Talk:Dudeism

What is the effect of ordination?

The church's website says:

As an ordained Dudeist Priest, you can minister over religious ceremonies in most U.S. States (laws vary, so check with your local County Clerk first), and assorted other countries.

It would be great if we could amplify on this in the article. Does anyone have information about whether and where Dudeist priests can perform legally binding marriages, etc.? JamesMLane t c 05:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute

So Scientology is "a body of beliefs and related practices", but Dudeism is a "religion"? Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPedia might need to learn to tell the difference between a religion and a web page, there... --AnonymousCoward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.35.70 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what the fuck does "a body of beliefs and related practices" even mean? is that some political correct bullshit?

what do you mean "the difference between a religion and a web page"? that dudeism is not a religion and just a web page? if this is true then i got mind-blowing information for you: a religion and an assosiated webpage can both coexsist in the same universe and timeline.Stultitiam debello (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure "mock religion" is entirely accurate.

While the definition of "religion" is surely up for debate, Dudeism really is not parodying any other belief. The preferred nomenclature is "world view", Dudeism is a philosophy wrapped in a bathrobe, more akin to Humanism than to other religions. Just say'n, for the sake of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revgms (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BC vs BCE

This is not a big issue to Dudeists, call it what ever makes sense I guess, not like it really means anything from the Dudeist perspective. I will say this though, not a whole lot of positive inter-faith dialogue going on between Dudeism and Christianity, unless we are talking about the Gnostic types of Christianity. Most Dudeists are agnostic/atheistic, the Dudeist position is that no one knows for sure, so why waste time wondering so much, just live and do no harm, that and have a few laughs with good friends. To paraphrase the Buddha, "whether there are or are not any gods, they don't seem to have any effect on this world, so why worry about it". There are those within Dudeism who may not dig the Christian nomenclature, many active Dudeists would prefer that we avoid anything that chritianizes Dudeism. They are vastly different world views, yes we dig the hippie Jesus and list him as a great dude in history, but like Gandhi we don't really dig the reactionary style of his followers. Discussion opened.--13:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)74.75.67.208 (talk)

OK, what exactly do we mean by Christian nomenclature? Isn't it taking on the trappings of 'Christian nomenclature' to identify yourself as a "Church" with "Priests", etc? Or is 'Christian nomenclature' more concerned with little initials like "BC" when "BCE" is just a newer way of indicating years from exactly the same event? This last debate really has much more to do with "PC" than "BC" (Because apparently "BC" isn't "PC" unless you add the E, according to the PC crowd), and debates like this could make "Dudeism" appear to be just yet another subset of garden variety, emasculated "PC" under a different guise. Is Dudeism really a serious religion? What is its doctrine on the afterlife then? Does it have one, or does it leave it to individual Dudeist Priests to work out the answer for themselves? Thanks for the enlightenment, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, but this last post is downright silly. Changing BC to BCE is not about "little initials", it is changing "before christ" to "before common era", and I did it not for the benefit of fellow dudeists, but for the benefit of all readers. If you do not understand how irony works, ask Screaming Lord Sutch. --Arno Matthias (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Binderguy54 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Since Delbertpeach has raised this issue on my talk page, I thought I should post here. I added the notability tag to this article because I have doubts as to whether this so-called "religion" meets WP's notability standards. Fully half of the references used are from primary sources, which means the group talking about itself, which are not adequate for proving notability. Another source is a blog, also not a reliable source. Yet another is an apparently defunct podcast, which also of doubtful notability. As far as I can tell, there are 4 reliable sources in the article, all of which are useful only for indicating that this "church" exists, not that it has achieved a level of notability that qualifies it for an article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several references were added or rearranged, from The International Business Times, The Guardian UK, We Love Cult, Religion and Ethics Weekly (PBS). Defunct links removed (The Jeff Farias show, no longer online) or updated (The Sunday Herald (Scotland). There are many more references supporting the notability of Dudeism but most are in print (e.g. Mental Floss magazine) or no longer publicly available online (e.g. The Chicago Sun Times). Is this enough to remove the notability notice? Consider as well that ABC Nightline just aired a segment on Dudeism (see "external links.") Surely if it were not noteworthy, one of the major US News programs wouldn't have featured a story on it.Delbertpeach (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a source is only available in a print publication or has been taken offline (e.g. an article in the Chicago Sun-Times) does not necessarily mean we should avoid citing the source in a Wikipedia article. As long as the source existed at one time, that is sufficient. Please see WP:OFFLINE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dudeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110155253/http://www.welovecult.com/2011/featured/dudely-lama-dudeism-interview/ to http://www.welovecult.com/2011/featured/dudely-lama-dudeism-interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]