...
Damn you CC I have enough trouble with my low concentration quotient and Stumble Upon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/home) as it is.
Now you've given me more distraction.
Thanks mate.
Yeah....sorry dude. I was actually thinking about you when I posted that link....I recognized a fellow addict! ;D
It's funny though.....give a dude a few hundred word article to read and we get tired half way through....too many words man....but break it down into "sound bites" of a dozen words or so at a time and we will read thousands of words with no problem! 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on February 08, 2014, 01:50:08 AM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 07, 2014, 05:58:24 PM
Quote from: cckeiser on February 07, 2014, 03:37:34 PM
If you like quotes....you will Love this site! 8)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/ (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/)...
Damn you CC I have enough trouble with my low concentration quotient and Stumble Upon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/home) as it is.
Now you've given me more distraction.
Thanks mate.
Yeah....sorry dude. I was actually thinking about you when I posted that link....I recognized a fellow addict! ;D
It's funny though.....give a dude a few hundred word article to read and we get tired half way through....too many words man....but break it down into "sound bites" of a dozen words or so at a time and we will read thousands of words with no problem! 8)
It's called a short attention sp...... sorry, what day is this??
Quote from: Hominid on February 05, 2014, 09:29:25 PM
Like BD says, religion is adult thumb-sucking.
Well, that's your opinion, man. You don't want anybody shoving religion down your throat, or the throats of your kids? Well, then do not shove your nililistic atheism down mine or anybody else's, man, lest you become a hypocrite.
Has anybody else noticed how most of you, here on this forum, take the word "abide" to mean to simple-mindedly go along with whatever you're told to think? That is not what the word "abide" means. To "abide" does not mean to "shut-up-and-submit-to-the-powers-that-be". That's a propagandized, politically-agendized misappropriation of what it means to "abide". And that's also why I see some of you behaving as phony poser cultists.
What is sad to me, is the fact that Oliver seems to go along with it. THAT I do not get. Why does he let it happen?? Look at the Dudespaper and Dudeism sites; you get very different version of Dudeism there. This ghost-town forum is not exactly hopping with activity, and other Dudeists I have communicated with generally say that they avoid this forum because of its super-controlling and nihilistic atmosphere.
Most of you are merely about posting stupid little things, and busy talking about a whole lot of nothing; the whole concept of Dudeism to most of you is a fairy-tale belief that you seem think gives you an excuse to act like lazy fools. Actually
standing for anything is repulsive to you until it is to be anti-God. You are mostly all smart-asses and pussies who are full of hatred for those who are not part of your clique. If you call yourselves Dudiests, then I call you hypocrites and Anti-Dudes.
Most of you seem to have no real sense of
honor and act like the villains of this show. I have noticed how a lot of you call this "a beach community". But what you posers do not seem to understand is that this is where the Dude was drugged, sent out to be detained, and assaulted!
I close with something that I posted a while back:
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on January 04, 2014, 08:41:42 PM
First of all: frankly, I think that some of you just simply do not like Christians and Christianity, and that you are using the Dudeist//Taosist thing as a pretext through which you might ostensibly justify this prejudice. Otherwise, comments like cckeiser's about being an "anti-theist" would not be necessary, as it's needlessly antagonistic IMO.
For a true dude is not "anti"-anything, in my opinion.
A true dude favors honesty, humility, and (above all) love. These are the Three Treasures.
A true dude opposes greed, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness. But that (opposing greed, etc.) is different than being "anti"-minded.
A true dude does not judge others, does not compare him- or her-self to others, and suspends their propensity to understand others.
In short: a true dude lives, and lets live.
For another thing: became a Dudeist in order to have some kind of like-minded fellowship among the community of other dudes, for intellectual stimulation, to learn from others, and simply to have a few laughs.
I DID NOT become a Dudeist so that I could get mixed up in some kind of weird quasi-religion, or else some kind of "cult" in the parlance of our times. In a sense, Dudeism is not "real" to me. And in a sense, it is.
Those who know what Dudeism is, do not say, and those who say what Dudeism is, do not know. This is my realization.
Disagreement does not equal disrespect. Expressing a disagreement does not constitute an ad hominem attack against the person being disagreed with. If it did, then we'd be in trouble, as that's when a "parody religion" turns into an actually destructive "cult".
Non-conformist groups are often just vectors of control for people who take themselves and the groups with which they identify (and indeed, by which they identify themselves) waaaaay to seriously. And in my estimation, it's not so different here in this forum. Groupthink is a universal phenomenon, common among all kids of cohesive groups. And I resist and reject groupthink in all forms, and in all situational contexts.
And by the way: I'm not gonna serve any ice to anybody, either (for the burn, I mean).
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
And by the way: I'm not gonna serve any ice to anybody, either (for the burn, I mean).
That's not a burn.
That's all in your opinion man.
All this shows is what little an idea you actually have.
You've just blown up at a two day old post.
Personally if you really feel this way why bother hanging around?
Dude, I'm not only speaking for myself. I'm just serving as a mouthpiece for others who feel as I do, and will not say it themselves. In other words: it's not just me, and I feel safe in saying that WE are sick of this culty nihilist stuff, in terms of how the mods run the show here.
Most of you, in my eyes, are hypocrites who have no problem with pushing your atheism (which is comparable to nihilism) on others.
Say what you want about the tenets of New Testament Christianity; at least it's an ethos.
Also: cckeiser says he is anti-theist. Right. Well, then why in the world is he advertising Woden with his profile pic?
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Dude, I'm not only speaking for myself. I'm just serving as a mouthpiece for others who feel as I do, and will not say it themselves. In other words: it's not just me, and I feel safe in saying that WE are sick of this culty nihilist stuff, in terms of how the mods run the show here.
There is over four thousand members to this forum. What proportion do you claim to represent.
The forum does no present the FaceBook point of view. The Forum has always represented the Taoist Buddhist roots of Dudeism, leaning to the more none religious point of view, a way of being in the world not something you gain from signing up on a web site. Not my point of view, my experience posting here before becoming an admin.
You've been posting here for less than a month.
Some of us have been here years. You have little point of reference to realise that the majority of the regular posters have backed off in the month you have been posting here.
As I said before no one is forcing you to stay.
The forum existed before you joined, and will continue to exist after you leave.
This is yet another outburst at not getting your own way.
meekon5, you are a funny guy. I lurked this forum for months, and it was no more busy back then than it is now. The points of of reference are all over the place, like the dude talking about tenets of Sikhism that seemed dudely to him; these kinds of faith-based posts often got same kind of result. It seems that Christians get the biggest attacks and "flames" every time. It's prejudice, bigotry, I tell you. Plain and simple. Hypocrisy.
And as usual, it's declined into "Dudeism must be what Iconocclesiastes says it must be."
I for one am getting sick and damn tired of being called names, and we're not allowed to disagree because Iconocclesiastes says so. I'm sick of being called a nihilist because I'm atheist and I dare not to agree. I'm sick of being called a cult because I want people to have differing opinions. I'm sick of being accused of having a clique because one person is being an asshole. I'm sick of being called a cult unless we conform to what ONE person says. ONE FUCKING PERSON. I'm tired of being told I shouldn't have an opinion or say anything, but someone else is allowed to attack others at every opportunity even when we try to be friendly. I can't say anything, I can't reply on certain threads, I can't have an opinion, I can't just abide unless I have some zealot attitude to push onto others. When did I ever say anyone else should be an atheist? When? Find me one reply when I said anyone should or must be one.
Everything is fine and quiet until ONE PERSON decides there must be an argument. What the fuck? When there isn't an argument, such as here (we all agree Ham is an idiot), oh hell no, let's start another argument about posers and cultists and cliques.
There were no problems in the past that weren't handled. But now suddenly we're being held hostage because ONE PERSON decides that Dudeism should be exactly as he sees fit. Oh wait, we're cultists. Wait, we're cliques! Wait, we're posers! Wait, we're hypocrites!
So instead of being easy going, we must make Dudeism into a political or religious pushy group, forcing others into it? We have to become a juggernaut, but only on certain terms? Does anyone else realize that sometimes, abiding means just letting others do their own thing. If they agree, they agree. If they don't, they don't. Abide doesn't mean forming an action committee and pushing things onto others. We're not Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not knocking on doors asking to speak to others about the Dude.
Oh no, I mentioned a Christian group. I'm back to being a nihilist atheist again. Curses! Now let's completely change Dudeism into what one person wants, because after all, things were perfectly fine in the past before us. So of course it needed change. How dare we have a working group and not realize the error of our ways.
We can't have atheists.
We can't have non-Americans.
We can't have anyone who hasn't watched the movie.
We can't have anyone who will disagree.
There was no burn. Stop thinking that.
Why not just tell us who's allowed to speak and what we're allowed to say. And don't dare say you don't care because that is a lie. Don't say we're all nihilists because we don't agree. A nihilist is one who totally rejects established norms and institutions; you're doing the same with Dudeism, saying we can't do this because you want to define it.
So just tell us what we can say, who can speak, and how we're supposed to conduct ourselves. Don't claim you're fine with it, because you're not. If not, just drop the bullshit and stick around. There are no cults or cliques or lynch mobs.
Otherwise, fuck it, I want my account deleted. I'm not going to have something I enjoyed hijacked for one person. I'm not kidding.
If you do not like it, Masked Dude, then seeya later. Remember: I am not the only Dudiest in the bar who feels this way, in terms of the manner in which the mods run things here. I only write for others who cannot (or will not) write for themselves; I am merely a mouthpiece. And I was lurking about for a good while, before I ever started posting anything here. And what's up with Woden, anyway, cckeiser?
Yawn. I'm gonna go take a nap. This is starting to bore me.
Thank you for being the new Messiah.
Quote from: Masked Dude on February 08, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
Thank you for being the new Messiah.
I am not the new Messiah, Masked Dude. I am merely a person who is pointing out the self-righteous hypocrisy that dominates this forum's culture (so to speak). And if you don't like it, then thank you for leaving.
Yawn. Naptime.
Well, thank you for at least showing your true colors; we all knew they were there...
So, just leave dude. But you seem to need to rant, which is okay for a time. After a while, it truly gets boring. And annoying. You'l find that many people who - if I can use the word - "evolve" to a more Taoist approach to life (read: philosophical as opposed to religious) seem to also have traversed "through" some kind of religious background to get to where they are today. They realize that the Abrahamic religions are old-school fables that were created for people for that time and place. Bullshit stories like talking snakes and donkeys, prophets being told to eat their own shit, living in the belly of a whale for 3 days, genocide, rape, etc. It's too incongruous to make any kind of sense to someone looking for a PEACEFUL ethos. One eventually gets to a place where he or she is not interested in worshiping a diety who gets his rocks off on being violent and jealous. Real seekers eventually give that shit up and replace it with something a little more dude-like.
So if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Keep up your accusations like what you wrote above, and you may just get you punted anyway - I say good riddance.
Any one else... ?
I think that what many here are really seeking is a conversation that they can control completely, and not a truly free or "general" discussion. Understood in this light, I can see how some might see my posts as trollish in nature. Why do I not just shut up and go away? Please allow me to answer this question, with a question: why don't you?
QuotePlease allow me to answer this question, with a question: why don't you?
Because you do not have the right to define dudeism, and tell everyone here how they're supposed to think, talk, and live. I think the term is "holier than thou". You've got it in spades dude.
If you don't leave voluntarily, or if you don't get punted, this will truly become the ghost town you accuse it of being. Then you can shine your fingernails, looking at a decimated forum board, and say to yourself "Great job dude."
You won't listen to logic; you just like to fight.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
... I am not the only Dudiest in the bar who feels this way, in terms of the manner in which the mods run things here. I only write for others who cannot (or will not) write for themselves; I am merely a mouthpiece. And I was lurking about for a good while, before I ever started posting anything here...
Again you don't quantify this "others who cannot (or will not) write" as I said before how many of our four thousand members do you claim to represent?
This is yet another hissy fit, which even references a previous rant.
Please tell me this is not because you were not invited to become an admin when you asked for it, and was rightfully told to wind your neck in (http://dudeism.com/smf/general-discussion/rev-iconoclesiastes%27-verse-from-a-sacred-text-%28other-the-bible%29-of-the-5170/msg43235/#msg43235), so you're now ranting against the admins.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
...Yawn. I'm gonna go take a nap. This is starting to bore me.
No one can be as bored as the rest of us with yet another set of histrionics from yourself.
Here we go again once more icon is stirring the pot I'm with masked dude on this one. I don't know about this silent majority icon is speaking for but the only person I see on here demanding everyone see his way as right is icon. Everybody else usually has a calm disscussion about their points of view until he jumps in flinging accusations. Realistically the fact that he hasnt been punted the hell out of this community is proof of exactly how tolerant the moderators are.
QuoteRealistically the fact that he hasnt been punted the hell out of this community is proof of exactly how tolerant the moderators are.
Ya, I'm quite puzzled by it actually. I refuse to leave on principle, as I don't want the little piece of shit to win. But others aren't necessarily seeing it that way and may leave for good out of frustration. This has to be stopped right now.
Watching this go on and seems that the thinking would be if it does not pertain to you, you dont respond as though it does. If the conscience is clear that your not in fault, no need to say anything.
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
Well, thank you for at least showing your true colors; we all knew they were there...
So, just leave dude. But you seem to need to rant, which is okay for a time. After a while, it truly gets boring. And annoying. You'l find that many people who - if I can use the word - "evolve" to a more Taoist approach to life (read: philosophical as opposed to religious) seem to also have traversed "through" some kind of religious background to get to where they are today. They realize that the Abrahamic religions are old-school fables that were created for people for that time and place. Bullshit stories like talking snakes and donkeys, prophets being told to eat their own shit, living in the belly of a whale for 3 days, genocide, rape, etc. It's too incongruous to make any kind of sense to someone looking for a PEACEFUL ethos. One eventually gets to a place where he or she is not interested in worshiping a diety who gets his rocks off on being violent and jealous. Real seekers eventually give that shit up and replace it with something a little more dude-like.
So if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Keep up your accusations like what you wrote above, and you may just get you punted anyway - I say good riddance.
Any one else... ?
For me, that above is why I would tend to agree with Icon. On serious level there are great many things that are historical in book such as the bible, others too. It is very hard to feel that any good words from you after saying that are sincere, rather I am often feeling that anything I hold dear, believe, or enjoy are making me some primate in yours and others sight. More evolved? Whatever! Thinking like this is why my children are afraid to believe and be honest in school of what they believe. Evolved, whatever... Fairy tales, maybe we can ask an ape... Genocide, rape... Tell that to the countless people right now being targeted by Muslims. Dont see anything being done about it, but sure that means christians are the same - BULLSHIT.... Funny who some of the metaphor is harped on as fables, but if it is done in Taoism or Buddhism (I do have high respect for teachings by them) it is more evolved...
Can anyone see that the remarks like "sky daddy" are not cool and is really hurtful. It is one reason why I whom does nothing to hurt anyone nor push anyhting on anyone, feels like my being here is disgusting to some most because they hate god.
This is just me saying it is how I feel, but dont think anyone cares. I can shrug it off, sure, but does anyone see how it does come across with the constant bashing? Whatever... most likely none care
I have called a council.
Please post your concerns here or PM the admins if you feel that's fairer.
Be aware that I am on UK time so some of the other admins may not be online yet.
You will admit that it was fair and Dudeist to let the guy have a try at fitting in.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:06:59 PM
..Can anyone see that the remarks like "sky daddy" are not cool and is really hurtful. It is one reason why I whom does nothing to hurt anyone nor push anyhting on anyone, feels like my being here is disgusting to some most because they hate god...
But then you're articulating your point of view and showing how it should be done.
Shag dude - I liberally use the term "Abrahamic" religions when expressing my opinions and explaining my beliefs, so don't get yer knickers in a twist thinking I'm criticising Christianity alone. But none of us are here to coddle your feelings either; you have to accept the fact that Taoism is something many religious people evolve to, plain and simple. No personal insult intended.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:06:59 PM
..Can anyone see that the remarks like "sky daddy" are not cool and is really hurtful. It is one reason why I whom does nothing to hurt anyone nor push anyhting on anyone, feels like my being here is disgusting to some most because they hate god...
But then you're articulating your point of view and showing how it should be done.
What... huh...? Look, I am saying that it is not appreciated to see that. I am not going around doing that. Shit, what am I teaching my kids wrong to tell them not to do these kinds of things? I am just being honest and not causing trouble. Hopefully my honesty is not taken as revolt.
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 03:16:31 PM
Shag dude - I liberally use the term "Abrahamic" religions when expressing my opinions and explaining my beliefs, so don't get yer knickers in a twist thinking I'm criticising Christianity alone. But none of us are here to coddle your feelings either; you have to accept the fact that Taoism is something many religious people evolve to, plain and simple. No personal insult intended.
Patronizing aside! Coddle my feelings... No where do I say that. However if because you think the way you said that 'evolve', piss off. I point out my side and made again to be some stupid ape.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:06:59 PM
..Can anyone see that the remarks like "sky daddy" are not cool and is really hurtful. It is one reason why I whom does nothing to hurt anyone nor push anyhting on anyone, feels like my being here is disgusting to some most because they hate god...
But then you're articulating your point of view and showing how it should be done.
What... huh...? Look, I am saying that it is not appreciated to see that. I am not going around doing that. Shit, what am I teaching my kids wrong to tell them not to do these kinds of things? I am just being honest and not causing trouble. Hopefully my honesty is not taken as revolt.
That's the point I'm trying to make, you're not being oppositional or revolutionary, you're just saying it upsets you. Which we should actually look at.
We're not anti-christian, and there are others who are christian here and Dudeist. Personally I'm a Dudeist Pagan, and stand for anyone to have as many gods as you feel is necessary. I feel sorry for you christians only having the one.
;D
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:06:59 PM
..Can anyone see that the remarks like "sky daddy" are not cool and is really hurtful. It is one reason why I whom does nothing to hurt anyone nor push anyhting on anyone, feels like my being here is disgusting to some most because they hate god...
But then you're articulating your point of view and showing how it should be done.
What... huh...? Look, I am saying that it is not appreciated to see that. I am not going around doing that. Shit, what am I teaching my kids wrong to tell them not to do these kinds of things? I am just being honest and not causing trouble. Hopefully my honesty is not taken as revolt.
That's the point I'm trying to make, you're not being oppositional or revolutionary, you're just saying it upsets you. Which we should actually look at.
We're not anti-christian, and there are others who are christian here and Dudeist. Personally I'm a Dudeist Pagan, and stand for anyone to have as many gods as you feel is necessary. I feel sorry for you christians only having the one.
;D
Shite... Meekon your the only bloke that made me just stop from pulling out of here. No need to feel sorry, though. If you know anything about me I see the plural word Elohim, exactly that ;) I am big fan of English Folk Church which well pm me if you ever are curious on that blathering.
Quotebecause they hate god...
Shag dude - there's no hatred of God. What there is disdain for is the behaviour of the god depicted in the Old Testament, the Torah, and the Koran. You'd be surprised how many non-theists do believe in a creative force; an energy that pervades the universe... I won't speak for anyone else on this forum because that conversation just hasn't happened, but MANY people who reject the god described in those texts previously mentioned are actually quite spiritual, moral, and loving. You (and most Christians I chat with) tend to side-step the objections I bring up about god's behaviour in the OT. Some justify it by saying he's the creator, so he makes his own rules. Doesn't stop anyone from seeing him as spoiled, conceited, proud, jealous, murderous, misogynistic, the list goes on. It truly is difficult to understand someone who accepts such behaviour as okay.
Please don't just react emotionally, feeling your faith has been insulted. I truly am trying to hear an explanation (and justification) for the behaviour of such a god without being told - "It's a mystery...".
Again, this is NOT personal! I think you're a cool dude...
What I am seeing again and again here is a polite discussion about points of view. Until icon jumps in kicks the hornets nest gets every one furious and then it turns nasty. Plain and simple the man is a troll looking to get a rise from people. The discussions are usually polite and considerate until he comes in ranting and people retaliate. Shagbeard your a Christian and that's cool I like you you discuss your point you don't preach and I enjoy your opinions.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:33:37 PM
...I see the plural word Elohim, exactly that ;)
There's some very interesting Jewish Feminist Archeology that claims to prove Judeism actually had a male and female deity originally.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:33:37 PM
I am big fan of English Folk Church which well pm me if you ever are curious on that blathering.
I have lectured on Modern Paganism before. It's a personal specialisation of mine.
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 03:36:36 PM
Quotebecause they hate god...
Shag dude - there's no hatred of God. What there is disdain for is the behaviour of the god depicted in the Old Testament, the Torah, and the Koran. You'd be surprised how many non-theists do believe in a creative force; an energy that pervades the universe... I won't speak for anyone else on this forum because that conversation just hasn't happened, but MANY people who reject the god described in those texts previously mentioned are actually quite spiritual, moral, and loving. You (and most Christians I chat with) tend to side-step the objections I bring up about god's behaviour in the OT. Some justify it by saying he's the creator, so he makes his own rules. Doesn't stop anyone from seeing him as spoiled, conceited, proud, jealous, murderous, misogynistic, the list goes on. It truly is difficult to understand someone who accepts such behaviour as okay.
Please don't just react emotionally, feeling your faith has been insulted. I truly am trying to hear an explanation (and justification) for the behaviour of such a god without being told - "It's a mystery...".
I am not totally trusting of some of the old time translaters. There is proof that some changes happened, so I take the learning and teaching. I see come forward in the NT and the old is renewed. Mysteries, well, I seek and live as best I can, not making new reasonings. To me it is history by a certain view point, teaching to treat people good, metaphor to stimulate active thinking on how to do better and grow etc etc etc
QuoteMeekon your the only bloke that made me just stop from pulling out of here.
Don't pull out! You're liked here...
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:33:37 PM
...I see the plural word Elohim, exactly that ;)
There's some very interesting Jewish Feminist Archeology that claims to prove Judeism actually had a male and female deity originally.
Get out of town! Really, you gotta PM me some links on that.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
I have lectured on Modern Paganism before. It's a personal specialisation of mine.
So heard of EFC?
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
... I am not the only Dudiest in the bar who feels this way, in terms of the manner in which the mods run things here. I only write for others who cannot (or will not) write for themselves; I am merely a mouthpiece. And I was lurking about for a good while, before I ever started posting anything here...
Again you don't quantify this "others who cannot (or will not) write" as I said before how many of our four thousand members do you claim to represent?
This is yet another hissy fit, which even references a previous rant.
Please tell me this is not because you were not invited to become an admin when you asked for it, and was rightfully told to wind your neck in (http://dudeism.com/smf/general-discussion/rev-iconoclesiastes%27-verse-from-a-sacred-text-%28other-the-bible%29-of-the-5170/msg43235/#msg43235), so you're now ranting against the admins.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
...Yawn. I'm gonna go take a nap. This is starting to bore me.
No one can be as bored as the rest of us with yet another set of histrionics from yourself.
meekon5, that's weak. I never asked to become a moderator of this forum. That's an asinine straw-man argument from you.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:33:37 PM
...I see the plural word Elohim, exactly that ;)
There's some very interesting Jewish Feminist Archeology that claims to prove Judeism actually had a male and female deity originally.
Get out of town! Really, you gotta PM me some links on that.
That's stuff from my dissertation (about twenty years ago) I will have to dig around for that.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
I have lectured on Modern Paganism before. It's a personal specialisation of mine.
So heard of EFC?
One of the things about modern paganism is the huge breadth of the subject. For ref (a bit long but the text of my lecture) (http://meekon5.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/good-bad-and-pagan-paganism-and-neo.html).
I will admit no I haven't heard of the EFC specifically (I'm always interested in new info), but then the head of my department was telling me about something a friend of his had been doing the weekend before. It took a while before I realised he was mispronouncing Wassale, he looked a bit disappointed that I knew what his mate had been doing.
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
QuoteRealistically the fact that he hasnt been punted the hell out of this community is proof of exactly how tolerant the moderators are.
Ya, I'm quite puzzled by it actually. I refuse to leave on principle, as I don't want the little piece of shit to win. But others aren't necessarily seeing it that way and may leave for good out of frustration. This has to be stopped right now.
Actually, this is precisely the reason as to why I myself refuse to just "shut up and go away". In my mind, I refuse to let the nihilist hypocrites win.
And in order for me to tell all of who who exactly that I am speaking for (the "we" that I'd mentioned) then I'd have to break confidences that I will not break.
Look at it this way: if you were to punt me for being the one who openly resists and speaks out against the forum groupthink, then all you'd have left is a handful of regular posters who all have the same basic worldview. What are there, like ten or twelve people who post here on a regular basis? In other words: if you banned me, then all you'd have left is a little forum clique.
I'm not a forum troll, I'm a gadfly; that's what my name is Rev. Iconocclesiastes. Iconoclast + Ecclesiastes = Iconocclesiastes. Maybe I should have named myself "Rev. Gadfly" instead. Every society needs its gadflies, in order to challenge the status quo and act as a
provocateur. Or would you prefer that everybody here agree with everybody else?
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 04:20:31 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:33:37 PM
...I see the plural word Elohim, exactly that ;)
There's some very interesting Jewish Feminist Archeology that claims to prove Judeism actually had a male and female deity originally.
Get out of town! Really, you gotta PM me some links on that.
That's stuff from my dissertation (about twenty years ago) I will have to dig around for that.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on February 08, 2014, 03:41:13 PM
I have lectured on Modern Paganism before. It's a personal specialisation of mine.
So heard of EFC?
One of the things about modern paganism is the huge breadth of the subject. For ref (a bit long but the text of my lecture) (http://meekon5.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/good-bad-and-pagan-paganism-and-neo.html).
I will admit no I haven't heard of the EFC specifically (I'm always interested in new info), but then the head of my department was telling me about something a friend of his had been doing the weekend before. It took a while before I realised he was mispronouncing Wassale, he looked a bit disappointed that I knew what his mate had been doing.
Ok if you come across it let me know. I hit you up on fb so you know
Yeah the EFC is a christo heathen approach and not any real big thing outside of the site.
I will pm you the link or I can give it to you on fb. Let me know...
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
QuoteRealistically the fact that he hasnt been punted the hell out of this community is proof of exactly how tolerant the moderators are.
Ya, I'm quite puzzled by it actually. I refuse to leave on principle, as I don't want the little piece of shit to win. But others aren't necessarily seeing it that way and may leave for good out of frustration. This has to be stopped right now.
Actually, this is precisely the reason as to why I myself refuse to just "shut up and go away". In my mind, I refuse to let the nihilist hypocrites win.
And in order for me to tell all of who who exactly that I am speaking for (the "we" that I'd mentioned) then I'd have to break confidences that I will not break.
Look at it this way: if you were to punt me for being the one who openly resists and speaks out against the forum groupthink, then all you'd have left is a handful of regular posters who all have the same basic worldview. What are there, like ten or twelve people who post here on a regular basis? In other words: if you banned me, then all you'd have left is a little forum clique.
I'm not a forum troll, I'm a gadfly; that's what my name is Rev. Iconocclesiastes. Iconoclast + Ecclesiastes = Iconocclesiastes. Maybe I should have named myself "Rev. Gadfly" instead. Every society needs its gadflies, in order to challenge the status quo and act as a provocateur. Or would you prefer that everybody here agree with everybody else?
I'm the WalrusOh wait, no...I'm the Shagbeard dude 8)
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 12:58:25 PM
Most of you are merely about posting stupid little things, and busy talking about a whole lot of nothing; the whole concept of Dudeism to most of you is a fairy-tale belief that you seem think gives you an excuse to act like lazy fools. Actually standing for anything is repulsive to you until it is to be anti-God. You are mostly all smart-asses and pussies who are full of hatred for those who are not part of your clique. If you call yourselves Dudiests, then I call you hypocrites and Anti-Dudes.
Well, I ought not have called anybody "pussies". That was out of line of me, and I regret that using choice of words. However, I stand by the
spirit of what I wrote, but not every
letter of what I wrote.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 12:58:25 PM
Well, I ought not have called anybody "pussies". That was out of line of me, and I regret that using choice of words. However, I stand by the spirit of what I wrote, but not every letter of what I wrote.
Now, maybe the the butt-brain talking thing was over the line too...? maybe they need to not smoke the heavy Indica during waking hours.
Now Dudes, remember toke responsibly... Do not toke and drive and use Sativa in the morning and day and Indica at bedtime 8)
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 06:19:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 06:03:06 PM
Well, I ought not have called anybody "pussies". That was out of line of me, and I regret that using choice of words. However, I stand by the spirit of what I wrote, but not every letter of what I wrote.
Now, maybe the the butt-brain talking thing was over the line too...? maybe they need to not smoke the heavy Indica during waking hours.
Now Dudes, remember toke responsibly... Do not toke and drive and use Sativa in the morning and day and Indica at bedtime 8)
Huh? Was that a typo, Shagbeard?
Quote from: Hominid on February 08, 2014, 02:47:42 PM
QuotePlease allow me to answer this question, with a question: why don't you?
Because you do not have the right to define dudeism, and tell everyone here how they're supposed to think, talk, and live. I think the term is "holier than thou". You've got it in spades dude.
If you don't leave voluntarily, or if you don't get punted, this will truly become the ghost town you accuse it of being. Then you can shine your fingernails, looking at a decimated forum board, and say to yourself "Great job dude."
You won't listen to logic; you just like to fight.
Quote from: Hominid on November 24, 2011, 11:36:49 PM
One thing to add is that when we discuss these various interpretations of what Dudeism is, we sometimes make the assumption that was DB is saying, or Rev. Ed is saying, or what m5 is saying is that THEIR interpretation and opinion is THE take on Dudeism. Rev. Ed's is more proactive, engaging, and socially responsible. We do indeed need people to produce. Then we need the slackers who buy what is produced. It's a rainbow; a combination of the various colours of Dudeism is what's needed, not a single interpretation that is THE only interpretation. Of course, all within the bounds of agreed upon principles and practices of a zen approach to life...
Make sense?
Self-righteous hypocrisy from Hominid, of the Dudeism forum clique: Exhibit Number One. What ever happened to Rev. Ed, anyway? He seemed very level-headed, and way cool.
http://dudeism.com/smf/dudeist-spiritualism/engaged-dudeism/30/ (http://dudeism.com/smf/dudeist-spiritualism/engaged-dudeism/30/)
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 06:25:05 PM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 06:19:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 06:03:06 PM
Well, I ought not have called anybody "pussies". That was out of line of me, and I regret that using choice of words. However, I stand by the spirit of what I wrote, but not every letter of what I wrote.
Now, maybe the the butt-brain talking thing was over the line too...? maybe they need to not smoke the heavy Indica during waking hours.
Now Dudes, remember toke responsibly... Do not toke and drive and use Sativa in the morning and day and Indica at bedtime 8)
Huh? Was that a typo, Shagbeard?
(//)
Toke responsibly...
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 08, 2014, 06:48:52 PM
Toke responsibly...
Dude, I
wish that I had some inhalable flora tonight. But alas, I do not. Oh well; I'll have more soon. I'll just have a shot of Glenlivet instead.
Ok so Hamm could use some Barley pop and a good J
Now, anyone else have thoughts on this thread?
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 08, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
Look at it this way: if you were to punt me for being the one who openly resists and speaks out against the forum groupthink, then all you'd have left is a handful of regular posters who all have the same basic worldview. What are there, like ten or twelve people who post here on a regular basis? In other words: if you banned me, then all you'd have left is a little forum clique.
But here's the thing, Dude, I (like others, I'd imagine) come to the Dudeism forum precisely because I'm interested in hearing from regular posters who are united by a common worldview, Dudeism. What you're calling a clique or groupthink is actually just people getting together to talk about a common worldview.
You seem to have different ideas about what this forum is about -- your most notable contributions are your weekly quotes from sacred scripture and your weekly outbursts about atheism, nihilism, groupthink, and the like. Somehow these have really taken center stage on the forum, which is unfortunate because they aren't of much interest to a person who's just looking for a little Dudeist companionship and they really seem to contribute to a hostile environment. That's not entirely your fault, but you are a big player in it. I'm guessing you probably wouldn't be happy with an actual peaceful series of dialogues-- you seem to really thrive on ruffling feathers and warning against the dangers of mind control.
I actually hesitate to write anything here because I know that these outbursts are how you get people to engage with you. Maybe you don't feel like you're being heard unless you're speaking with some degree of indignation about the group. I don't know, man. But what's clear to me is you want this forum to be something it's not, and you would like to have a lead role in reshaping it. That's a losing battle, Dude, and one that I wish you would abandon or take elsewhere.
On the other hand, man, if you want to talk about the art of taking it easy, strategies for dealing with your inner Walter, funny schtuff, you know the stuff Dudeism is founded on, by all means, Dude, let's do it.
Quote from: MindAbiding on February 08, 2014, 11:04:13 PM
On the other hand, man, if you want to talk about the art of taking it easy, strategies for dealing with your inner Walter, funny schtuff, you know the stuff Dudeism is founded on, by all means, Dude, let's do it.
I find it frustrating to share or even talk with majority of Christians that throw science far to the side in favor of literalist view. I see the metaphor, and can not figure why they do not. I am seen as uneducated in such things or as a heretic, but not so. I just, I guess see Christianity much different than the majority and it has been this way from the get go. There have been others over the 2 millennia that have Zen Tao Jinjiao mindset and for the most part I would say Dudely. But they always are seen as heretics and what have you.
Sorry was blathering
Peace
Dudeists, Dudeists, Uber Alles...tonight I drink to the memory of August Landmesser, a Great Dude in History (in my book).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser)
Wrong board for that Icon, it is over... oh I see you put it there and here. sigh
Are you seeking attention? Go get Mary Jane and relax. No need on stepping on random threads, man.
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 09:41:20 AM
For my part: I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than life my life as if there isn't and die to find out that there is. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
I'm just amazed at this kind of thinking.
How does one "Decide" what to believe like picking out a tie?
I simply CAN'T believe in things that are preposterous. It's not a choice.
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:05:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 09:41:20 AM
For my part: I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than life my life as if there isn't and die to find out that there is. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
I'm just amazed at this kind of thinking.
How does one "Decide" what to believe like picking out a tie?
I simply CAN'T believe in things that are preposterous. It's not a choice.
Opinions are like buttholes, dude. Everybody has one.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 06, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
Seems like you guys have not been around to see that not all christian types take a word for word literal aproach to creation. I dont and know of others that dont as well. Yes there are those that will debate until blue in face that the earth is 6000 years old... Even an antiquity Jewish sage defends it by saying that during the flood something makes it impossible to see past rightly. If I come across it I will share it. However, I see the whole of the allworld or universe as being billions of years old and the earth as very old to. I do believe and I say believe as in science and faith can and do work together like Einstein and Tesla have demonstrated in their works. I believe that there is a creator, nothing that can be defined anymore than anyone can explain and understand everything in seen and unseen space. Light has a speed limit, so we have only seen as far as that limit has allowed. Our planet has been around a few billion years and man as we know perhaps about 20,000 years. It is, as far as I seen in science not been proven of any middle stages of primate to upright man with speech ability. Random mutation in an nearly over night theory is one I have heard but, that would mean we should take Marvel super heroes serious as possible. I believe that the creative force caused things to happen at certain times and by whatever means and purpose it put forth. Not being hung up or pushing this creative force has been part of select scientists that do hold belief in it and have no problem being helpful in great break throughs in science and discovery.
Hamm, to me represents a portion of bleivers, not all. He can do it till he is blue in face, but at the end of day we have to move along and deal with where the pins lay. We can point finger and say anyone that believes in higher power is like Hamm or any of the others on the literalist belief represent all of them. Or we can just say, nice opinion, and move on... Cant be getting our Walter on, nor worrying about this shit argument. Some believe in higher power some dont, but it has no bearing on being dude if one does or doesn't. Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.
Show me where the church , Vatican etc take any such less literal position and I'll listen.
If it can be shown that most neo nazi's don't hold to the Nazi ideas of Hitler change what being a Nazi means?
Of course not. It's not a chinese menu where people get to pick out what they believe.
The bible says what it says. It's not a book keeping error where they just haven't gotten around to fixing it.
I like the quote that Penn Gillette says. "How many turds can be in the pool before you refuse to jump in?"
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 09, 2014, 12:08:15 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:05:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 09:41:20 AM
For my part: I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than life my life as if there isn't and die to find out that there is. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
I'm just amazed at this kind of thinking.
How does one "Decide" what to believe like picking out a tie?
I simply CAN'T believe in things that are preposterous. It's not a choice.
Opinions are like buttholes, dude. Everybody has one.
Constructive as you always are.
Why would you bother posting something like this.
It's like you are 12 years old. There is probably nothing that is more of a cliche that the ideas and assholes thing.
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time.
You are talking (in terms of the temporal) about the difference between the
messenger, and the
message, yes, Shagbeard? Do I take your meaning here?
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:16:34 AM
It's like you are 12 years old. There is probably nothing that is more of a cliche that the ideas and assholes thing.
Whatever you say, man. But am I wrong?
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 07:34:08 PM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
This clarifies Einstein's religious beliefs.
Quote
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even na?ve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[12][13][14]
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:29:51 AM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 06, 2014, 07:34:08 PM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
This clarifies Einstein's religious beliefs.
Quote
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even na?ve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[12][13][14]
Opinions are like buttholes, Professor Einstein. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 09, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time.
You are talking (in terms of the temporal) about the difference between the messenger, and the message, yes, Shagbeard? Do I take your meaning here?
I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet. I am saying I see science give some great insight and balance. Zen Koan - How do you find truth? Well how do you realize truth? [Neither can be answered with out the other.]
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:34:09 AM
I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet.
Nor do I believe in a 6000 year old planet. And I do not believe that the Earth was created in six literal 24-hour cycles. And I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, nor a literal burning-lake-of-fire Chick Tract version of hell.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?
I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:34:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. Iconocclesiastes on February 09, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time.
You are talking (in terms of the temporal) about the difference between the messenger, and the message, yes, Shagbeard? Do I take your meaning here?
I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet. I am saying I see science give some great insight and balance. Zen Koan - How do you find truth? Well how do you realize truth? [Neither can be answered with out the other.]
But then the truth is that they are not really "in it".
Those churches do not allow for that sort of choice. They can go to church and self apply the label but as far as those churches are concerned unless you buy the whole bucket of shit you just aren't a member.
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?
I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?
What you are talking of now is the many counsels that keep adding this and that. I dont care of that, only the original free thinking first. I could care less for all the dogma and counsels, it was never needed. So if they want to ever zero in on me and go at it, well whatever, that is on them. They can go keep adding stuff, does not mean I see it valid. Do you see every law and regulation in the States and Federal as valid and/or agree and see eye to eye with? Truth is you and everyone else does not, so does this make non American? (Same can be applied where ever they live)
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:48:22 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on February 09, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 12:17:48 AM
Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?
I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?
What you are talking of now is the many counsels that keep adding this and that. I dont care of that, only the original free thinking first. I could care less for all the dogma and counsels, it was never needed. So if they want to ever zero in on me and go at it, well whatever, that is on them. They can go keep adding stuff, does not mean I see it valid. Do you see every law and regulation in the States and Federal as valid and/or agree and see eye to eye with? Truth is you and everyone else does not, so does this make non American? (Same can be applied where ever they live)
No I'm talking about the outright evil in the bible that has been there all along. A lot of it.
If America had laws that I found truly evil then yes I would either insist that they be changed or I could not "be an American".
In the context of religion a person has a choice to go to church and watch the priest raise the bible above his head and recite the Nicene creed or not to. The bible to me is simply overflowing with vile beliefs. They are in there and have never been removed. The book spells out a world view that people buy or not.
Again would a person calling themselves a Neo Nazi be able to call themselves a good person if they didn't believe in killing Jews. Of course not. You just can't ignore the evil baggage.
I've shown this video before but it is IMO a good illustration of the "problem".
The fact is that Dr. Craig in the video is stating the actual beliefs of the church where the slaughter of the Canaanites are concerned. The story of the destruction of the Canaanites is in the bible exactly to illustrate the morality of wholesale slaughter as an expression of "God's will". The fact is that there is a great deal of evil implicit in the very core of christian belief. The average armchair catholic in my experience has never even read the bible. And they don't actually support any actual beliefs. It is culture not belief. Most have very little idea of what the actual beliefs of their own religion are with any precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc)
How does this guy's opinions out weigh the average half ass christian?
Well....
Quote
From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[8]
Quote
To be honest, BikerDude, sounds like you are singling out one thing. That is fine, I hear you, but does not mean I have to agree. Thank you for your ideas and thoughts on it. If I am given the same, in return, to at least hear me on it: I say that the teaching i was raised with was not to be war mongering but to peace seeking and the things of the OT are not paramount. Beyond that any and all systems whatever they may be would have to be scrutinized and I do not think they can stand under scrutiny for being without bad in it.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 01:27:15 AM
To be honest, BikerDude, sounds like you are singling out one thing. That is fine, I hear you, but does not mean I have to agree. Thank you for your ideas and thoughts on it. If I am given the same, in return, to at least hear me on it: I say that the teaching i was raised with was not to be war mongering but to peace seeking and the things of the OT are not paramount. Beyond that any and all systems whatever they may be would have to be scrutinized and I do not think they can stand under scrutiny for being without bad in it.
One thing?
Slavery was traditionally justified through bible verses that clearly advocate it.
Do you believe that unruly children should be beaten? The bible says so. Is it any wonder that schools in the bible belt still allow corporal punishment
How about some more genocide?
Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
How about a gem like this?
Psalm 137, "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
It goes on and on and on and on.
And Jesus did not refute any of this in fact he instructed his follower that all the "laws" be obeyed.
The very core belief that Jesus is returning to "Judge" the unfaithful is 100% central to any christian world view and shows a strong conviction to the idea that all non christian shall and should be punished.
How does it make sense for people to just gloss over all this stuff and pare it down to some sliver of subset that they can Abide with?
Yes you are all about the evil of one book. One thing...
I am not quoting anything here you are, please remember that ok. lol
And are you really going to keep this up? Seriously, you want to talk about evil a whole lot. I can come up with evil from every belief so no point in going on with it.
And do not even start preaching at me about how I do or dont raise me children. That is
WAY OVER THE LINE!
Shaggy dude, I don't think anyone here dislikes you or hates on you due impart to your religious believes. Second, I don't know if you live in the USA but if you do; do you realize that fellows with your set of believes are the majority? Folks with lack of believes or lack of believes in deities are the minority. All day long there is a bombardment of religious beliefs presented to Americans regardless of their believes. Now that to me is right out disrespect. I really believe (hypothetically) that if I was to meet you somewhere in the real world and we never touch religion and politics, we could get along just fine. I think that's were "abide" comes in: unification of different points of views and walks of life through a mutual interest. Good vibes to you Shaggy dude and to your kin.
Quote from: elgranduderino on February 09, 2014, 01:53:40 AM
Shaggy dude, I don't think anyone here dislikes you or hates on you due impart to your religious believes. Second, I don't know if you live in the USA but if you do; do you realize that fellows with your set of believes are the majority? Folks with lack of believes or lack of believes in deities are the minority. All day long there is a bombardment of religious beliefs presented to Americans regardless of their believes. Now that to me is right out disrespect. I really believe (hypothetically) that if I was to meet you somewhere in the real world and we never touch religion and politics, we could get along just fine. I think that's were "abide" comes in: unification of different points of views and walks of life through a mutual interest. Good vibes to you Shaggy dude and to your kin.
Thanx and same back at you.
I'm not a Christian don't know a lot about the religion. But I truly think you can be a Christian take the bible look at it and realize there is good truth in there along with a lot if crap thrown in to serve other needs. At the end of the day take what you want from it and use what you need. Find your own way your still a Christian that's how so many branches of Christianity started. Religion is about faith some people need someone to lead them so the follow the masses and others intupretation. Other people follow their own path neither is perfect neither is 100% right or wrong. That's my view of it. I'm support shagbeard on this we all find our way on the path that suits us.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 09, 2014, 01:46:06 AM
Yes you are all about the evil of one book. One thing...
I am not quoting anything here you are, please remember that ok. lol
And are you really going to keep this up? Seriously, you want to talk about evil a whole lot. I can come up with evil from every belief so no point in going on with it.
And do not even start preaching at me about how I do or dont raise me children. That is
WAY OVER THE LINE!
I understand you are not quoting anything. But how else is anyone to talk about Christianity or religion if the very books that define it don't constitute belief? I mean people need to step back and think about what they are saying when they simply overlook this. It is a special treatment that religion receives. In any other portion of life some group, religion or philosophy that
clearly documents belief in child abuse, slavery, genocide etc etc gets called on it. I simply don't buy that a person can call themselves a christian and not answer for this stuff. Any more than someone can call themselves a Nazi and not answer for the holocaust.
I'm actually not aware of anywhere else where this type of evil is codified (except in areas we all concede are in fact evil like the Nazi's)
Show me somewhere else where the dogma clearly support "dashing children against rocks" as passages in the bible do.
Yes there is evil in the world but religion is singular in it's documented support and advocacy of it. I really can't think of any others.
The term that gets thrown around is the "in the name of". This stuff is not in the name of anything. It is in the book. In black and white. Show me another example of that sort of thing.
It is a matter of historical fact that the Confederacy (and centuries of slave trade) justified slavery directly from the bible.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm)
In what sense does some individual belief system that is not in fact accepted by the very churches that individuals claim to be members in any way relevant? Clearly there is a philosophy that is carefully and clearly laid out in black and white. In my opinion the only thing that matters in any discussion about religion is what the religion it's self says that it believes.