The Dudeism Forum

Hello Dudes!
I am a very passionate atheist, because I believe that religions only hinder human advancement. But then I ran into dudeism and its philosophy matches my way of thinking. I therefore signed up even though religion is against every set of principle I have.
I now want to ask you, whether or not you believe that it is possible to call myself as an atheist and a dude.
Thanks  :)

Yes, because I do, too. I'm more in the camp that I don't see the use for religion. It doesn't do any good, but I'll respect another's right to believe and practice as they see fit.

The reason, in my opinion, we can be dudeists and atheists is that anyone can have a philosophy that helps one to deal with the world and feelings. You don't need a religion or invisible friend to learn how and why you think.

To me the Dudeist philosophy is take 'er easy, man, you get one life so don't fuck it up. A religion would be only the Dude has the one true path and Ollie the Dudely Lama is the one true speaker.

No one, not even Ollie, agrees with the latter. I like Ollie but would have no problem with telling him to take a hike if he ever said that. No one would. That's why we love the guy and why he loves us. :)

Quote from: kiksen on May 16, 2014, 06:45:09 PM
Hello Dudes!
I am a very passionate atheist, because I believe that religions only hinder human advancement. But then I ran into dudeism and its philosophy matches my way of thinking. I therefore signed up even though religion is against every set of principle I have.
I now want to ask you, whether or not you believe that it is possible to call myself as an atheist and a dude.
Thanks  :)

Welcome kiksen dude to our quiet beach community. Grab a lane a roll a few, mang. Good to have you here. Bars just over there, have an oat soda.

Quote from: kiksen on May 16, 2014, 06:45:09 PM

I now want to ask you, whether or not you believe that it is possible to call myself as an atheist and a dude.

Fucking eh. 8)

Dudism is called a religion but in my opinion most religions try to explain the universe. Put everything in a neat order with an explanation for everything. Then as long as you follow the rules you get to be part of the machine and feel important. The reality is shit happens because shit happens that's life. Dudism is about finding as much happiness as you can while letting the shit that's out of your control happen and not leave you face down in the mud. I like to think of it as a way of approaching life not a way to explain or control it. That's just me rambling on though.

let's rephrase the question.
Can/may a dudeist be an atheist. About the same as asking Cam/may a Doctor be an Atheist.
When it comes to spiritual shit....dudeism doesn't care.
Dudeism remains Agnostic and Apathetic....."We don't know and we don't care."
That is not to say we each cannot hold to belief or other, but for Dudeism it is best to leave such beliefs at the door.
Anything that get people uptight and their pantiesin a twist is not dude.
Just like my opinion dudes. 8)

Quote from: cckeiser on May 18, 2014, 12:23:31 AM
let's rephrase the question.
Can/may a dudeist be an atheist. About the same as asking Cam/may a Doctor be an Atheist.
When it comes to spiritual shit....dudeism doesn't care.
Dudeism remains Agnostic and Apathetic....."We don't know and we don't care."
That is not to say we each cannot hold to belief or other, but for Dudeism it is best to leave such beliefs at the door.
Anything that get people uptight and their pantiesin a twist is not dude.
Just like my opinion dudes. 8)

I'll drink to that. 8)

To be honest we have a number of flavours of Dudeism here.

I personally count myself a Pagan Dudeist, and see no contradiction in that because I have  always seen myself as a Zen/Taoist Pagan previously and see Dudeism as the logical development of the western Zen/Taoist path making a logical synthesis between them and the western point of view.

In answer to the question, yes you can be a Dudeist atheist, but you don't have to be.

My difficulty lies in organized religion. It tends to be used to achieve 2 main goals; money and control. So I guess I would be called an anti-theist. Fuck the church.
As far as the man in the sky I guess I'm agnostic because I just don't know but I'm in good company because nobody else does, either.
As far as the question of whether or not Jesus walked the earth at one time I suppose it's possible, just like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. I wasn't there to see any of the 3 so I guess I don't place it outside the realm of possibility but as to whether I could testify under oath as to their existence.....Nope.
I guess certain things are subject to our ability to grant faith to a statement of a particular entity's existence Like any of the 3 figures I mentioned above. People always say that the bible is the word of god handed down directly to us from the lord above. I guess that's why every version that I've ever heard of was written by a king/ruler of some sort. Again, that takes me back to control and money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3utXOYEqK3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3utXOYEqK3o)
The first 2 minutes of the clip says it all.

Simply, Dudeism is atheistic (we have no Dudeist deity), but individual Dudeists need not be atheists or theists.

Basically what everyone else said, just bite sized.

I don't think a person's belief or disbelief in God enters into Dudeism.
Except that typically a person believing in God inevitably finds themselves following one of the established religions. Those are tough to reconcile with Dudeism IMO.

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

The thing about the Dude is that he can make room for different types of people (Walter, The Stranger, Maud, Marty and his dance cycle).  The Dude is not easily threatened and can therefore transcend socio-economicand religious barriers (Pasadena millionaires, feminist artists, North Hollywood teenagers, Hedonist Malibu garden parties, nihilists, and those who are millitantly Shomer Shabbas). That doesn't mean that the Dude doesn't have an opinion or that he agree with everyone, i.e. "you human paraquat!" but he knows how to flow through life, taking the "gutters" with the  "strikes." The question "can I be an atheist and practice dudeism" is kind of a non-sequitir since the core tenant of Dudism is that you can't get uptight about that shit. You don't need to ask permission or let other people define you - besides they're all a bunch of "sinners" anyhow. That said, it turns that practicing Dudism and learning to truly abide is a very spiritual and "zesty enterprise!"

Quote from: cckeiser on May 18, 2014, 12:23:31 AM
let's rephrase the question.
Can/may a dudeist be an atheist. About the same as asking Cam/may a Doctor be an Atheist.
When it comes to spiritual shit....dudeism doesn't care.
Dudeism remains Agnostic and Apathetic....."We don't know and we don't care."
That is not to say we each cannot hold to belief or other, but for Dudeism it is best to leave such beliefs at the door.
Anything that get people uptight and their pantiesin a twist is not dude.
Just like my opinion dudes. 8)

I do notice that the atheists amongst us have jumped on this question and answered in the positive.

I think the atheists are being as prescriptive as certain problem Christians here.

You may say your dudeism is atheist, but you may not tell me mine is atheist because it is not.

This is the problem I have with Richard Dawkins at the moment he has become as evangelical as those he proports to oppose.

I actually concur with cc on this.

Dudeism does not state "there is no god" so can't be atheist.

Dudeism does not care and can't be bothered.

By default Dudeism is agnostic (by none action).

In fact in stating dudeism doesn't care we are actually opening ourselves to all types of faith and none faith Dudeists, you can be;

An Atheist,
A Buddhist,
a Jew,
a Christian,
a Mormon,
a Hindu,
a Pagan,
a Wiccan,
a Druid,
a Sikh,
an Agnostic,
An I haven't even ever bothered to think about it,

We just don't care, any of you are welcome.

The reason people like Icon were banned recently was not because they were christians, but because they continued to wave their opinions, and preach their line as absolute, in our faces unwanted.

Dudeism is not Athiest unless you feel that is what you need it to be.

Quote from: meekon5 on May 20, 2014, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: cckeiser on May 18, 2014, 12:23:31 AM
let's rephrase the question.
Can/may a dudeist be an atheist. About the same as asking Cam/may a Doctor be an Atheist.
When it comes to spiritual shit....dudeism doesn't care.
Dudeism remains Agnostic and Apathetic....."We don't know and we don't care."
That is not to say we each cannot hold to belief or other, but for Dudeism it is best to leave such beliefs at the door.
Anything that get people uptight and their pantiesin a twist is not dude.
Just like my opinion dudes. 8)

I do notice that the atheists amongst us have jumped on this question and answered in the positive.

I think the atheists are being as prescriptive as certain problem Christians here.

You may say your dudeism is atheist, but you may not tell me mine is atheist because it is not.

This is the problem I have with Richard Dawkins at the moment he has become as evangelical as those he proports to oppose.

I actually concur with cc on this.

Dudeism does not state "there is no god" so can't be atheist.

Dudeism does not care and can't be bothered.

By default Dudeism is agnostic (by none action).

In fact in stating dudeism doesn't care we are actually opening ourselves to all types of faith and none faith Dudeists, you can be;

An Atheist,
A Buddhist,
a Jew,
a Christian,
a Mormon,
a Hindu,
a Pagan,
a Wiccan,
a Druid,
a Sikh,
an Agnostic,
An I haven't even ever bothered to think about it,

We just don't care, any of you are welcome.

The reason people like Icon were banned recently was not because they were christians, but because they continued to wave their opinions, and preach their line as absolute, in our faces unwanted.

Dudeism is not Athiest unless you feel that is what you need it to be.

Unless the clearly stated beliefs of those faiths are in opposition to the principles of Dudeism.
Then one of the other has to give.
A person would need to either bend the rules of the faith to accommodate a Dudeist stance or be less Dude to be of the faith.
I would not make a claim that a person can not be of any given faith and be a Dudeist but I would state that the beliefs of some faiths are diametrically opposed to the basic principles of Dudeism. A faith, any faith is not Identity. It is belief.
As the first thing that any person sees to do with Dudeism is "An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness". As soon as one goes down the road of a theist position of a personal and involved God aligning the inevitable outcomes with Dudeism IMPO becomes like putting a camel through the eye of a needle.
The idea that "Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it" does not IMO resemble most of the religious "biggies". They make no bones about the idea that they DO know what to do about it. They actively prescribe a way and go so far as to say any other way is bound for all sorts of ugliness.
Now beyond that I'd rather not go down the same old road of people pointing out that most "moderate" whatevers don't think that way. It's been hashed over ad nauseum.

My point was that it's possible. I'm not some sort of evangelical or militant atheist. I can't think of a time when I've watched or read anything by Dawkins or really any of them that do interviews.

So if anyone thinks I'm trying to deconvert or push it, it means I've not typed it right or they've missed my points.

But I agree Dudeism has no actual stance on it. I'm sure most like it that way. :)

Sorry Dudes my comments may have come across harsher than I actually meant them.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 20, 2014, 07:53:55 AM
...
A person would need to either bend the rules of the faith to accommodate a Dudeist stance or be less Dude to be of the faith.
I would not make a claim that a person can not be of any given faith and be a Dudeist but I would state that the beliefs of some faiths are diametrically opposed to the basic principles of Dudeism. A faith, any faith is not Identity. It is belief.
As the first thing that any person sees to do with Dudeism is "An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness". As soon as one goes down the road of a theist position of a personal and involved God aligning the inevitable outcomes with Dudeism IMPO becomes like putting a camel through the eye of a needle.

I just think this is an overly dogmatic stance to take.

I think this says more about your personal experience than actual facts.

I don't believe you can claim all theists are evangelical, (All Inuit are Eskimo's, but not all Eskimo's are Inuit).

There are branches of certain faiths that are evangelical I will admit.

The Jehovahs Witnesses for instance believe only a certain number of individuals will get into heaven , they also believe they can boost their place on the "list" with every person they convert which is why they are knocking at your door sunday morning.

On the other hand Nichiren Buddhists are one of the worst buddhist groups for being evangelical and they are in no way theists.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 20, 2014, 07:53:55 AM
The idea that "Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it" does not IMO resemble most of the religious "biggies". They make no bones about the idea that they DO know what to do about it. They actively prescribe a way and go so far as to say any other way is bound for all sorts of ugliness.
Now beyond that I'd rather not go down the same old road of people pointing out that most "moderate" whatevers don't think that way. It's been hashed over ad nauseum.

Isn't this saying you know what the arguments against this point of view are but don't want to consider them?

;D

And finally:

"Probably the earliest form of Dudeism was the original form of Chinese Taoism, before it went all weird with magic tricks and body fluids." from What is Dudeism? on Dudeism.com (http://dudeism.com/whatisdudeism/).

Does that mean that any of you who have not studied Taoism can't be Dudeists?

I think not.

The quotes are not canon.

By saying all theists are unable to abide by "An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness" is shutting the door on so many people.

Which is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Invite them in and let them see the light, don't shut them out and leave them in the cold.

This is of course all meant in the best possible taste, and entirely my opinion, as all post here are only the opinions of their posters.

Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult.
For me it's pretty simple A person can't be a circle and a square.
If they say they are they are factually incorrect on one count or the other.
They can be a large circle and a small circle or a circle and a slight oval perhaps.
But the chasm between Dudeism and most organized religion is so wide that the type of practitioner of the other faith would have to be so "not evangelical" as to render them no longer of the faith by any reasonable measure.
In your example Innuit has meaning. Saying you are Innuit does not make it so.
The same holds true of claiming a faith without at least claiming some basic set of the beliefs.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 21, 2014, 11:49:24 AM
Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult.
For me it's pretty simple A person can't be a circle and a square.
If they say they are they are factually incorrect on one count or the other.
They can be a large circle and a small circle or a circle and a slight oval perhaps.
But the chasm between Dudeism and most organized religion is so wide that the type of practitioner of the other faith would have to be so "not evangelical" as to render them no longer of the faith by any reasonable measure.
In your example Innuit has meaning. Saying you are Innuit does not make it so.
The same holds true of claiming a faith without at least claiming some basic set of the beliefs.

Oh I'm sorry my mistake I thought this was a forum for discussing ideas openly not just stating your point of view as fact then slagging off anyone who disagrees.

Somebody not getting laid?

Quote from: BikerDude on May 21, 2014, 11:49:24 AM
Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult...

Let's be honest if you don't want to have your opinions questioned and debated, just don't bother posting them here.

Some thirty years ago a friend explained to me that just because it is my opinion does not automatically make it fact.

"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

Vagina.

That is all.

Quote from: Hominid on May 22, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Vagina.

That is all.

...and beer.

I'm afraid that we can't just reduce all of Dudeism to one ethos i.e. hedonism ("vagina") or nihilism ("we believe in nothing"). "Has it ever occurred to you, that . . . given the nature of all this new shit, you know, I-I-I-I... this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... uh, you know?"

Comedic levity is all it is dude... we just like -  take it easy here man....

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on May 23, 2014, 01:14:20 AM

Quote from: Hominid on May 22, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Vagina.

That is all.

...and beer.

I agree but then I am a devotee of Bacchus and Bast (Roman god of wine, Egyptian goddess of beer, and hemp)

Quote from: claird on May 22, 2014, 06:30:56 PM
"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

I get that you're differentiating between thinking and doing.  But if you ponder it for a bit, you'll understand that any serious believer in a mono-theistic religion (Christian, Jew, Muslim) is not very dudely, as they require exclusivity from their believers.  Dudeism encompasses the philosophy of Buddhism, which is in antithesis of old-school, elitist religion. 

Quote from: Hominid on May 23, 2014, 07:37:56 AM

Quote from: claird on May 22, 2014, 06:30:56 PM
"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

I get that you're differentiating between thinking and doing.  But if you ponder it for a bit, you'll understand that any serious believer in a mono-theistic religion (Christian, Jew, Muslim) is not very dudely, as they require exclusivity from their believers.  Dudeism encompasses the philosophy of Buddhism, which is in antithesis of old-school, elitist religion. 

I think often we confabulate "being a Dudeist" with talking about "what Dudeism is".
A Dudeist would have to cut a Christian or a Muslim or whoever endless slack.
That is part of what it means to be a Dudeist. But when answering questions about Dudeism and how it relates to other religions we need to step outside the role of the Dudeist to answer.

A Christian or a Muslim or whatever is bound by the beliefs of the religion. That is what it MEANS to be a Christian or Muslim. Saying that you are either of those while rejecting the majority of the beliefs is just FACTUALLY untrue. Now people contend that there should be a gray area where people are free to pick and choose which beliefs to accept and which to reject and still remain "of the faith". OK. Even if I accept that then it is reasonable to believe that a Christian would at the very least accept the things actually said by Jesus. (And that definition is way lower than any of even the most liberal faiths who require acceptance of Jesus' divinity as the son of god) 
If being a Christian is believing what Christ said it looks to me like a non starter.
If Abiding is about Tolerance then Christianity can in no way be seen as Dudely.
It is so overwhelmingly littered with intolerance that I simply see no subset belief adequate enough to contend it constitutes "being a Christian".
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NOT A TON OF PEOPLE OUT THERE CALLING THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOT INTOLERANT. MOST HAVE NEVER EVEN READ THE BIBLE AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THERE OWN RELIGION IS.
THEY TAKE COMFORT IN THEIR FAITH WHICH HAS VERY VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY IN REALITY.  THEIR REAL COMMITMENT TO THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS IS SO LACKLUSTER THAT IT COULD NEVER RISE TO THE LEVEL OF INTOLERANCE.
AS A DUDEIST I CAN ACCEPT THIS AND MOVE ON. LIVE AND LET LIVE. BUT IF WE ARE DISCUSSING DUDEISM VS CHRISTIANITY I DON'T THINK THESE PEOPLE EVEN ENTER THE CONVERSATION.



2 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV / 355 helpful votes

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

2 John 1:10-11 ESV / 311 helpful votes

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1 Corinthians 5:11 ESV / 299 helpful votes

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler?not even to eat with such a one.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ESV / 172 helpful votes

?If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ?Let us go and serve other gods,? which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.



1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV / 36 helpful votes

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn?t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don?t believe in him.  Jude 5



Ignorance is bliss.  Christians should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians:

Don?t associate with non-Christians.  Don?t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.  2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views.  Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8



Judge other religions for not following Christ:

Whoever denies ?that Jesus is the Christ? is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are ?of God;? everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is ?a deceiver and an anti-Christ? 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn?t share Paul?s beliefs has ?an evil heart.? Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of ?the synagogue of Satan.? Revelations 2:9, 3:9

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

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

I am a theist and I am not a Christian.

Quote from: meekon5 on May 23, 2014, 09:43:20 AM
This is my problem with your statement that Theists can not be Dudeists.

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

I am a theist and I am not a Christian.

What I actually said was this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Episcopal Church Core Beliefs and Doctrines

Baptismal Covenant

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

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

The Bible

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

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

Book of Common Prayer

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

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

The Catechism

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

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

Christ-Focused

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

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

The Creeds

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

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

Holy Baptism

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

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

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

Holy Communion

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

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

The Sacraments

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Growth

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

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

"And good day to you sir!"

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

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

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

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

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

Logical fallacy......  in spades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@claird: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, no one agrees about what the "essence" of Christianity is. If you look at the bible and try to take it literally it's full of insanities and irrelevancies and falsehoods. But if you try to ferret out only the overarching moral message of the gospels, it's kind of groovy and harmonious with Dudeism. But no one is the authority of "what Christianity is" (just as no one is the authority of the definition of "God" - is it nature? a spirit? an anthropomorphic being? an alien race of hackers? a poetic feeling? an unnameable intuition? a matrix? love? a guy who lived 2000 years ago?) so again, these kinds of discussions devolve into semantics, cherry-picking, and shitloads of "i didn't mean that" or "you're a biased asshole" or "you're intolerant" or "you're an idiot."

Dudeism shouldn't venture into these kinds of rhetorical swamps. They are wastes of time and energy. If you want to quote the gospels in an anthropological manner - to show that Dudeism existed in the Levant at the dawn of Western civilization, then by all means do so. But if you want to use Christ's message as an a priori bedrock upon which to base an ethical approach to living, forget it. All a priori ideas must be empirical here. No received wisdom or sacred cows are permitted.

By the way, earlier in the thread someone pointed out that no one has the final word on Dudeism, including me. I believe that Dudeism is self-evident and self-correcting. Therefore it doesn't need a dictator. I am a janitor, or a librarian, not a guru or any wiser than anyone else here. If Dudeism proves to be non-self correcting then it isn't Dudeism and it should be allowed to fall apart.

Quote from: Masked Dude on May 23, 2014, 12:23:27 PM
Sorry, I was sidetracked by the beer comment. What day is this?

I'm always side tracked by beer. 8)

Quote from: forumdude on May 24, 2014, 10:27:46 PM
Furthermore, no one agrees about what the "essence" of Christianity is. If you look at the bible and try to take it literally it's full of insanities and irrelevancies and falsehoods. But if you try to ferret out only the overarching moral message of the gospels, it's kind of groovy and harmonious with Dudeism. But no one is the authority of "what Christianity is" (just as no one is the authority of the definition of "God" - is it nature? a spirit? an anthropomorphic being? an alien race of hackers? a poetic feeling? an unnameable intuition? a matrix? love? a guy who lived 2000 years ago?) so again, these kinds of discussions devolve into semantics, cherry-picking, and shitloads of "i didn't mean that" or "you're a biased asshole" or "you're intolerant" or "you're an idiot."

Dudeism shouldn't venture into these kinds of rhetorical swamps. They are wastes of time and energy. If you want to quote the gospels in an anthropological manner - to show that Dudeism existed in the Levant at the dawn of Western civilization, then by all means do so. But if you want to use Christ's message as an a priori bedrock upon which to base an ethical approach to living, forget it. All a priori ideas must be empirical here. No received wisdom or sacred cows are permitted.

By the way, earlier in the thread someone pointed out that no one has the final word on Dudeism, including me. I believe that Dudeism is self-evident and self-correcting. Therefore it doesn't need a dictator. I am a janitor, or a librarian, not a guru or any wiser than anyone else here. If Dudeism proves to be non-self correcting then it isn't Dudeism and it should be allowed to fall apart.

(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)

The thing about theism (including Christianity) is that it encourages belief without evidence.
We are asked by the theist to ignore the overwhelming evidence of WHAT THIS MINDSET PRODUCES. IN THE REAL WORLD. We are supposed to treat as coincidence the correlation between religious upbringing and individuals that seem to have a nearly infinite capacity for accepting and cultivating extreme beliefs that fly in the face of evidence.
If you raise people to accept ideas as true without the necessity of evidence you can and, almost without exception do come out with some very very bad outcomes. If you were to map the occurrences of lynchings and racist attacks in the US it would nearly follow the "Bible belt" to a tee. We are asked to treat that as coincidence.
We are asked to ignore the fact that for all intents and purposes every single extreme racist group in the US (and around the world as far as I know) are overtly religious groups. The beliefs of these groups if they don't come directly from the core beliefs of religion they persist by a mindset that does not require evidence to support them.

Is religion and theism the only way that people come out to be hateful racist asses? No. But it's the heavy weight champ.
Is religion the only way people become monsters? No. Stalin was an atheist. More importantly he was a power mad psychopath. But recognize that pointing out this sort of thing is like down playing the seriousness of the plague because people also dye of cholera.

When people say "My faith gives me comfort what harm does that do"?
I'm sorry I think it does do harm. It's time for intelligent rational people to GROW THE FUCK UP!

There. That aught to get the old ball rolling...

Dudeism is opposed to irrationality and idealism, but religion is one of many irrationalities and idealisms out there. It may be the heavyweight champ, but it has some tough competitors as well. For instance: Nationalism, the belief that the universe is just (karma, hollywood movies, etc), Pseudoscience, racism, The pro life /anti-stem cell movement (which doesn't have to be driven by religion), Machismo, fashion, materialism, etc etc.

People are driven by all sorts of bullshit idealisms that pervert the quality of life of themselves and others. Religion is just one example, albeit possibly the most obvious. However, I'm not sure that nationalism and politics isn't more damaging and destructive than religion is nowadays. Perhaps the irrational passions and ideals inherent in the political system are just as bad if not worse than religion. Admittedly religion tends to inform politics, but not always. Look at what's happening in Europe. Xenophobia is on the rise because people (leaders as well) don't understand economics.

So do we also ban irrational political leanings? Or economic ones? Or any social idealism that is based in feeling and not fact?

The one thing we all seem to forget is the one thing we should never forget....and that is we are Not Rational creatures....we are Rationalizing creatures. We rationalize everything to justify our desires.
There is no truth or falsehood that we will not rationalize if it justifies our desires. We will deliberately deny and blind ourselves to anything that does not.
And none of us are immune. 8)

I'll take it one step further and say it's not desires, it's what is best for humanity.  You know, empathy and all that.  The less suffering we inflict on others the better.

Aren't we all just the best philosophers the world has ever seen?  *snicker*

You realize of course, the OP is nowhere to be found...  Makes me laugh.

I like to think of it like this -

We're each on a journey somewhere, living and learning along the way. We started from different points and took different paths. Somehow, though, we all found this-a-here thoroughfare called the Dudeism Highway and, for now, its going the way we're headed.

It's a nice road, potholes notwithstanding. Plenty of good people to help you change a flat or bitch about the weather at one of the (well-maintained) rest stops. I've not been charged a toll yet and ain't seen no "Atheists Only" signs along the way.

I reckon theists are as welcome as anyone else on this road. That don't mean they're gonna get where they're going. It don't mean they can sideswipe your car or throw a drink out the window, either, if a dude is thumbing down the holy highway. This isn't 'Nam. But, at the same time, you can't fault a dude for trying to get to the same place you are - even if you think his map is batshit crazy.

Nicely put giffin dude... remind me to buy you a beer sometime.

Everyone is welcome. I've never said differently.

Quote from: forumdude on May 26, 2014, 09:24:46 PM
Dudeism is opposed to irrationality and idealism, but religion is one of many irrationalities and idealisms out there. It may be the heavyweight champ, but it has some tough competitors as well. For instance: Nationalism, the belief that the universe is just (karma, hollywood movies, etc), Pseudoscience, racism, The pro life /anti-stem cell movement (which doesn't have to be driven by religion), Machismo, fashion, materialism, etc etc.

People are driven by all sorts of bullshit idealisms that pervert the quality of life of themselves and others. Religion is just one example, albeit possibly the most obvious. However, I'm not sure that nationalism and politics isn't more damaging and destructive than religion is nowadays. Perhaps the irrational passions and ideals inherent in the political system are just as bad if not worse than religion. Admittedly religion tends to inform politics, but not always. Look at what's happening in Europe. Xenophobia is on the rise because people (leaders as well) don't understand economics.

So do we also ban irrational political leanings? Or economic ones? Or any social idealism that is based in feeling and not fact?

No one is talking about banning anything. That would be both undude and unnecessary.
It's about Ideas. If you try and mix ideas that are incompatible the reaction is oil and water.
From what I've seen on this board it generally manifests as very undude outbursts where civil debate is called for. I think that may or may not be "bannable". But for my part I vote that anyone is welcome as long as they can conduct themselves in a Dudely manner. Also I'd say that given the nature of Dudeist inquirey there should be no "Sacred Cows". I don't think it's out of bounds to criticize other faiths in the context of Dudeist inquiry.
Personally I don't think that it's a coincidence that  the angst usually comes from Christians. It seems that there is an aspect of the ideas that on occasion produces people with a giant chip on their shoulder about their faith who react to any criticism with vitriol.
I guess that any credo that teaches that it is evil to NOT believe it leaves the practitioner more or less tied to the mast for better or worse. That puts people into all sorts of mental gymnastics to make things fit together. At least it looks that way to me. I think the cure is true Dudeism. If people could just put happiness first and above all learn to say fuck it and just drop the giant fucking anchor.

Quote from: forumdude on May 24, 2014, 10:27:46 PM
Furthermore, no one agrees about what the "essence" of Christianity is. If you look at the bible and try to take it literally it's full of insanities and irrelevancies and falsehoods. But if you try to ferret out only the overarching moral message of the gospels, it's kind of groovy and harmonious with Dudeism. But no one is the authority of "what Christianity is" (just as no one is the authority of the definition of "God" - is it nature? a spirit? an anthropomorphic being? an alien race of hackers? a poetic feeling? an unnameable intuition? a matrix? love? a guy who lived 2000 years ago?) so again, these kinds of discussions devolve into semantics, cherry-picking, and shitloads of "i didn't mean that" or "you're a biased asshole" or "you're intolerant" or "you're an idiot."

Dudeism shouldn't venture into these kinds of rhetorical swamps. They are wastes of time and energy. If you want to quote the gospels in an anthropological manner - to show that Dudeism existed in the Levant at the dawn of Western civilization, then by all means do so. But if you want to use Christ's message as an a priori bedrock upon which to base an ethical approach to living, forget it. All a priori ideas must be empirical here. No received wisdom or sacred cows are permitted.

By the way, earlier in the thread someone pointed out that no one has the final word on Dudeism, including me. I believe that Dudeism is self-evident and self-correcting. Therefore it doesn't need a dictator. I am a janitor, or a librarian, not a guru or any wiser than anyone else here. If Dudeism proves to be non-self correcting then it isn't Dudeism and it should be allowed to fall apart.

Isn't that a bit like saying all the paraquat are just the "Bad Nazi's" and advocating a more selective reading of Mein Kampf? What's wrong with saying it is what it says it is?
Clearly in black and white. If christians don't like that definition then change the freaking book. Truth be told I think it really is that and they just soft peddle it to keep the numbers up. As long as there are things in there that people do even to this day use to justify paraquatism then I think Christians need to own that. It's not up to others to parse out who are the "Good Nazi's" and the "Bad Nazi's"

Besides if the basis of the credo is full of things like Advocating Slavery, genocide, child abuse, homophobia and on and on wouldn't that typically eliminate it from contention as a serious contender?
It's not like it almost got it right and it needed a little tweaking.
I mean they freaking killed Galileo. He changed the way people looked at the universe and our old friend that church killed him for it. Get your head around that. Ideas lead to certain ways of looking at things. For my money it's best to just watch and take a lesson. It just sort of looks like the evidence is in. And despite all the "reform" it still looks to me like the ideas are still motivating certain paraquat to nastiness. And personally I've found that the vast majority of the time the virus manifest in even the least infected host. At least in the form of "look down your noseness" of the typical "holier than though" arm chair christian.
consider this... amongst others.
http://www.christianidentitychurch.net/ (http://www.christianidentitychurch.net/)

I'm baffled why people keep expecting that you can plant an pricker bush and grow an apple tree. If there was a beauty pageant of ideas, Christianity would be Danny Divito in a bikini. You don't fix a Yugo. You unscrew the plates and push it into the brush along the road. Oh and remember the last 2000 years is the "good part". The worst is supposed to be yet to come.

I'm sympathetic to your perspective (and didn't mean to imply you were aiming to ban or censor anyone), BikerDude, but the ball is already at the bottom of the hill. There's very little you or I can add to "God is not Great" or "The End of Faith" or similar tomes that wouldn't be surplusage. You've done an excellent job identifying some inconsistencies between Dudeism and theistic beliefs. Even the responses demonstrate synthesizing or reconciling them are problematic.

At one point toward the end of his life, Hitchens denied being an atheist - but only because "anti-theist" was more accurate. I think that's where this stuff is veering. And that's cool, well, at least to me. There's a lot to oppose in organized religion and very good grounds on which to do so. But as much as I like to engage with jehovah's witnesses who knock on my door (true story, bro) I shut it once I've made my point and heard their retort. I know evidence and arguments aren't gonna change that guy's mind. He's going to turn his black-suit-wearing ass around and ride his Schwinn down the cul-de-sac to interrupt some other relatively innocent dude trying to enjoy a mid-Thursday morning in pajama pants and jellies.

The question I have is if a theist decides to be a dudest as well who cares. Would that not then perhaps soften the intolerance that is ingrained in the hardcore theists instead of judging them they should be welcomed. If you can apply dudest concepts to your beliefs whether  in part or total why not. Do we have degrees of dudism where your only a dude if you reject all things not dude?. I don't think so dudism is about the individual enjoying being the individual if I want to be a dudeist and a Christian who is anyone to tell me no. The whole point of this religion is be who and what you want. I am not in anyway a theist but I got to admit I am seeing a whole lot of atheists jump on anyone who brings up religion on here that's not very dude. True it's a touchy subject and always causes a ruckus but intolerance swings both ways and I have seen it on all sides. At the end of the day who cares what you call it just enjoy the ride and find the way that works for you. You all need to relax and calm the hell down nothing is fucked here do a jay hit the play on some whale song or take a bath labels just perpetuate intolerance of the individual. That's what's the problem slap a lable on somone and they are not that person anymore they are a group and they get judged as such. The dude does not judge he abides and accepts the individual as he or she is. That's just my thoughts on the matter.

Hey Sleeve dude, I appreciate your comments, and you're right - everyone needs to take it easy for sure.  I think what you're witnessing here is some typical exchanges between theists and non-theists; it's been happening in this here forum multiple times.  It seems the theists are always up to bat first when it comes to intolerance.  No pointing fingers, but it's happened multiple times... So, when the tolerant (i.e. Dudeists) are told (and scolded!) that we must somehow include an intolerant philosophy and belief system to maintain our "take'r easy" way of life, well, shush...  accepting that the logical fallacy would make our ethos darker than a steer's tuckus on a moonless prairie night...  if you catch my drift. Hope that explains some of the posts here.  But hell, who am I?  It's like, just my opinion......

To be honest this is more about generating a more enjoyable place and more stimulating discussions. As soon as Theism is introduced into an argument it generally sidetracks the more sublime investigations. Like that scene in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where Sydney Pollack's hot new young girlfriend tries to push the value crystal healing at a party with a bunch of academic older folks and she gets frustrated and angry and an embarrassed and angry Pollack has to drag her out of the party.

Okay, maybe that's a mean analogy. But sometimes it feels that way. I personally have a lot of new age acquaintances and their way of thinking seems the same as the traditional Theists and always tends to be like a rhetorical bull in a china shop. Suddenly everyone has to acknowledge or debunk a lot of spurious ideas and feelings and intuitions and whatever finer points of anthropology or psychology or sociology suddenly get replaced by a lot of magical and wishful thinking.

The reason for avoiding magical or wishful thinking here is not because it's wrong, per se, but because it's often narcissistic and uninteresting from a Dudeist perspective. Dudeism should be essentially pragmatic, no? Unicorns and rainbows have no place here. Am I wrong?

I engage in a local acoustic jam and suddenly the idea that we should all detune to 432 mhz from the standard 440 has taken hold. There's a meme going around that 432mhz is somehow more spiritual and that the universe is based on it somehow and that there was a conspiracy to put it to 440 for some reason. It's a load of hooey. So, none of the musicians can properly tune without an electronic tuner (all set at 440) and each time a new muso shows up we have to wait for him or her to tune to 432. It basically fucks everything up. And for no reason other than because of a "magical thinking" meme that has taken over the jam. I feel the same way about some Theists who come into our beach community. They end up wasting a lot of time and energy, both on their part and on the parts of those who disagree with them.

Therefore, Theists are welcome, but how do we prevent these boring conversations where we all argue about imaginary friends and outdated scripture and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Oh, and I didn't mean to slight the Theists here by suggesting they were into unicorns and rainbows. There are many different flavors of Theism. Extreme literal Theists may be fans of metaphorical unicorns but I know that others look at God as a more mystical concept that eludes definition - in fact drawing its very power from that unknowableness. I personally am quite sympathetic to the latter, seeing it as a sort of mental placeholder for transcendent ideas (cf. Gnosticism, Vedism).

You're right, perhaps the title of our supposed manifesto (...or forum rules page) should be "440 - or fuck off".  But then there's this dogmatic ring to it...  sigh.

Actually I guess I should leave it alone.
Forum Dude has wrapped her all up. And all in all things seem to have worked out pretty good. But I posted below before really reading the previous couple pages of the thread.

--------------------------------

This is interesting and probably walks a nice line between both abiding (no pun intended) viewpoints.

The point is that if you raise people to accept realities that don't require any basis in fact then anything is possible no matter how ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgVV2ql5MM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgVV2ql5MM)

There is no need, zero for any God to justify kindness. That can be done simply with humanist principles without invoking any Deity. Now think of a time when a God was used to motivate people to doing bad things. You don't have to think for half a second.
While I'm not sure I'd be willing to wager that if you look at the bible whenever God "communicates" with someone it is to move them to some evil deed. Some mass slaughter of other nastiness. Not very often to tell them to love each other. Is it really surprising that we end up with so many Christian Hate groups?

Quote from: forumdude on May 27, 2014, 11:30:19 PM
...but how do we prevent these boring conversations where we all argue about imaginary friends and outdated scripture and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

;D Perhaps we use this method to alert Theists that we think their blathering is rather boring? Could work. 8)

(http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/e/e4/WalterSobchak.jpg)

Quote from: forumdude on May 27, 2014, 11:30:19 PM
To be honest this is more about generating a more enjoyable place and more stimulating discussions. As soon as Theism is introduced into an argument it generally sidetracks the more sublime investigations. Like that scene in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where Sydney Pollack's hot new young girlfriend tries to push the value crystal healing at a party with a bunch of academic older folks and she gets frustrated and angry and an embarrassed and angry Pollack has to drag her out of the party.

Okay, maybe that's a mean analogy. But sometimes it feels that way. I personally have a lot of new age acquaintances and their way of thinking seems the same as the traditional Theists and always tends to be like a rhetorical bull in a china shop. Suddenly everyone has to acknowledge or debunk a lot of spurious ideas and feelings and intuitions and whatever finer points of anthropology or psychology or sociology suddenly get replaced by a lot of magical and wishful thinking.

The reason for avoiding magical or wishful thinking here is not because it's wrong, per se, but because it's often narcissistic and uninteresting from a Dudeist perspective. Dudeism should be essentially pragmatic, no? Unicorns and rainbows have no place here. Am I wrong?

I engage in a local acoustic jam and suddenly the idea that we should all detune to 432 mhz from the standard 440 has taken hold. There's a meme going around that 432mhz is somehow more spiritual and that the universe is based on it somehow and that there was a conspiracy to put it to 440 for some reason. It's a load of hooey. So, none of the musicians can properly tune without an electronic tuner (all set at 440) and each time a new muso shows up we have to wait for him or her to tune to 432. It basically fucks everything up. And for no reason other than because of a "magical thinking" meme that has taken over the jam. I feel the same way about some Theists who come into our beach community. They end up wasting a lot of time and energy, both on their part and on the parts of those who disagree with them.

Therefore, Theists are welcome, but how do we prevent these boring conversations where we all argue about imaginary friends and outdated scripture and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Very good forumdude! And to sort of smooth down the icing and but a topping to the whole deal here I want you to know I  have finally finished installing the "God Code" right here on this forum!
It's all here now! 8)

Quote from: cckeiser on May 29, 2014, 07:39:04 PM

Quote from: forumdude on May 27, 2014, 11:30:19 PM
To be honest this is more about generating a more enjoyable place and more stimulating discussions. As soon as Theism is introduced into an argument it generally sidetracks the more sublime investigations. Like that scene in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where Sydney Pollack's hot new young girlfriend tries to push the value crystal healing at a party with a bunch of academic older folks and she gets frustrated and angry and an embarrassed and angry Pollack has to drag her out of the party.

Okay, maybe that's a mean analogy. But sometimes it feels that way. I personally have a lot of new age acquaintances and their way of thinking seems the same as the traditional Theists and always tends to be like a rhetorical bull in a china shop. Suddenly everyone has to acknowledge or debunk a lot of spurious ideas and feelings and intuitions and whatever finer points of anthropology or psychology or sociology suddenly get replaced by a lot of magical and wishful thinking.

The reason for avoiding magical or wishful thinking here is not because it's wrong, per se, but because it's often narcissistic and uninteresting from a Dudeist perspective. Dudeism should be essentially pragmatic, no? Unicorns and rainbows have no place here. Am I wrong?

I engage in a local acoustic jam and suddenly the idea that we should all detune to 432 mhz from the standard 440 has taken hold. There's a meme going around that 432mhz is somehow more spiritual and that the universe is based on it somehow and that there was a conspiracy to put it to 440 for some reason. It's a load of hooey. So, none of the musicians can properly tune without an electronic tuner (all set at 440) and each time a new muso shows up we have to wait for him or her to tune to 432. It basically fucks everything up. And for no reason other than because of a "magical thinking" meme that has taken over the jam. I feel the same way about some Theists who come into our beach community. They end up wasting a lot of time and energy, both on their part and on the parts of those who disagree with them.

Therefore, Theists are welcome, but how do we prevent these boring conversations where we all argue about imaginary friends and outdated scripture and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Very good forumdude! And to sort of smooth down the icing and but a topping to the whole deal here I want you to know I  have finally finished installing the "God Code" right here on this forum!
It's all here now! 8)

What is the "God Code?" 8)

I have to be honest here I am a little disappointed. This whole thread was very simple can you be a dudest and an atheist or theist. To me the answer is yes to both because your religious beliefs dont matter here it's very simple. How the individual makes it work is their problem not ours nobody was preaching theism no one was trying to convert any one to a religion. What I saw was a great deal of atheist preaching complete disrespect to anyone with any kind of faith and a great deal of intolerance. This is not dudeism as I understand it. I was here for icon he was an asshole and I defended this forum on the Facebook page against his ranting. But honestly I'm not so sure he was completly wrong about the hate and intolerance for people of faith here. I'm not religious I'm agnostic and if someone was shoving their faith in my face I would be among the first to tell them to move along. But there is a big difference between pushing out someone whose preaching and the open ridicule and disrespect for someone who's only point was that we are free to pick our beliefs as we want and call our selves what we want. Dudeism is about living your life the way you want without judging others or caring about being judged. That's not what happened here. No one here has the right to tell me or anyone what makes them a Christian or Muslim or Dudeist or Pagan that is for the individual to choose. This whole thread has soured my opinion of the forum in general talk all you want about not preaching but it seems that only applies to those with religious views. Atheists are free to preach ridicule and belittle as they please. It's kind of disgraceful really I don't follow that brand of dudism. I'm very disappointed in what happened here.

Quote from: The_Sleevez on May 30, 2014, 12:31:38 AM
I have to be honest here I am a little disappointed. This whole thread was very simple can you be a dudest and an atheist or theist. To me the answer is yes to both because your religious beliefs dont matter here it's very simple. How the individual makes it work is their problem not ours nobody was preaching theism no one was trying to convert any one to a religion. What I saw was a great deal of atheist preaching complete disrespect to anyone with any kind of faith and a great deal of intolerance. This is not dudeism as I understand it. I was here for icon he was an asshole and I defended this forum on the Facebook page against his ranting. But honestly I'm not so sure he was completly wrong about the hate and intolerance for people of faith here. I'm not religious I'm agnostic and if someone was shoving their faith in my face I would be among the first to tell them to move along. But there is a big difference between pushing out someone whose preaching and the open ridicule and disrespect for someone who's only point was that we are free to pick our beliefs as we want and call our selves what we want. Dudeism is about living your life the way you want without judging others or caring about being judged. That's not what happened here. No one here has the right to tell me or anyone what makes them a Christian or Muslim or Dudeist or Pagan that is for the individual to choose. This whole thread has soured my opinion of the forum in general talk all you want about not preaching but it seems that only applies to those with religious views. Atheists are free to preach ridicule and belittle as they please. It's kind of disgraceful really I don't follow that brand of dudism. I'm very disappointed in what happened here.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. If no one has the right to tell anyone what makes a person a "fill in the blank" then why do we waste the space on our pages explaining what Dudeism is?
I often find that the questions along these lines run aground when people are talking 2 different languages. Clearly anyone can go to the Dudeism site, click a link and get ordained and "become a Dudeist". Does that make them a Dudeist?
I'd say not. (But of course it doesn't really bear beating up unless of course you find that sort of thing entertaining and/or enlightening.) It comes down to what a person believes.  If a member of the Volkesfront comes to our page and gets ordained it in no way makes them a Dudeist. Why is that? Because the beliefs of the Volkesfront are clearly so incompatible with Dudeist principles that it would be impossible for them to be both. They can join, engage on the board etc. But if asked "Can a person be a Dudeist and a member of the Volkesfront" I'd say that is impossible. In order to be what makes a Dudeist they'd have to stop being what it takes to be a member of the Volkesfront and visa versa.
Some ideas are incompatible. And having a discussion about that is not being intollerant. Opinions may differ but none should be silenced in the name of sacred cows.
A person has the right to demand respect. But they do not IMO have the right to demand respect of their beliefs. That is not the same thing. I do not believe that I have been disrespectful of any individual.

Perhaps a "Dudeist Academy" is order.
A package deal. Cruise and stay at an all inclusive with all day intense coursework in Dudeist studies.
Don't we have any entrepreneurs to make this happen?
I mean you gotta feed the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2a_RAO4CWg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2a_RAO4CWg)

Throw in top-shelf booze and I'm down.

Quote from: The_Sleevez on May 30, 2014, 12:31:38 AMDudeism is about living your life the way you want without judging others or caring about being judged... Atheists are free to preach ridicule and belittle as they please... I'm very disappointed in what happened here.

Trust me, I don't feel any more empowered or entitled than anyone else. At the risk of being called "bigoted and angry" again (not by you), I don't always feel comfortable expressing my views here anymore. I did in fact answer the question; yes, it's possible.

I may be wrong, but at times I feel like I'm lumped into a category with others because I have one thing in common with them.

So honestly I don't think I'll reply again when it comes to this kind of topic.

*Sigh* - atheists aren't judging. They're reacting to BEING judged.  It makes no sense to preach non-judgement, yet tolerate judgement.

It's kinda like preaching peace, yet tolerating war.  A strong analogy, but suitable.

Quote from: The_Sleevez on May 30, 2014, 12:31:38 AMDudeism is about living your life the way you want without judging others or caring about being judged... Atheists are free to preach ridicule and belittle as they please... I'm very disappointed in what happened here.

Like The_Sleeves dude. I mean really?
Just look at it dude.....it was a heavy loaded leading question. Everyone Knew where it was going as soon a it was asked.
Sort of like #Facepalm......Duh!

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on May 29, 2014, 08:13:17 PM

Quote from: cckeiser on May 29, 2014, 07:39:04 PM


Very good forumdude! And to sort of smooth down the icing and but a topping to the whole deal here I want you to know I  have finally finished installing the "God Code" right here on this forum!
It's all here now! 8)

What is the "God Code?" 8)

Sorry DigitalBuddha.....I was just being fractious.....didn't help any did it? 8)

Quote from: The_Sleevez on May 30, 2014, 12:31:38 AM
I have to be honest here I am a little disappointed. This whole thread was very simple can you be a dudest and an atheist or theist. To me the answer is yes to both because your religious beliefs dont matter here it's very simple. How the individual makes it work is their problem not ours nobody was preaching theism no one was trying to convert any one to a religion. What I saw was a great deal of atheist preaching complete disrespect to anyone with any kind of faith and a great deal of intolerance. This is not dudeism as I understand it. I was here for icon he was an asshole and I defended this forum on the Facebook page against his ranting. But honestly I'm not so sure he was completly wrong about the hate and intolerance for people of faith here. I'm not religious I'm agnostic and if someone was shoving their faith in my face I would be among the first to tell them to move along. But there is a big difference between pushing out someone whose preaching and the open ridicule and disrespect for someone who's only point was that we are free to pick our beliefs as we want and call our selves what we want. Dudeism is about living your life the way you want without judging others or caring about being judged. That's not what happened here. No one here has the right to tell me or anyone what makes them a Christian or Muslim or Dudeist or Pagan that is for the individual to choose. This whole thread has soured my opinion of the forum in general talk all you want about not preaching but it seems that only applies to those with religious views. Atheists are free to preach ridicule and belittle as they please. It's kind of disgraceful really I don't follow that brand of dudism. I'm very disappointed in what happened here.

I agree with The_Sleevez.

I too was a major activist against Icon, but doubt my stance now.

You will notice I gave up on trying to put my point of view early on.

I am a theist.

I am a dudeist.

Whether it was meant that way or not there was a lot of atheist comment that could in no way be called anything but preaching.

Quote from: Dudeism dot com Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why do you think Dudeism has become so popular?

...Moreover, one can be a Dudeist and still remain a Christian, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, etc. Dudeism isn't a strict system – it's more of a method of living, a state of mind. In order to keep your mind limber, Dudeism needs to remain limber as well...

and if theist can't be Dudeists why is the Dudespaper printing articles like this:

Dudeism for Christians (http://dudespaper.com/dudeism-for-christians.html/comment-page-1/).

I also refer you to this thread:

Quote from: roystonlodge on October 23, 2008, 02:42:33 PM
There are two Books in the Bible that tend to be the faves for Christian Dudes/Dudeist Christians, IMHO:

1) Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians:  Jesus' followers in Galatia were very unDude.  They had all these hang ups about following rules and stuff.  Paul wrote to them suggesting that they, like, mellow the heck out, man.  If yer a righteous Dude, the rules aren't what's really important, man!  Too much focus on all those rules totally distracts us from hearing what Jesus was trying to tell us about being a righteous Dude in the first place.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31)

2) Ecclesiastes: According to this Book's author, it doesn't matter if you're a wise man or a foolish man - either way life ends in death.  So, you might as well enjoy the simple pleasures of daily life, such as eating, drinking, and taking enjoyment in one's wife and work.  My personal favourite parts are when he warns about the pointlessness of argument and debate, since they never really settle matters anyway.  Instead, just walk away, man.  Very Dude.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&version=31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&version=31)

This thread has been full of some very worrying intolerant attitudes.

So, then, is your stance to tolerate intolerance?  I don't think it's good to be a doormat to people like Icon.....  or any preachy person.  The issue of being a deist is - I think - secondary.  I don't care what you believe, just don't shove it down my throat with your words or your actions.  That's one of the tenants of Dudeism - you gotta take it easy.  If I've sounded undude, it's only because I'm vocal about others who are undude to me.  And - the major mono-theistic religions all tell their adherents to proselytise, so any follower not doing so is being disobedient to their faith. That's why my opinion is what it is.......

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 10:03:04 AM
So, then, is your stance to tolerate intolerance?  I don't think it's good to be a doormat to people like Icon.....  or any preachy person.  The issue of being a deist is - I think - secondary.  I don't care what you believe, just don't shove it down my throat with your words or your actions.  That's one of the tenants of Dudeism - you gotta take it easy.  If I've sounded undude, it's only because I'm vocal about others who are undude to me.  And - the major mono-theistic religions all tell their adherents to proselytise, so any follower not doing so is being disobedient to their faith. That's why my opinion is what it is.......

No my stance is to not tolerate preaching from any side atheist or theist.

Again the statement "the major mono-theistic religions all tell their adherents to proselytise" relies on the myth that there are only one point of view on the major religions.

Any good historian will tell you that there are more than one version of the bible (even versions that don't include the resurection of christ) and certain groups dictate certain texts, St Stephen stipulated what books where to be included in the Roman Catholic Bible excluding a number of books that have copies in the Coptic Bible. The Romans and the Vandels fell out because they were different christian sects (the Vandels being Arian christians, The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father).

Your statement is an oversimplification and an excuse.

So your argument is that because Icon was a preachy fundamentalist idiot all theists are to.

And remember you are talking to one of the major anti-christians on the forum, and a poly-theist.

QuoteYour statement is an oversimplification and an excuse.

Telling me it's an excuse is a judgement you don't get to make.  And the fact that there are various versions of the bible doesn't make my statement an oversimplification - I hardly doubt you could find a modern day Christian who doesn't follow what has become the commonly accepted translations of the bible, so your accusation is a distraction from the real point that those who don't proselytize are wishy washy, and not real followers of their faith.

Icon was an idiot because he used poor judgement in his preachiness.  Not all Christians are idiots... your words, not mine.

QuoteAnd remember you are talking to one of the major anti-christians on the forum, and a poly-theist.

You've stated that on more than one occasion. Feeling defensive? It's not been my goal here to offend anyone...

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 10:52:17 AM

QuoteYour statement is an oversimplification and an excuse.

Telling me it's an excuse is a judgement you don't get to make.  And the fact that there are various versions of the bible doesn't make my statement an oversimplification - I hardly doubt you could find a modern day Christian who doesn't follow what has become the commonly accepted translations of the bible, so your accusation is a distraction from the real point that those who don't proselytize are wishy washy, and not real followers of their faith.

"I hardly doubt you could find a modern day Christian who doesn't follow what has become the commonly accepted translations of the bible"

Allow me to refer you to an interesting article from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations)

Particularly the "complete bibles" part.

The line of bible translation from the Vulgate Bible through the King James is not the only version and not commonly excepted.

It may be so amongst US christian sects.

And what you're trying to tell me is that the mormons are using the exact text that the Roman Catholics are and the Tora matches the old testiment?

Also "real point that those who don't proselytize are wishy washy, and not real followers of their faith."

Again no my point has always been as Dudeists why would we care?

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 10:52:17 AM

QuoteAnd remember you are talking to one of the major anti-christians on the forum, and a poly-theist.

You've stated that on more than one occasion. Feeling defensive? It's not been my goal here to offend anyone...

Yes because after a number of years on this forum I am faced with the line of this thread saying to me I am a theist therefore cannot be a dudeist, therefore should not be here.

I think it's important to differentiate between the various kinds of deists. I certainly don't paint you with the same brush as the mono-theistic bible-bashing Christians...  so please don't take offence!  A pantheist or polytheist is a far cry from that...

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what version of the bible modern day Christians do follow, they're all going to have the same basic message re: proselytizing.  Think Acts, chapter 2 (Pentacost).

I have mostly avoided comment on this thread because I have seen a burgeoning flame war with people typing in upper case and getting very irate.

but it has just occurred to me.

You're atheists.

You're suggesting that a bunch of people who you don't agree with are wrongly interpreting a book that you don't believe in, and getting upset that they are not practicing their religion the way you think they should, even though you don't agree with their point of view, and don't think they should in the first place.

I re-state the fundamental point of view that everyone conveniently ignores every time I mention it.

Quote from: meekon5 on May 20, 2014, 06:00:03 AM
...

I actually concur with cc on this.

Dudeism does not state "there is no god" so can't be atheist.

Dudeism does not care and can't be bothered.

By default Dudeism is agnostic (by none action).

...

We just don't care, any of you are welcome.

Dudeism is not Athiest unless you feel that is what you need it to be.

Again:

Quote from: meekon5 on May 20, 2014, 06:00:03 AM

Dudeism does not care and can't be bothered.

Stop ranting like  fundamentalist theists about something that actually isn't any of your business let the theists argue amongst themselves about who is right or wrong about who interprets what which way.

The true Dudeist way is not to be bothered until someone starts trying to wave their point of view in your face.

Theist, atheist, mono-theist, poly-theist, pan-theist, who ever.

QuoteThe true Dudeist way is not to be bothered until someone starts trying to wave their point of view in your face.

That's all I've been saying all along...  So when it does get waved in my face, it does become my business, and will quickly point out their erroneous beliefs with logic and reason.

the beauty of Dudeism is that it doesn't TRULY put any stereotypes on you no matter what your religious views are.

I myself is an ex-atheist, but I've shifted to agnosticism. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson describes perfectly why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos)

Personally I think Meekon is being a bit disingenuous here. Meekon, you're taking issue with people taking issue with something, when you take issue with points of view you think are incorrect all the time. You can't call what Biker Dude (the most aggressive anti-Theist here) does preachiness in the same way that Icon was preachy. I find some of Biker Dude's rhetoric too aggressive sometimes for my taste but this isn't about Atheists "preaching". In the same way you could be said to be preaching time and time again by being a stickler for details in a poorly-reasoned assumption or screed by some other member.

The problem is clear to me - Dudeism is a logical, rational religion and if people start using irrational arguments to make their points or argue for a point of view then it's going to be incompatible. No problem being poetical about it, of course, so long as the division is clear.

Now that incompatibility doesn't mean Dudeism is Anti-Theist. It only means that we should mind the gap between them.

Honestly, sometimes I think this is much adude about nothing. It's a glitch in our notion of how categories work. Most of the disagreements people have seem to have something to do with the inability to recognize that something can be true on one level but not another. I'm fine with whatever someone believes about the unknown, but I'm not fine with it if someone uses their unprovable assumptions as a means to further an agenda or win an argument.

However, I should also state that there's a slippery slope into antagonism that comes when people react too quickly to Theists use of the Bible or what have you for illustrative purposes. That's why I was thinking that we should draw some parameters so people know whether they're venturing into the swamp of unDudeness. One of my favorite scenes in TBL is when Walter says "Well, there isn't a literal connection." and Dude points out there isn't any connection. It's hard to know when things switch from level headed to head-in-the-clouds. I think that's the thing that irks some people here - when people start getting too lah-dee-dah about their philosophies and show a type of wishful, precious thinking about what they want to believe is true in the absence of any evidence. If there isn't a literal connection, it's just not going to fly here, IMDO. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me.

QuoteDudeism is a logical, rational religion and if people start using irrational arguments to make their points or argue for a point of view then it's going to be incompatible.

That says it all right there.  And not to take you out of context..........

QuoteNow that incompatibility doesn't mean Dudeism is Anti-Theist. It only means that we should mind the gap between them.

Expressing a dislike for hard core mono-theists (AKA bible-bashing people like Icon) doesn't mean my value system excludes the easy-going attitude of dudeism.  I simply dislike their intolerance.  How many times have I iterated that in the last week!

I will, though, state for the record, that I'm willing to tangle and debate with anyone believing in the invisible which has no evidence or proof of its existence.  But that's me.  I'm a refugee of hard core fundamentalist religion, so it's not surprising...

Quote from: Bullett00th on June 02, 2014, 03:12:06 PM
the beauty of Dudeism is that it doesn't TRULY put any stereotypes on you no matter what your religious views are.

I myself is an ex-atheist, but I've shifted to agnosticism. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson describes perfectly why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos)

Thanks for this link Bullett00th.

I think he makes the point I was trying to make at the beginning.

And actually I refer to the title of the thread:

Re: Is a dudeist an atheist?

They can be but they can be anything.

To say anything else is to be judgmental before the fact and prescriptive.

And yes forumdude I was being provocative in an attempt to try to get some balance into the discussion.

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 01:29:21 PM

QuoteThe true Dudeist way is not to be bothered until someone starts trying to wave their point of view in your face.

That's all I've been saying all along... 

and the rest

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
So when it does get waved in my face, it does become my business, and will quickly point out their erroneous beliefs with logic and reason.

is opinion

Quote from: Hominid on June 02, 2014, 10:04:14 PM
...I'm a refugee of hard core fundamentalist religion, so it's not surprising...

To be honest I was thinking that was where a lot of this reaction came from.

I think the majority of us are actually agreeing the same point.

I was just trying to make the point that to some of us the atheist shouty bits are as offensive as some of Icons rubbish was.

I don't mind debate but it has to be recognised that some of us have studied the subjects being talked about extensively. I personally have lectured on modern Paganism, and do not take my stance without a great amount of thought.

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on May 29, 2014, 04:16:14 PM

Quote from: forumdude on May 27, 2014, 11:30:19 PM
...but how do we prevent these boring conversations where we all argue about imaginary friends and outdated scripture and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

;D Perhaps we use this method to alert Theists that we think their blathering is rather boring? Could work. 8)

Theists and atheists both.

And actually its 0327hrs here in the UK and I should just go to bed and stop getting uptight about this subject.

;D

Dudes, I don't mean to alarm anyone, but I've made a huge realization....

This horse has been dead for weeks!

Quote from: Captain Will on June 03, 2014, 05:23:32 AM
Dudes, I don't mean to alarm anyone, but I've made a huge realization....

This horse has been dead for weeks!

Dude this just shows a basic misinterpretation of how this forum works.

Basically someone proposes an initial thread then everyone who can be bothered sticks their oar in.

Then it gets sidetracked (usually horribly) and becomes about something completely different then it can even go through a couple of other transformations until we get bored.

No thread dies here they just lay dormant until someone fancies reserecting it like some Voo Doo Zombie corpse.

;D

Sorry, been gone for awhile. Traveling, business, blackjack, hookers, etc.

Here is the definition of Dudeism from Wikipedia:

"Dudeism's stated primary objective is to promote a modern form of Chinese Taoism, outlined in Tao Te Ching by Laozi (6th century BC), blended with concepts by the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC), and presented in a style as personified by the character of "The Dude"

I don't understand how we get bogged down with so many arguments about Dudeism co-existing, clashing, or blending with religions other than Taoism. I especially don't understand how we're getting atheism mixed up with Taoism.

Unless I've got all of this wrong, and if so, I need to fuck off and find another funtime religion and message board, Dudeism is essentially "a modern form of Chinese Taoism". If that's correct, then the second post of every one of these threads needs to be "How does [fill in the blank] apply to a modern form of Chinese Taoism?"

If anything, let's take all of this time and energy that we're applying to all of this nonsense and instead apply it to studying Taoism! If we do that, we may just improve Dudeism in the process.

Quote from: Yeti on June 07, 2014, 01:23:15 AMI don't understand how we get bogged down with so many arguments about Dudeism co-existing, clashing, or blending with religions other than Taoism. I especially don't understand how we're getting atheism mixed up with Taoism.

Unless I've got all of this wrong, and if so, I need to fuck off and find another funtime religion and message board, Dudeism is essentially "a modern form of Chinese Taoism". If that's correct, then the second post of every one of these threads needs to be "How does [fill in the blank] apply to a modern form of Chinese Taoism?"

If anything, let's take all of this time and energy that we're applying to all of this nonsense and instead apply it to studying Taoism! If we do that, we may just improve Dudeism in the process.

Fuckin' A, dude!

I read "The Tao of Pooh" years ago, and my dabbling in Taoism over the last few years is what lead me to Dudeism.  I was drawn to Dudeism because it helped me understand what Lao Tzu was blathering about... really tied the whole philosophy together.

Atheist, theist, anti-theist... fuck it, dudes!  Let's focus on what brings us together!

Quote from: Yeti on June 07, 2014, 01:23:15 AM
...Unless I've got all of this wrong, and if so, I need to fuck off and find another funtime religion and message board, Dudeism is essentially "a modern form of Chinese Taoism". If that's correct, then the second post of every one of these threads needs to be "How does [fill in the blank] apply to a modern form of Chinese Taoism?"

If anything, let's take all of this time and energy that we're applying to all of this nonsense and instead apply it to studying Taoism! If we do that, we may just improve Dudeism in the process.

Actually that's what brought me here in the first place.

And this is exactly how I've been feeling too.

As a teenager I studied Yoga, then Zen, then Taoism, each a development of the proceeding, each leading into the next. My paganist stance does not contradict the taoist stance (quote myself from my blog posting "The Good, The Bad, and The Pagan." (http://meekon5.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/good-bad-and-pagan-paganism-and-neo.html) this is a lecture I gave on modern Paganism here at the Natural History Museum, it attempts to explain modern paganism and my own stance).

I'm a bit jealous of Oliver having done the same thing (study Zen and Taoism) but having done it properly, then having hit the revelation of Dudeism.

Quote from: Yeti on June 07, 2014, 01:23:15 AM
Sorry, been gone for awhile. Traveling, business, blackjack, hookers, etc.

Here is the definition of Dudeism from Wikipedia:

"Dudeism's stated primary objective is to promote a modern form of Chinese Taoism, outlined in Tao Te Ching by Laozi (6th century BC), blended with concepts by the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC), and presented in a style as personified by the character of "The Dude"

I don't understand how we get bogged down with so many arguments about Dudeism co-existing, clashing, or blending with religions other than Taoism. I especially don't understand how we're getting atheism mixed up with Taoism.

Unless I've got all of this wrong, and if so, I need to fuck off and find another funtime religion and message board, Dudeism is essentially "a modern form of Chinese Taoism". If that's correct, then the second post of every one of these threads needs to be "How does [fill in the blank] apply to a modern form of Chinese Taoism?"

If anything, let's take all of this time and energy that we're applying to all of this nonsense and instead apply it to studying Taoism! If we do that, we may just improve Dudeism in the process.

Agreed, Yeti.
In rereading a fun book on modern Daoism, The Tao is Silent by Raymond Smullyan (check it out if anyone's unfamiliar, very unique weird little book) I came across this gem that feels relevant to this thread:

"At all costs the Christian must convince the heathen and the atheist that God exists, in order to save his soul. At all costs the atheist must convince the Christian that the belief in God is but a childish and primitive superstition, doing enormous harm to the cause of true social progress. And so they battle and storm and bang away at each other. Meanwhile the Taoist sage sits quietly by the stream, perhaps with a book of poems, a cup of wine, and some painting materials, enjoying the Tao to his hearts content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is too busy enjoying it!

TL;DR  It's undude to argue about anything really, so take it easy and abide contentedly!

Quote from: PriorRestraint on June 24, 2014, 08:18:11 AM

"At all costs the Christian must convince the heathen and the atheist that God exists, in order to save his soul. At all costs the atheist must convince the Christian that the belief in God is but a childish and primitive superstition, doing enormous harm to the cause of true social progress. And so they battle and storm and bang away at each other. Meanwhile the Taoist sage sits quietly by the stream, perhaps with a book of poems, a cup of wine, and some painting materials, enjoying the Tao to his hearts content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is too busy enjoying it!

TL;DR  It's undude to argue about anything really, so take it easy and abide contentedly!

That's a helluva quote. Really wraps 'er all up. I gotta check out that book.

I always return to my copy of the Jane English translation of the Tao Te Ching (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tao-Te-Ching-Lao-Tsu/dp/0704500078/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404817389&sr=1-2&keywords=tao+te+ching+jane+english) (the one with the beautiful pictures).

But will be putting this book on my must get list now.

Quote from: PriorRestraint on June 24, 2014, 08:18:11 AM
It's undude to argue about anything really, so take it easy and abide contentedly!

Once upon a time a wise old man was asked:
-How did you live so long and stay so happy throughout this life?
-That's easy, - said the old man - I never argued with anybody.
-Anybody at all? But that's impossible!, - exclaimed the listeners.
The old man smiled and answered:
-Well, impossible it is, then.

Quote from: LotsaBadKarma on May 18, 2014, 10:15:46 AM
So I guess I would be called an anti-theist. Fuck the church.

I just want to highlight this comment because it's genius, dude.

Here's the thing about Dudeism. We are all about being cool, man. The state of coolness is what matters, man.

It's important to remember that we have a text called the Dude De Ching. Our text borrows heavily from the Tao De Ching, so with that in mind, I am going to share with you the following quote:

While a number of immortals or other mysterious figures appear in the Zhuangzi, and to a lesser extent in the Dao De Jing (e.g., the "mysterious female" in chapter 6), these have generally not become the objects of cultic worship. Academic commentators on Taoism are rather more likely to focus on the divinity of the Dao itself, which might be fruitfully compared to (and contrasted with) Western conceptions of God.. I'd post a link to the source of that quote, but I'm not yet allowed to post external links. It comes from religion facts dot com.

Anyway, so, like a Taoist, Dudeists should not concern themselves with a personified God, but rather a state of being, i.e. the ultimate divinity, or rather dudevinty. If you want to believe in a God, fine, but that God better be cool, man. As soon as that God gets all wrathful and threatens to judge you for your sins, then I think you've lost the way, man. You've lost your cool and you're focusing on the uncool. Such a God would be powerful, an authoritarian and you'd be feeble. Such a dynamic just does not jive with the way, man. 

I believe in a conscious universe, which is largely (not entirely) composed of our collective unconscious. And, I feel that I can say that because it's far out! Yeah, I think I can hang with the Universe and I'm one with it, especially when start gazing after consuming a Caucasian.

It's been a 120 day since anyone has posted to this thread... I hope somebody reads this.

Quote from: PriorRestraint on June 24, 2014, 08:18:11 AM
"...Meanwhile the Taoist sage sits quietly by the stream, perhaps with a book of poems, a cup of wine, and some painting materials, enjoying the Tao to his hearts content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is too busy enjoying it!

For the Dudeist: ... Meanwhile the Dudeist sits quietly on his rug, perhaps listening to the day before yesterday's voicemails, a White Russian in hand, sun glasses shading the sun, enjoying the Dudeness to his/her content, without ever worrying whether or not the Dudeness exists. The Dude has no need to affirm the Dudeness; he is too busy enjoying it!

Quote from: PriorRestraint on June 24, 2014, 08:18:11 AM
"...Meanwhile the Taoist sage sits quietly by the stream, perhaps with a book of poems, a cup of wine, and some painting materials, enjoying the Tao to his hearts content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is too busy enjoying it!

For the Dudeist: ... Meanwhile the Dudeist sits quietly on his rug, perhaps listening to the day before yesterday's voicemails, a White Russian in hand, sun glasses shading the sun, enjoying the Dudeness to his/her content, without ever worrying whether or not the Dudeness exists. The Dude has no need to affirm the Dudeness; he is too busy enjoying it!

A "Dudeist" can be an Atheist... although to split hairs that is basically being a Nihilist according to strict definition :) Agnostic would be better as I am sure many have replied.

I am a Christian Dudeist. And from everything that I have seen and read from the movie and two of the Dudeism produced books I bought... there is no problem being a Dudeist and First -Draft Christian. In fact I challenge that the message of The Big Lebowski isn't suggesting there is a better Dudeway to be achieved via the words of "The Stranger".

Applying the principles of Dudeism is a personal path independent of the concerns of spirituality or lack thereof IMO.

"No matter what an individual?s beliefs are, it is their capacity to abide and take it easy that matters in Dudeism and the Dudeist community."
~Sermons From the Sofa  | Date: October 29th, 2015 | By Rev Gary M Silvia

Welcome to the Church of Latter-Day Dude... You Heathen :)

Abiding in Christ,

Christian Dude