duderonomy

Regular Member
  • Content count

    4,504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

duderonomy last won the day on February 26

duderonomy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,156 Holy Cow!

About duderonomy

  • Rank
    Rationalist
  • Birthday 09/18/1956

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    blardosplats@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • 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.

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,510 profile views
  1. You should change the period after "way" to a semicolon, and use a lowercase "y" on the word "You're".
  2. Libertarianism Discussion

    Josh, I haven't had a lot of time to read or post here lately, but the 'new' forum provides a notification when I'm mentioned in a post. Cool! I don't remember the old one doing this, or if it did, I didn't click the right box to have it send me an email. Anyway, I'm not sure you are understanding me concerning religion v. science at all, so I thought I'd butt in here to say so. The only level playing field between the two is that neither one can say anything for sure, and I've admitted and I believe that where they differ, we need to take the side of what works.
  3. One more thing, for the mod(s) What happened to the post numbers?
  4. Josh, This is a bit too long for me to respond to all of it. Not that I would disagree with all that you've said. What I just said to BAA goes for you as well! Maybe the problem some folks have isn't that Science™ is claiming that there is no God, but that some 'scientists' claim that there is no God? How would a layman separate the two? Scientists don't agree anymore than preachers do when it comes to 'God' or religious debates. Scholars often disagree as well. Where there is no solid knowledge of history, I tend to place the study of ancient history (or better, pre-history) in the same category as modern day Gender Studies. That is, let's take what we now believe, and build our beliefs around it, replete with facts that may or may not be true facts. After all, one man's incomplete evidence is just as good as another man's incomplete evidence, isn't it? I think Genesis is baloney the same as you do, but let's look at the science. Could living things like plants and trees that were perfectly healthy and fully grown survive three days without sunshine? Of course they could. If you doubt me, research Michigan. :-) And this: "Does solid scholarship have more weight than the apostle Paul, quite frankly, yes. Paul is the subject matter of completely baseless religious assertions, some quite frankly very ignorant in scope and depth. Once again, it's not as if we have two options, one being Paul and the other being an entire body of solid scholarship and each are standing shoulder to shoulder with one another. "What you're doing is a type of straw man approach over and over again. It's also a little wave of the hand dismissive towards science, and unnecessarily I might add in both cases." Paul made "baseless religious assertions", and was "ignorant in scope and depth"? What is this "solid scholarship" you speak of, and how is your assessment of the Apostle Paul any more than your opinion? No one can prove a negative, you say, and it comes up here quite often and I agree. But, when a person claims that there is no God, isn't that a negative that they must then prove, if they are claiming that assertion as the truth? How again is it that one would know that no God exists anywhere?
  5. Many thanks for your input as well, BAA. Maybe there's more to this? If all concerned have the time. I'm serious, but I admit I'm also having a bit of fun. What I'm not doing is just making stuff up to be difficult.
  6. Guys, I have such a limited time here lately. I appreciate all of the back and forth. As always, I learn a lot, and I have to think that sometimes people that seem to be sure of their own knowledge might learn from me as well. Josh, I have immense respect for your input and you are so often right, whether I readily admit it or not. Note that I said so often, not always! BAA, To sum up my views on the OP, you are correct that seeing things from more than one angle gives a better understanding. For example, remember the bit about three blind men examining an elephant? One felt the legs and thought it was a tree, one felt the skinny tail and thought (whatever) and another felt blah blah blah. But was it an elephant? What if it was a Rhinoceros? Here's a link (that I haven't read all the way through) for what it's worth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant I won't even go back into the "relative motion" of the celestial bodies. So for now, I can agree with you both that the best knowledge we have is the best knowledge we have, and I'm sure we all agree that we should always keep looking for more, and if we as a species are to survive we must consider all angles and search out whatever works.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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?
  13. 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".
  14. 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!
  15. 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.