duderonomy

Regular Member
  • Content count

    4,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

duderonomy last won the day on February 26

duderonomy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,141 Holy Cow!

About duderonomy

  • Rank
    Free Thinker
  • Birthday 09/18/1956

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.

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    blardosplats@yahoo.com

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,206 profile views
  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. Because he is the only one winning.
  4. 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.
  5. No. BAA, The thing is this...when we speak of religion, are we talking about the Bible/Talmud/Koran, etc, or a generic view of "God" whatever that loaded term may include, such as ultimate being, creator, something out there, New Age baloney, or something else? When we speak of science, are we talking about science as the scientific method or "The All Knowing Ultimate Arbiter Of All Human Knowledge Of What Is Whether Now Known Or In The Future" or science with a capital S that has it's own priesthood known as Scientists (from their many denominations), or "scientific studies that suggest", or humans that make their living from grant money and know they will be damned and ostracized if they dare to offer an alternative view backed by just as much 'science' as the mainstream has to offer to 'prove' their point? BAA, other than the scientific method, how is science a system?
  6. Bwahahahalololololhahahaha!
  7. BAA, I wonder if you pointing to the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' is itself a bit of a logical fallacy known as the 'red herring'. I don't believe that I have set proof as a condition that religion or science must achieve (for whatever reason), but rather I have pointed out that neither one can achieve proof, the same as you have. ETA: Not accusing you of throwing out a red herring on purpose (if that's the correct fallacy to cite).
  8. I love you Margee! A little overweight, smoker, sings the blues, ex-Pentecostal, heart as big as Ontario, stronger than concrete, and as Neil Diamond would sing, more loyal than my dog Sam and twice as pretty. Lawdy Lawd, what a woman! Does that help?
  9. Interesting. Seems I've been dead for years.
  10. BAA, If I ever said that science or religion or faith "proves" anything, I must have done it inadvertently. I don't recall claiming that either provides proof of anything. It seems to me that you are saying over and over that science doesn't "prove" anything, and that has been my point from the start of this. I really don't know what the big deal is about "proof", when we both agree that nothing can be proven (leaving math and maybe logic out of it). With respect to sdelsolray, who once called me an "alt-right wannabe" and never got back to me when I asked him to define what the hell "alt-right" means, and who now calls for us to define what the common meaning of real, universally used words mean, I'm happy with the common definition of the word proof.
  11. Where my Margee at?
  12. What do you consider to be a "real Christian"? The Bible speaks of many spirits that have gone out into the world, and some of them can appear as angels of light that can lead many astray from the truth. Of course the Spirit of Truth leads all that believe to the truth, silly, so what's your point?
  13. Also this... "Ok, the Christian faith cannot deliver proof and science cannot deliver proof, but the reasons why they cannot do this are NOT the same. "It's not in the remit of Christianity to deliver proof, because it operates on faith and not evidence. It's not in the remit of science to deliver proof, because it operates on evidence and not proof. Can you see how you're comparing apples and oranges and using an impossible-to-satisfy standard in doing so?" BAA, it's not apples to apples if neither can provide proof? Really? It sounds like you are putting your (non-religious, of course) faith in science, although it provides no proof at all by your own admission, and it seems that whichever or whatever standard we apply to finding truth is unable to supply a definitive answer, so both are an impossible standard. EDIT: BAA, I do believe we are going in circles. Should we sum up and move on?
  14. BAA, are you sure that proofs exist in logic? It seems to me that logic is a human construct, based on what we know so far. Not to thicken the soup at all, but still...
  15. BAA, I was explaining my point as you asked me to do. Not everything I said relates to you personally and what you believe, but it all related to the point I was making. I never said you substituted religion for science, BAA, and I also said "people that believe..." are no different than "people that believe..." Please don't take this discussion as a me vs. you discussion BAA. I understand that we are throwing idea at each other, but they are just ideas, not mud. I'm sorry if you think that I am putting words in your mouth, but you have to understand that perhaps (perhaps my ass!) you are doing the same to me. Oh, and now that you mention it, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between evidence and proof? In your second response (post # 128) you say: "You say that both science and religion should bring proof. But proof is not within science's remit. Therefore, you ask for that which cannot be given and when it isn't given, you take that failure to deliver as a sign of failure on science's part. This is false. Science can only fail on what it says it can deliver - not on what it cannot. Your argument is therefore fallacious." BAA, that paragraph of yours alone explains and exonerates the Christian faith, let alone a belief in a generic "God", don't you think?