Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


duderonomy last won the day on October 29 2018

duderonomy had the most liked content!

About duderonomy

  • 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

2,946 profile views

duderonomy's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Blah blah blah blah blah. You have a Bible so why 'suppose' anything? According to the Bible Adam and Eve were created in God's image, and they were perfect, innocent, and had no concept of sin. We've been through this before. In the Bible it was Biblegod that cursed Adam and Eve, the earth and God knows what else. There was no "potential" for human nature, there was human nature because Bible god created it...and then cursed it. Vague esoteric thoughts, wishful thinking, suppositions and other such can't take the place of the Bible if you are arguing from a Christian POV.
  2. I don't think that's the point End, that's exactly the point. In fact, it's the ONLY point. The rest is chaff, counter measures, projection, excuses, rationalizations, and fear. If God is almighty and going to 'cast' me into Hell, or if I'm going to be 'saved' and go to Heaven in your particular religious scenario, who cares? Nothing I can do about it. Choices have been made, paths determined, and outcomes decided before I was conceived and in fact, before Adam and Eve were conceived, blah blah blah... But if Biblegod created humans, and a scenario where humans would have to worship him and pray to him and proselytize for him, then he did it because he is weak and needs those things. Otherwise he could have just not created anything and kept to himself, needing nothing. No need to do anything, no need to create anything, no need to be worshiped, no need for anything.
  3. End, you stupid douche nozzle, I ain't passing a plate for you but you're right, this shit ain't free. Ignorance like yours is expensive. Luke 6 supports this, and 'you think' you can paraphrase Paul the Apostle and make his salient and majestic point match your idiot musings? You call this rambling stream of consciousness disjointed bullshit a sermon? There's going to be a kicker all right. The one where Jesus and the Apostles kick your ass for calling yourself a Christian while puking up this sissy pablum crap and calling it a sermon. You'll be shitting sandals for weeks. I'm betting that the Heathens aren't going to be impressed with your little "sermon" either. Other than that End, it's ok to put yourself first every now and again. God wants us to love our neighbor the way we love ourselves. Think about that. It's not a sin for us to love and want and provide the best for ourselves. I'd be glad to discuss this with you End, but only if you understand that just now I don't have a ton of time to devote, and you'll have to bring Bible for what you assert, and not just some thoughts that drift through your brain.
  4. Prof, I just re-read through the post I made where I responded in green. I admit that I've grown sloppy in my arguments. So much of what I said was rhetorical, and I'm sorry you and maybe others missed that. I'm sure some got my point. If common animals that are known can become 'gods', then why can't common spirits that are known become 'gods'? I posit that the fact that spirits have for thousands of years and by many divers peoples and cultures been seen as gods shows that spirits are as common in the environment as animals are IF the idea of gods comes from the environment. Really Prof, this started as what I thought would be a fun exercise. I never thought that some people would get all emotional and pissy about stuff (not talking about you of course). I guess I didn't consider the "new" folks. Anyway to sum up...Yes, your arguments are weak in this thread. Are mine? You say so, but all that I've argued between us is from a position using the logic presented re: the environment produces gods. It's a matter of opinion then, right? In the end, I think that weak arguments against are just as weak as weak arguments for. Without proof, it's all faith and belief.
  5. LoFall, The Prof and I and a couple of other adults are discussing stuff here right now. Take your Thor and Loki action figures and go play in your room until bedtime ok?
  6. I said, "The link you provided showed nothing. I could use it to 'show' that I am correct just as quickly as you could use it to show that you are correct. Useless stuff." Prof, I still miss the old board style. We could quote the whole post...what was said plus the reply. Now we just get the reply and it gets disjointed sometimes. At least that's my observation. What do you think? But anyway, if there was nothing to show, as in definitive proof, maybe it was because it was a link to Google search results? You aren't going to rely on such a thing as some kind of a proof to make your point are you? "Perhaps" indeed. Perhaps a professor, and especially a redneck professor, should bring something better than a guess and a haphazard Google search when trying to either score a point or prove one?
  7. Sorry Prof, I should have just quoted your post all at once. But anyway... Which instruments and which experiments did science use in order to show that they didn't find anything non-physical? That is, beyond the physical instruments and the physical experiments they used to try to find something that isn't physical of course. You must realize that many things 'make their way' into religions and beliefs, right? So that discredits everything? How many silly ideas or things make their way into the realms of science, and do those things then discredit the whole of science? So again, how is it that a field of study that only studies the physical is equipped or thinks they are qualified to be an authority on subjects that are admittedly not physical? and... How is it that goofy things that make their way into religion discredit all of religion if goofy logical fallacies that make their way into arguments don't discredit all of logic, or goofy ideas that make their way into science don't discredit all of science? Of course, either way we were talking about religions coming from environments. We could argue about buffalo or golden plates or DNA tests on Catholic crackers, but none of that will change the fact that if religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments. That was my answer to you-know-who and you jumped in. Now you-know-who backed out while taking faux umbrage and here you are probably thinking you are stuck and you have to keep responding. If you want to let this go Prof, I'm fine with that or we could go on, but let me repeat: If religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.
  8. The link you provided showed nothing. I could use it to 'show' that I am correct just as quickly as you could use it to show that you are correct. Useless stuff.
  9. I tried to shoe-horn what into a discussion about what?
  10. Thanks for the prayer, brother End3. I must say that your sincere prayer has already been partially answered! I have grace for that person. It will still be a cold day in Hell though when I'll have a relationship with her if she's going to be so pissy at the drop of a sandal. I know you were joking about passing the plate, but you know that no pastor is going to pass the plate while the congregation is holding hymnals and singing and wondering "what's wrong with verse three? Why not verse three?".
  11. Elephants exist by every standard of science. That's true, but does Science™ have a standard by which to study spirits? If Science™ doesn't think spirits are real, it won't go looking and I don't think it ever has. So science isn't where one would expect to find the answers about spirits, right? Nonetheless, both elephants and spirits made their way into religion. Maybe you and VerbosityCat are correct and it is because of environment, but that just reinforces my point that spirits must exist in the environment around us.
  12. Really, your argument is reduced to this? And don't call me Shirley.
  13. As I understand it ( I admit I could be very wrong), the Water Buffalo is not worshiped in the Hindu religion because it has something to do with death. It carries the god that rounds up the dead or something. In full disclosure, I kind of knew this but I took a two minute Google tour anyway and that's all the time it gets tonight. So anyway yeah, the mighty buffalo is there in Hinduism and has its own back story and everything. Anyway the point is that the buffalo factors into Hindu religion because it is there in the environment just as spirits factor in to so many religions around the globe because they are there in the environment.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.