Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


duderonomy last won the day on July 17

duderonomy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,137 Damn!

About duderonomy

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/18/1956

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo

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.

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,043 profile views
  1. Read the Gospel of John, chapter ten, verses 27-30. That always gave me comfort when I was on a bender and didn't want to worry about going to Hell for it back in the day. Whatever you you think about that SB, I hope you think everything through for yourself. You're a pretty smart guy.
  2. duderonomy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    My synopsis of the thread thus far, to be freely ignored by those unconcerned by my opinion: 1) We all recognize that dissent and disagreements will happen, but we should be decent grown up people when we go about dissenting and disagreeing. 2) Everyone's opinion is worth looking at. This includes the rabid evil leftists that want to take everyone's rights away as well as the normal and fully matured righties that want to take everyone's rights away. 3) As BAA so rightly often said (not in so many words), we should be aware of what the lurkers think of us. I have to say I agree, but on the other hand, being in a Hebrews 12:1 situation (surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses) is very uncomfortable whether in a Christian or an Ex-Christian way. Maybe this one doesn't belong in my synopsis...or does it? 4) Good points can be buried and thus lost under a barrage of too many words. Just an observation. Salient points are salient. 5) We should, as Ex-Christians, no matter where we were in our thinking when we found this site understand that new people coming here deserve respect by any and all definitions discussed elsewhere. Having said that, I don't worry so much about them being snowflakes. Touchy, scared, vulnerable, 'convicted', unsure of themselves, scripture fulfilling last day reprobate Hell bent sinners that never thought they'd be one of those people, or angry 'blasphemers' spreading their new found wings? Sure, but they aren't delicate. They can read, and rules that we should follow can also be read by them. Anyone smart enough to see through Christianity can certainly find the appropriate sub-forums here where they can talk religion, and not politics, sex, and so on. 6) To the OP, or rather, to the title of this thread: Tolerance is tolerance. Intolerance is not tolerance. Let me say that again: Tolerance is tolerance. Intolerance is not tolerance. There is no middle ground. People demanding tolerance must be tolerant. Otherwise they are intolerant themselves and have no standing to preach or teach tolerance. This has been pointed out already in this thread by people other than me. Any "middle ground" is at best a paradox, because a compromise only goes so far and implies both tolerance and intolerance at the same time. 7) The best we can do is look for truth, and there's no need to be assholes while doing so. At the same time, it's ok sometimes, and in the right places to have some fun. Atheists need to remember that in 5 billion years or so the sun will burn out, and those of you that will live forever will wish you had Jesus in your hearts when that happens. I know I will!
  3. duderonomy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Yes, but some of you are so fucking stupid...lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a control issue. I'm working that out with the therapist... Humor and sarcasm noted. Enjoy your upvote!
  4. duderonomy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    My unsolicited (and rambling and disjointed) thoughts: Many have pointed out in many paragraphs that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and many of the people calling for strict rules on what can be said and what can't be said will have to follow the same rules as everyone else does. I hope they are aware of the unintended consequences of what they are calling for, because it would apply to them too. It's nice that many of the members here are discussing the ins and outs of policing ourselves but ultimately the direction of this website will be determined by the site owner and his moderators. Those of us riding the bus should feel free to tell the driver where they should turn, but taking trying to take the wheel and force a change in direction isn't appropriate. Many of us take ourselves too seriously. Honestly, I've seen much more attempted coercion of thought and more attempts at placing guilt trips about declared sins against arbitrary beliefs, more dogmatic preaching of what one must believe in order to be accepted by some people in some areas of this website than I ever did in any church. Having said that, I hope I'm not guilty of doing the same. I might be, but I don't think so despite some of the heated discussions I've had in the ToT. BAA always avoided the political drama and virulent name calling and mankee feces slinging that some of us indulge in from time to time. He always defended the original intent and purpose of this website. I wish I could live up to that example, but I don't always have the words for people first coming here or encouraging people that have just posted their extimonies. So these days I mostly hang out in ToT, and that because I've been around here for many years and I know most of the other posters there and what they think. It's a good online hangout until we lose our sense of humor and like I said above, take ourselves too seriously. Maybe some that are more concerned about what the recently deconverted think of this should spend more time assisting the recently deconverted and less time insisting that everyone agree with their political and sexual views? There is dogged dogmatism on both sides of the political spectrum. I think we (and I mean we, not just you ) should all give each other a wide berth when these things come up. One thing that's been discussed is that ignoring a post implies consent. No, it doesn't. Jumping into it with name calling and demands of compliance for opposing views gives it credibility and the opportunity for the poster to add more fuel to the fire they started. It takes two to Tango. Ignoring it is just ignoring it, and implies that it isn't worth responding to by virtue of your absence. You know, like 'when your phone doesn't ring, it's me'. What if we let ToT be ToT, and those among us who want a more formal discussion post here in the Colosseum? The rules, it seems, are different between the two, and not 'anything goes' here. I'm not sure if the rules and mods would allow or want political discussion to be here so that's just food for thought.
  5. duderonomy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Joe Blogg is what we call you sometimes. Sorry you had to hear it from me.
  6. duderonomy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but why do I need to? You summed up the whole thing right here. ^^^^
  7. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Your popcorn will get cold if you wait for that. What some people call "objective reality" without proof is another man's "subjective reality". Does that help?
  8. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Still sounds like bullshit to me, but if by JP you mean JoshPantera I'm willing to listen to what he thinks.
  9. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Yes, and often. Yourself?
  10. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    OK, I admit it. Your post was more lengthy (third time you brought this up) and had more substance than my post. Probably had more girth too, and lasted longer. I don't even know at this point what you are on about but please, let it go. There comes a time when we all decide to grow up or remain rooted to the past. That was part of my point of bringing up the Cultural Christian thing.
  11. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Yeah, I didn't see that particular post BO made. Nonetheless, have you seen BO in this thread? Because that's what I meant by behind his back. It's possible that Burnedout says what he thinks, no matter how outrageous it seems to some of us, but focusing on things like this might detract from some of the stuff he says that isn't so far off base. If we all jump on emotional knee jerk responses without thinking things through, are we any different?
  12. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    No offense meant at all, but that sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. Kind of like when people pray for a miracle. There are spirits or there aren't, you know? Is everything just material or not?
  13. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    I don't think I dodged this. In fact, I confronted it head on and I still stand by what I said. Yes, the label here might be mine, but there was no "big switch". I've argued my point in ToT, not just recently but some months ago. I don't see where facts are simply on your side at all.
  14. duderonomy

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Yes, you can call me used to be a Christian. I'm fine with that. I don't remember every post I made here either but they were honest at the time, meaning I believed what I believed at the time. Believe it or not, I wasn't making fun of you, I was pointing out that you aren't always correct, as a way of of saying that you might not be correct now. It seems that here at Ex-C we all grow up together.