The Dudeism Forum

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.

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.

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.

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/

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......