Comments on: Great Dudes in History: Charles Darwin

By: Dick

Dick — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:08:19 +0000

Great dude, dude! Made a link to this. Hope ye don’t mind.
http://dimasplace.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/econoblahblah-als-geloof/

By: The Dudespaper

The Dudespaper — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:57:34 +0000

sorry, incorrect use of a posteriori. a priori is what i should have said.

By: The Dudespaper

The Dudespaper — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:56:44 +0000

the evolutionists generally refute that argument by saying that if you can always position some all-powerful explainer a posteriori, then you’re left the realm of rational argument. it only moves the question back by bringing up the question – how did god get there? it’s turtles all the way down. the pastafarians lampoon this idea very well – claiming that any time questions of logic come up that seem to refute the existence of the spaghetti monster, it’s actually his noodly appendage messing with the data to confound us on purpose.

It should be mentioned of course that evolutionary theory doesn’t really have anything to do with Dudeism. Nor does God. Dudeism makes no claims about theology or science. And this article only argued that Darwin was a dude. In this context, our individual opinions on God and science are just our opinions, man.

Dudeism is about the poetic and perceived “way” of “making this life significant” (Roger Ames’ translation of the title of the “Tao Te Ching.”) It is fundamentally humanistic. Thus, if questions about God and cosmology and science come up, then they should be looked at only metaphorically or poetically. Their literal truth or falsehood should have no bearing on our Dude worldview. Dontcha think?

By: Rev. Ed C

Rev. Ed C — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:03:50 +0000

Personally, I don’t see why evolution rules out intelligent design. If anything you could make an argument that it proves it. I mean, sure, it’s at odds with Zionist Creationist mythology but the fact is the concept of a god would mean that the complexities of the universe are nothing to them, and, should there be one/some it’s more likely (in my humblist of opinions) that we’d be part of an evolving idea, like working with any toy building blocks, or modelling clay. I don’t see things as a duality, there’s an infinate set of possibilities out there, we just don’t know, dudes.

I mean, Darwin was a scientist, not a philosopher, he set out to discover what was. Darwin I like, Dawkins really pee’s me off, he’s like the atheist version of a radical cleric (yeah, I consider atheism a religion, I mean, it’s a faith in an ideal, right?), the man’s got a beef against organist religion and he uses people’s modern belief in the lack of godliness as a front for his own shit. Darwin can be a Dude but Dawkins is the Anti-Dude if ever I saw one… man, I can’t abide that guy…

By: The Dudespaper

The Dudespaper — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:08:19 +0000

hey jj,
i’d love to hear more about what you’re alluding to. but i’m afraid i don’t quite get the gist. forgive me for possibly misinterpreting your message. it sounded to me like you were taking the transcendental route, which seems to create a dualism all its own – that is, that there is a natural and a supernatural – a transcendent and an imminent. but it still sounds like a top down ghost-in-the-machine approach, at least the way you’ve articulated it. and that’s cool. that’s cool.

just curious what it is that peeves you about darwin/evolution. that’s the thing i don’t really get.

your two cents more than welcome, but if you want to throw in a few more cents that’d be great too. it sounds like you’re taking a bit of offense though. no hard intended. this is a family restaurant.

By: J.J. Vicars

J.J. Vicars — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:46:58 +0000

I’m not surprised my response would be interpreted that way. My comment makes no sense when still stuck on the duality or creationism-or-not. I made no mention at all of “top-down organization” nor did I use the word ‘preordained’. The organization I’m talking about, if it needs to be labeled this way, would be “in-out”. The ‘invisible world’ creates and supports the ‘visible world’ of space/time. Conciousness creates form. There’s some quantum physics in there.

Whatever, dude. I added my two cents to the discussion and clarified when deemed necessary. That’s plenty.

By: The Dudespaper

The Dudespaper — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:27:19 +0000

Hey JJ
You disappoint me! How could you say that Darwin said that life was a mere coincidence devoid of any meaning?

I find it infinitely puzzling that people fine more meaning in a top-down approach to explain the world than a bottom-up one. For me the bottom up explanation is a tale of true adventure and beauty, and the notion that there is an organizing top-down principle to explain the world is hopelessly simplistic and dull.

Taoism is far more in line with Darwin and the theory of evolution than any creationist ever could be. Taoism supports the notion that there is a flow and development to life – not that it is predetermined, but that it unfolds naturally and in a myriad number of ways, all of them ultimately good, but not preordained.

Evolution in fact showed that man is vehemently not at the top of the pyramid, but a side branch of a growing bush.

It’s a shame that the actual poetry of the theory of evolution isn’t something that people were taught in school or encouraged to discuss openly. The consequence is that most people don’t actually understand what it’s all about. It’s far more beautiful, fascinating and complicated than the talking heads on TV would have you believe. It’s not a linear process with man on the top. It is in many ways in line with the mythological understanding of the world purveyed by Joseph Campbell – it’s a journey of heroic genes.

But then, what’s a hee-ro? That’s the real question.

By: J.J. Vicars

J.J. Vicars — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:55:39 +0000

I’m with McNuggetz on this one. How can a group such as this champion a guy who basically said life is a mere coincidence devoid of any meaning? I thought Dudeism was influenced by Taoism? Typical Western duality of God/noGod. Problem is “God” is still thought of as “the invisible man who lives in the sky”. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts and something we can never completely comprehend. The other problem is literal translation; religion is supposed to be metaphor to guide personal experience, not historical fact. Joseph Campbell did great work in this area but of course reactionaries won’t hear of it, still gonna argue over whether or not there’s an invisible man.

The whole thing is just another part of Man’s feeling of superiority. Whether through religion or evolution humamns still think they’re at the top of the heap. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Noody shits in their own backyard like this species. If anything, we’re collectively at the bottom of the heap for arrogantly making such waste of our potential.

By: Chasmanian Dude

Chasmanian Dude — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:45:21 +0000

Darwin’s shortcomings don’t negate his dudeness. People who deny evolution rely on superstition and mythology to explain nature. They have a hard time seeing the physical evidence without religious bias. That was Darwin’s success. He pushed past his preconceptions to see the truth. As a former fundie, I’ve seen the truth now as well. Regardless of my lack of belief in gods and devils, I still want to be a dude to others as Christdude, Buddhadude, and Gandhidude would have wanted.

By: naturedude

naturedude — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:52:04 +0000

Well stated Dudely and I totally agree. It’s amazing how polarizing this issue has become in our culture. I really enjoyed the link to Dawkin’s book as well. He really holds no punches about it and it is about time someone did just that.