Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


duderonomy last won the day on February 26

duderonomy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,153 Holy Cow!

About duderonomy

  • Rank
    Free Thinker
  • Birthday 09/18/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    I have to put my interests here? Get to know me, will ya? I'm not just a piece of meat.
  • More About Me
    Really, I might be just a piece of meat.

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,328 profile views
  1. BAA, I love Margee, but I have to admit that when Buffettphan types in red, it turns me on a little and I've told her so. Does that make me bad? In the meantime, I'm not ignoring you but I did respond to Josh but not your last post to me. Sorry. For what it's worth, I couldn't come up with snappy and esoteric answers to your questions. I'm not sure what the PM stuff you mentioned is all about, but of course you are free to PM me at any time. I, like you, treat PM's as sacred and secret here. I'll leave it to your good judgement and your good intentions if you want to post any PM's between you and anyone else, so long as they also approve. BAA, it's very hard for me to have a discussion like this with the little time I have these days. I'm sure you remember when I could post everyday, and I know there isn't a deadline or other time constraint here as you've said, but please don't think I don't take this seriously.
  2. Josh, You wrote a lot and I can't respond to everything you said at once. The whole idea of me saying you dropped the mic too soon was that I don't want you to leave the discussion. Frankly, I only have limited time here lately and it's hard for me to remember where we left off when I get back. I did pick this out of your post and I hope it isn't out of context. You said: "Where do they come from, the ideas of the existence of the supernatural? "They come from the human mind and the mythologizing process. According to Campbell the entire issue of supernatural imagery in mythology is metaphor. And to literalize it, is to misunderstand it. So the very assertion of anything supernatural has that foundational flaw right away from the get go. "Moving further, it's not the job of science nor atheism to show that there is no afterlife, ghosts and goblins, fairies wearing boots, or that there is no anything. It's the job of those making the positive claims of the existence of such things to then substantiate their positive claims. That's all there is to it. Science doesn't have to show that there's no Santa Claus, no God, and no Afterlife either. All of these ideas and assertions come from the exact same place, the human mind at work mythologizing." My question is, how do you know that this is true? You make an assertion, but can you show it by scientific evidence? Can science show that there is no God? Is this Campell fellow an expert that has seen both life and death or is he just giving his opinion like you are? Why should I give his testimony more weight than the Apostle Paul's? If it isn't the job of science to show that there is no God like you say, then science has no business saying that there isn't one. How would science know that something doesn't exist if they have never looked for it? How would science know that the God idea comes from the human mind when it doesn't yet know how the human mind works? Ugh! So much more...but so little time just now.
  3. Josh, It's too bad you dropped the mic and left the stage. You've been comparing science with religion and that made me think of a question. If science covers the natural and never ever covers the supernatural (i.e. spiritual/other-worldly/ooky spooky/paranormal/soulish, life after death-ish stuff) then how is it that science can be considered an authority on such things? It would seem that the honest answer is that it can't be considered an authority on such things at all, so using science to show that there is no afterlife or that there is no 'God' or that there is nothing beyond the material world we see is futile. It's not within the remit or the realm of science to explain such things, so such things aren't studied. Is is any of science's business then to try to be an authority on things that it admittedly knows nothing about?
  4. BAA, Thanks for the lecture on Ex-C and how it works. Although I've been here since who flung the chunk and we have fought battles together against religious bullshit, you seem to think I need a refresher course. Ok. I believe you that the PM's you receive are often personal and can't be shared. I too treat PM's as private and never mention anything said in them in the public part of this site or anywhere else. I have read the testimonies of so many people that have been hurt by the Christian religion and its various mind bending "teachings". I have responded where I could and I have tried to answer any questions that people have had as best I could, just like you. So knock it off with the self-righteous baloney, will you? You sound like you are explaining all of this to me, as if I'm a newbie. Puhleeze. I know that you are a good and honorable guy by now, and I'm sorry if you don't think the same about me. BAA, did I say that I wanted Ex-C to change in the way it functions? You brought that up. I never said it, and I don't understand what you are on about. By "lobbying", I mean it the political sense, as in all of us want our viewpoints to be the ones in the forefront. See also "Jockey for position", and wouldn't you agree that we all do that? I'm not proposing anything, like you seem to think I'm doing, I'm still talking about science and the fact that nothing is 'settled' and nothing is 'proven'. Oh, and when I said "gatekeeper" I meant the gatekeeper of all things science, not all things Ex-C. Part of the problem here is when Josh (Hi Josh, I know you're reading this so I'm not talking behind your back) jumps on a little joke I made about confusing myself and carries it through his entire following response using it like a theme, and you BAA, when you go off on a tangent like I just had to respond to here. Probably so much kerfuffle, but when it gets to this point it's beyond even the dreaded "define [insert word]". Ugh. Another problem is that we conflate "God", "gods", "Gods" "first cause", and "whatever existed before anything existed unless something always existed and where did that come from", with religion in general and Christianity in particular. Because of that, this discussion could go on. And on. And on. There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, but since none of us have complete understanding, even our collective understanding is limited. Let's settle on that, can we and be done with this thread?
  5. Josh, this thread could go off in a lot of different directions, some of which may not even belong in this sub-forum, IMHO. In a way though, it still agrees with the OP of "Limited Vs. Complete Understanding", wouldn't you agree?
  6. Sure if you want. Otherwise, you may consider my questions to be rhetorical. What's with the post with everything struck through, and the others where you must have posted something and then erased it leaving just a period because the forum software wouldn't let you erase it altogether nor leave it blank?
  7. Vulnerable members, BAA? Who made you the gatekeeper? What is your motivation to "shield the vulnerable"? BAA, I think you should lobby for your point of view like we all do here (and again, I'm kind of on your side although you wouldn't know it much from my arguments), but when it comes to evidence we need evidence. Not 'scientific studies', not 'evidence suggests', not grant money fueled results, not "I know this is true and I shall shield all others from the dark Untruth, even though my understanding is limited and not complete".
  8. Ok, I'm not trying to be obstinate here, but who determines what the "Standard Model" is? Do you know that NASA can launch to anywhere in the known universe basing their science on the earth standing still and the calculations would be the same? Do we really know what happened fourteen and a half million years ago? Have we seen that far back? Do we know that the speed of light is a constant? It may be now, but can we be sure it was then? What if the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force and gravity were formed much later than science assumes? What if, for example, the earth we live on was without form in the beginning (of the story of earth), and void because there was no life here yet? You said; "We can't just let any Tom, Dick and Harry run around causing doubt about the Standard Model without significant and compelling reason for doing so. Especially not simply because "it's possible" that we currently have it all wrong." Fricking Popes, fricking Protestants, fricking Copernicus! We must defend the Standard Model! Prove us wrong! We will not accept any other argument unless it provides better guesswork than we have!
  9. I've been so busy and I've been away so long I think I might be missing some of the narrative. I have read through everything posted since I was here last. One: Josh, it's not sweet cheeks dammit, it's Sweet Cheeks. Get it right or it's Mr. Sweet Cheeks to you. Also, I appreciate not only your POV, but also your sense of humor. Two: BAA, how is it you think your scientific view is superior to Pantheory's scientific view? If none of us knows for sure how the universe began, or what is really inside the hollow Moon ( ), then how is it that your science is better than his science? Are you sure the difference isn't the equivalent of a Catholic vs. Protestant thing, and do you have solid evidence of the actual scientific truth? Three: Is there evidence that the earth is not standing still with everything revolving around it? Not conjecture, not common sense, not assumed reality...I mean evidence. Four: Is there evidence that the earth is not special in the universe as the only planet that harbors life (other than "Heaven") as the major religions claim? I admit this is a dumb question. Five: Did Copernicus offer a standard model or an alternative model? Ugh. You guys know me...I'm not trolling and I'm more on your 'side' than any other, but there are things that must be answered and not assumed, if you catch my drift. I can't wait for the days when I can get back to posting dang near every day.
  10. No BAA. Until you can show with science that the earth isn't unmoving with the entire universe revolving around it I'm not sure I can trust your science, and we've been through that, right? It's called 'relative motion' and when I brought it up, you said you didn't know what that meant, remember? There are billions of people that trust religion, and I suppose there are billions that also trust science. I would posit that there are billions that trust both and don't have a problem doing so, but so what, because... "Which one comes out on top" is an argumentum ad populum, isn't it? Yes it is, so I won't be participating in drawing up your list. Plus, the very idea that you and I should put our trust in what other people put their trust in is a bit unscientific, isn't it? As to your refusal to identify with a clique or a faction, how is it that you and Pantheory don't agree? Are you in a different denomination? It's all Science isn't it?
  11. Josh, for example, you said: "That leaves the only contender as science. It's literally the only contender when it comes to describing reality. The idea that religion is even in the game, is completely false." I have to ask where you get your definition of reality (not what the word means). Do you get it from science, religion, or something else? If you already know what reality is, why would you need science or religion to describe it? There might be a logical fallacy in there someplace, don't you think?
  12. Josh, Just saying that I'm not ignoring your points or ideas, and I agree with most (but not all) of your points. I welcome and appreciate your input always. One thing though, I know BAA calls me "the Dude", and I don't really like that. Call me Duderonomy, Duder, Asshat, Sweet Cheeks, Dumb Shit, or anything else, but please don't refer to me as "the Dude" if you don't mind. Thanks!
  13. Nah. Your guy TrueDough sent me an email explaining how he and the new French guy had to hold each other later because Trump scared them so much by calling on them to grow the fuck up that they had to leave behind a striped sock, and some striped underwear.
  14. Because he is the only one winning.
  15. Florduh, which of Trump's policies are absurd? Putting his country first? A strong defense? Expecting other countries to pay what they agreed to pay for their own defense (the money doesn't come to us)? More and better jobs for us? Driving out the terrorists? What do you consider "Trumpism"? What is the 'topic at hand'? A Newsweek article supported by some unnamed source (didn't follow the link) because suddenly there are too many Christians in the military? Not enough nancy-boys, minorities, and limp wristed panty boys and feminist dyke types to suit them? I swear, there has to be a God somewhere out there, and when I meet him I'm going to slap him across the jaw for creating liberals.