The Dudeism Forum

I don't agree with his views on the new "active" atheist movement.
I see atheist activism as a reaction. Without the stubborn elbowing into every issue by the religious right there would be no need for atheist "proselytizing"
But overall this guy has a point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgd6TJnCPYQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZvpWgMAPQs&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wo1tw6RvfM&feature=related

I tend to agree with him on a lot of points. The atheist activism point as well...I do not believe in a personal god in the old man with a beard and a bad temper way...but I still think the "New Atheism" movement is going at it wrongly and they are quicky becoming what they fight.

At the very least they are not going to convert anyone by saying everyone else is stupid and maybe even evil.

Seriously...and we should not start doing so either. I can dig religious peoples' styles as long as they do not hurt anyone. And the majority are decent folks.

My only gripe with some atheists are that they shove their ideals down other peoples throats as much as Christians tend to do.  Don't get me wrong,  my wife is atheist.  But she doesn't push her beliefs (or lack of) on anyone else.  Just my opinion.

2 lines and you managed to say what I needed a small rant for 

http://afterall.net/quotes/490993

Friedrich Nietzsche on Fighting Monsters
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, (1886) APHORISM 146.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Quote from: AspiringDude on September 03, 2012, 04:06:32 PM
I tend to agree with him on a lot of points. The atheist activism point as well...I do not believe in a personal god in the old man with a beard and a bad temper way...but I still think the "New Atheism" movement is going at it wrongly and they are quicky becoming what they fight.

At the very least they are not going to convert anyone by saying everyone else is stupid and maybe even evil.

Seriously...and we should not start doing so either. I can dig religious peoples' styles as long as they do not hurt anyone. And the majority are decent folks.

There would be no activist atheist movement if it were not for people like the Dominionists who vocally and actively state that their goal is to assume control of all American institutions and finally and legally turn the country into a religious state.
And this is not a fringe movement. Michelle Backman and Rick Perry were both active Dominionists.
When people are making moves like that being the one that sits back and is "open minded" simply assures a total loss of the freedom to be open minded.

I personally support redefining every type of irrational religious belief as synonymous with ignorance and superstition. I consider it an inevitable stage and necessary stage in human evolution.
And as far as Nietche goes (mentioned in another thread) I don't support substituting irrational adoration of a god head for the same irrational adoration of some other false idol.  Das Ubermensch.
Every actual realization of that results in something like the Third Riech or North Korea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEzGekC1044

As far as not hurting anyone... I don't believe that is possible for religion.
A belief in leprechauns doesn't hurt anyone either. But the point is that we don't make belief in leprechauns functionally a prerequisite to high office.
Leprechaun believers don't insist that all moral values stem from belief in leprechauns.
Irrational religious beliefs undermine so much in our society and the everyday casual religious person does not get a pass. The reality is that the very criteria that we can use to say that they are decent folks is the extent to which they do not follow the edicts of their own religion.
If a person was to follow the bible to a word then they would necessarily support slavery, stoning of unruly children, genocide and a host of other atrocities.
By calling some religious people decent we are actually complimenting them on not following their own religion.

You ever read Penn Jillette's "God, No!"?

It's a pretty funny book, but he makes some decent points about prosthelytizing on both sides.  As a dude, I just abide and contemplate these things, I'm not running out to practice.

He compares believing in God to believing in a train you can see and feel, while the atheist can't.  If you knew an atheist was standing on the tracks, oblivious to a train that's coming right at him, you would feel compelled to warn him.  If you didn't try to tell him about the train, you'd be a major asshole.

But it's the atheist's right to ignore you, and to point out that there is no train.  Or tracks.  And maybe if he convinced you of that, you'd be free to eat whatever food you pleased.

Both sides prosthelytize.  They have that right.  What's great about dudeism?  We can just abide.

Quote from: NobleElement on September 04, 2012, 11:27:39 AM
You ever read Penn Jillette's "God, No!"?

It's a pretty funny book, but he makes some decent points about prosthelytizing on both sides.  As a dude, I just abide and contemplate these things, I'm not running out to practice.

He compares believing in God to believing in a train you can see and feel, while the atheist can't.  If you knew an atheist was standing on the tracks, oblivious to a train that's coming right at him, you would feel compelled to warn him.  If you didn't try to tell him about the train, you'd be a major asshole.

But it's the atheist's right to ignore you, and to point out that there is no train.  Or tracks.  And maybe if he convinced you of that, you'd be free to eat whatever food you pleased.

Both sides prosthelytize.  They have that right.  What's great about dudeism?  We can just abide.

In my experience the religious cheer for the train.
In fact in actual practice they are the train.
For most casually religious people it isn't really about faith. It's about identity.
I really wish that someone would go into you average suburban country club catholic church and put a lie detector on the parish. The truth is that I'd be willing to bet that at least half the congregation would fail a lie detector test if they were asked if they believe in God.
But they also would absolutely insist they did. Why?
Because it would be social suicide to do otherwise.

That is pretty deep biker dude

That's what Penn (and someone before him, but I forget his name) calls a hardcore atheist.  "I don't believe people who believe in God, believe in God."

Quote from: NobleElement on September 04, 2012, 11:59:31 AM
That's what Penn (and someone before him, but I forget his name) calls a hardcore atheist.  "I don't believe people who believe in God, believe in God."

Well when the people who claim to believe in God continually pull "what God is" out of their ass over and over in every conversation to suit whatever argument it's pretty difficult to believe them.
Wanna see a religious person get flustered?
Just ask them what they believe and why they believe it.
Typically they spiral down hill till they eventually end up at a sort of "well I'm not sure what or why but I just feel it / believe it."
It's not "belief" in the sense that we use the word in any other context.
It's something else.
I choose to call it self deception and intellectual cowardice.
And the testimony from people who have become atheists just further convinces me.
Almost without exception people don't "change". They just admit it. To themselves.

That might be true, but the devout still exist, and I think they're allowed to do that.  Exist, just like we do.  No judgment.  I just don't want them to interrupt me if I'm about to throw some solid rocks.

Quote from: NobleElement on September 04, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
That might be true, but the devout still exist, and I think they're allowed to do that.  Exist, just like we do.  No judgment.  I just don't want them to interrupt me if I'm about to throw some solid rocks.

They are allowed to exist.
And they and their beliefs should be judged just like any others.
Religion has been off limits for too long.
It does not get a pass.
Being devout is not a virtue.
But that is just my opinion.

I mean Cmon. Mother Theresa did not believe.
It didn't come out till she died but she had been and atheist for years.
MOTHER FREAKING THERESA!!!
Religion should be treated like the tumor that it is.
It is not harmless. Ever.
Just because some of it's followers who choose not to follow it very closely and hence live a harmless life free of the intolerance and violence that the bible clearly advocates does not make it any less harmful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rwioe1SGkQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE&feature=fvwrel

There are hilarious..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpV9nHdRiiE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir5M2XuEROY&feature=relmfu

What about Dudeism, then? We call ourselves a religion, do we not?

My big gripe with the New Atheism movement is simple

Nobody is allowed to play thought police. EVER.
Nobody. Neither Michelle Backmann nor Richard Dawkins.
A friend of mine is a teacher. Recently, he wanted to go see a showing of " The Ghost of Canterville" with his class. And one father forbade his son go with the others because he did not want his child get introduced to the idea of the supernatural.
That is where I draw the line.
This is EXACTLY the same reasoning atheists accuse religious folks of.
And yes, it is the same.
Because, just as Carl Sagan said, you cannot prove god exists and you cannot prove god does not exist.
Atheism is an opinion. A stance on a philosophical question. An unsolvable question.
Nothing more.

Is it right to say that religious bias has no place in politics?
Hell yes! If you cannot prove the basis of your bias/agenda, keep it to yourself.

Is it right to say dangerous and harmful religious practices ought to be abolished?
Of friggin course! Simply human decency should always come before faith. In all things.

But is it right to forbid people to believe there might be more to this world than what we can see? Is it right to demand that we never ever even consider the fact that there may be some things about the universe we do not know and might never know?
NO.

And anyone who wants to force their worldview upon me, theistic or atheistic, can go f... themselves.

And I personally am not a theist. Besides Dudeism, I am not a religious person. Never have been.
But I will not sacrifice my mental independance to anyone. No matter how many doctorates they have or how convinced of their personal truth they are.

Sorry for letting out my inner Walter there but as you might see, I feel very strongly about this.

I hate to break it to you but as much as people want to say that Dudeism is a religion it's not.
It's a website. It's a religion in the same sense that the church of the flying spaghetti monster is a religion.
It's a parody of religion. Not to say that the zen aspects of it are without merit etc etc.
But if you are leaning on a character from a movie for meaning then....

As far as the proof of God this gets very old.
I'm not interested in proving the existence or non existence of God.
I simply find the claims that others make about God preposterous.
They can defend them or not.
All claims are open to criticism. That is the basis of a free society.
It is unique to religion that they try to insulate themselves from criticism by defining it as intolerance or mean spirited. It's a cowardly move that religion always insists upon.
Given that fact that people of faith actively and vocally advocate taking over all aspects of American society in the name of their non sense makes it extremely important to call them to the matt.
I do not feel that this sort of thing is out of bounds in any way. And it is not being the thought police to comment on the merits of other claims.

Nobody is forbidding people from believing anything.
But religion insists on belief in ideas that simply do not hold up.
A lot of the basis of the dogma practiced by many of our political leaders vocally advocates things like criminalizing heresy.
And pointing out that there are people who casual enough in their religion to not shove their faith down others throat does nothing to change the fact that we have a real growing climate of serious religious intolerance. Extending an attitude of tolerance to people who have no such inclination and actively work to create a society that legally is intolerant is foolish.

I have to laugh at the "unsolvable mystery" part.
It's unsolvable just because it's nonsense.
Religious people make specific claims about God. Continuously. They claim that they are on God's mission.
Even if we strip that away and just go to the heart of the question with the most basic set of belief typical to theists it's a specific belief that is ludicrous.
1. God created everything. That means that even if we are speaking of just the observable universe then it is several billion light years in size. So they are claiming specifically that there is an actual being who created every single thing in at least all of that.
2. That same "being" (see number 1) also cares if you get the job at Walmart. He hears your prayers and he knows if you've been bad or good.
Now I don't think that I'm being thought police or unreasonable by saying that those claims either individually or especially together require at least some sort of reason for believing them.
That is to say some sort of proof.
I'm sorry but it is not unreasonable to go with the premis that the larger the claim the larger the proof required. When people resort to saying the God is unprovable I agree.
There is a reason for that.
CAUSE IT'S PREPOSTEROUS.
I have the right to say that and it's not playing thought police.