Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
And the judging of evil human behavior as representative of spiritual influence is a contradiction.
What a simpleton! God good ... Devil bad. [thump thump]
Does this all the time Ans, we could spend all day correcting contradictions, misrepresentations and mere opinion, but it would be a full time job with no reward.
And the judging of evil human behavior as representative of spiritual influence is a contradiction.
What a simpleton! God good ... Devil bad. [thump thump]
Does this all the time Ans, we could spend all day correcting contradictions, misrepresentations and mere opinion, but it would be a full time job with no reward.
Lousy pay and you get abused while working.
But still, it is the best advert you could ever wish for against his form of theism, with few if any exceptions.
And the judging of evil human behavior as representative of spiritual influence is a contradiction.
What a simpleton! God good ... Devil bad. [thump thump]
Does this all the time Ans, we could spend all day correcting contradictions, misrepresentations and mere opinion, but it would be a full time job with no reward.
Lousy pay and you get abused while working.
But still, it is the best advert you could ever wish for against his form of theism, with few if any exceptions.
True, that’d about the only argument I can raise for BM remaining here: he disqualifies his theism almost every time he posts. Unlike someone like Bruce who does not do so. Bruce says “I believe,” but then does not condemn everyone who does not; BM shoves it down your throat and then says any gagging is proof of his truths.
And the judging of evil human behavior as representative of spiritual influence is a contradiction.
What a simpleton! God good ... Devil bad. [thump thump]
Does this all the time Ans, we could spend all day correcting contradictions, misrepresentations and mere opinion, but it would be a full time job with no reward.
Lousy pay and you get abused while working.
But still, it is the best advert you could ever wish for against his form of theism, with few if any exceptions.
True, that’d about the only argument I can raise for BM remaining here: he disqualifies his theism almost every time he posts. Unlike someone like Bruce who does not do so. Bruce says “I believe,” but then does not condemn everyone who does not; BM shoves it down your throat and then says any gagging is proof of his truths.
To be honest I have never heard BM make any attempt to promote his form of “relationship” to anyone here. He sees it as his only, not accessible or available to anyone else but him and we and the rest of the world as scum.
I agree, a completely different conversation than you would have with Bruce, that’s why Bruce gains respect and BM, well….
Martin, read back a year or so and you will find a few of my posts that outline what it takes to be “trusted” by God enough for Him to reveal Himself without causing more harm than a prideful intellect is already doing.
My “personal” claims to have experienced the living God with complete certitude, to have knowledge and understanding of God as a result, and to have the power of God’s spirit influencing my intellect, are not “new” and “unique”. For you I’m sure they are, since you probably have spent more time looking at the pictures in G.Q. than reading St. John of the Cross.
Which brings me to the boorish idea of getting “respect” from you and the old coot, Dennis…well, let’s just say I travel in better circles when I look for confirmation of my thoughts and meaning to my life.
And the judging of evil human behavior as representative of spiritual influence is a contradiction.
What a simpleton! God good ... Devil bad. [thump thump]
Does this all the time Ans, we could spend all day correcting contradictions, misrepresentations and mere opinion, but it would be a full time job with no reward.
Lousy pay and you get abused while working.
But still, it is the best advert you could ever wish for against his form of theism, with few if any exceptions.
True, that’d about the only argument I can raise for BM remaining here: he disqualifies his theism almost every time he posts. Unlike someone like Bruce who does not do so. Bruce says “I believe,” but then does not condemn everyone who does not; BM shoves it down your throat and then says any gagging is proof of his truths.
To be honest I have never heard BM make any attempt to promote his form of “relationship” to anyone here. He sees it as his only, not accessible or available to anyone else but him and we and the rest of the world as scum.
I agree, a completely different conversation than you would have with Bruce, that’s why Bruce gains respect and BM, well….
Quite so, Martin. The difference between Bruce and BM is that, although Bruce chooses to beleive in his particular god, he has not been so severely infected by the mind virus that he can no longer have a normal conversation. Bruce states his case but is always gentle and polite. BM is altogether different. He’s rabid. Bruce’s belief is on quite a different level to the delusions that BM is prey to. You don’t see Bruce insulting people right left and centre because they do not agree with him. One can only wonder at minds like Marios that have been so completely overtaken by the infection, so completey destroyed by religion that they no longer even make sense in ordinary discourse.
It is very sad indeed. We must continue to work to help prevent it happening to others.
My “personal” claims to have experienced the living God with complete certitude, to have knowledge and understanding of God as a result, and to have the power of God’s spirit influencing my intellect, are not “new” and “unique”. For you I’m sure they are, since you probably have spent more time looking at the pictures in G.Q. than reading St. John of the Cross.
Which brings me to the boorish idea of getting “respect” from you and the old coot, Dennis…well, let’s just say I travel in better circles when I look for confirmation of my thoughts and meaning to my life.
Devine intervention directly in your life by your silly god has motivated you to lurk around a reason discussion forum where you are routinely humiliated and has inspired your intellect to make feckless, deluded arguments not worth the electrons they are printed on. . .
Which brings me to you guys, especially Wronganswerer: Let ME clarify—I have met the living God, like PAUL (for that is the new man who he became), through ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. And now, like Paul, I share with you the knowledge and understanding of God that this actual experience has given to me. I was once like you fools, opinionated and inexperienced about God. But I am not that person now.
You people do not need to be intellectually converted to some religion. You need your heads chopped off so the rest of your being will have a chance to shine. The dullness of your mundane intellects is blinding you, and you refuse to obey the divine voice telling you go to the place where your sight will return.
You are Saul. I am Paul. And now you know the truth.
I am at a loss to defend how our administrators can continue to justify his participation on a forum advocating reason and rational discourse.
(comic by Charles Barsotti in the January 16 New Yorker Magazine)
” Assuming that the Christian God wants everyone to be a Christian, let’s look at the opportunities He has to convert everyone.”
The assumption suggested here is simply not the biblical position. The Bible goes in two different directions on the subject of who God wants to be saved from eternal damnation. On one side are biblical references which can be summed up with John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [New International Version]. Simply browse over these words and it will seem obvious that the biblical God wants all men to be saved. The verse refers to “The World”, “Whoever believes”.
But there is a second side to the Bible’s position on the subject of who should be saved which can be summed up with the following reference from the New Testament. 1 Peter 1:1 “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.” This is the opening greeting of the Apostle Peter as he writes his letter to the Churches of Asia Minor. He refers to the elect, who are exiles and scattered among a larger population. This is the biblical view of universal election/predestination in a microcosm. Simply put, out of the billions of people who have ever inhabited planet earth, there are only a few who are the “Elect”. These, and only these, will receive the salvation which God offers in His Son, Jesus Christ.
No matter how one looks at this despicable doctrine, it comes down to a very hard, cold summation. The God of the Bible has created billions of people, allowed them to be infected with the original sin of Adam, dangled salvation and forgiveness in front of them all, but designed only a few who would be granted salvation. For the rest He created hell, which, at the end of time, will be thrown into the eternal Lake of Fire. This election describes those chosen for heaven. Biblical theologians tend to deny it, but the inference is that there is also an election to hell. Non-election to heaven is equal to election to hell. This is one of the reasons I have parted company with Christianity. It makes no sense that God would create billions of people, shower His salvation down from heaven, yet design men so that only a few would choose to follow Him. This reveals the attitude of the biblical God toward humanity. We are disposable. The non-elect are losers in a fixed, sadistic game that involves every man, woman and child who has ever lived. This is one of the reasons I have parted company with Christianity. It makes no sense. And what does reason teach us? If it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.
I am at a loss to defend how our administrators can continue to justify his participation on a forum advocating reason and rational discourse.
The real question is why he’s still not generally ignored, but is instead lavished with attention.
Then his participation is demonstratively bemoaned ... rued.
Very strange behavior ... would it be considered obsessive to continually participate in such a thing while it’s clearly a source of stress and disgust, particularly when there are plenty of available and ready, far more engaging alternatives?
I am at a loss to defend how our administrators can continue to justify his participation on a forum advocating reason and rational discourse.
The real question is why he’s still not generally ignored, but is instead lavished with attention.
Then his participation is demonstratively bemoaned ... rued.
Very strange behavior ... would it be considered obsessive to continually participate in such a thing while it’s clearly a source of stress and disgust, particularly when there are plenty of available and ready, far more engaging alternatives?
You’re right, Skep.
But in answer to your question, there are lots of reasons why people don’t ignore him; some good, some indifferent and some not so good.
Responding to Mario might be a way to keep one’s post count up. (Some people actually care about such things) Sometimes it’s quite in here and there’s not much else to do but play with Mario. And newbies not familiar with Mario can be excused for trying to set him right (so much to do there!). But I think the number one reason is that his posts are just so maddening it’s hard even for those who may be paragons of reason and forebearance to resist giving him a lashing. His blatant preaching, his poor reasoning, loopy logic, ignorance of science, his misrepresentation of facts, his deludedness, his rudeness and monumental arrogance ... They just cry out to be countered. All of which is of course no excuse for those who have been here long enough to know that doing so just makes him worse.
It is likely that Mario’s personality disorder is such that he is unable to interact with people in daily life without getting a smack in the mouth and so his only outlet is online. He needs attention. And that’s exactly what he gets every time we respond to him.
He’s probably banned even from most theist sites because of his rudeness and arrogance and so he comes to a tolerant, non-theist/secular humanist site and does everything he can’t do elsewhere - everything he can to rile folks because he knows by doinf so he’ll get the attention he can’t get elsewhere. And that’s bad for PR and bad for him becasue it discourages him from getting the help he needs.
The only sensible thing to do is ignore him. Don’t give him the pleasure. Warn newbies about him but never address him directly. There’s no other way with Mario. Reason, patience and politeness don’t work. And he just loves it when we get mad at him – it shows him what he is doing is working.
I am convinced that nothing but utter silence will work. I will never respond to a post of his again.
Of course, for those who enjoy Mario’s posts it’s an entirely different matter and, well … they should just ignore this post.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 22 February 2012 06:08 AM
I think the number one reason is that his posts are just so maddening it’s hard even for those who may be paragons of reason to resist giving him a lashing. His blatant preaching, his poor reasoning, loopy logic, ignorance of science, his misrepresentation of facts, his deludedness, his rudeness and monumental arrogance ... They just cry out ...
... that there’s absolutely no basis upon which to think any degree of attempted education or correction, short of brain washing, will have any effect on him at all.
Exactly.
I guess I tend to translate the interwebs media more into “live and in person” than most. I doubt many do that to a high degree, it’s just too different to communicate in here than it is in person, but I can’t imagine feeling compelled to make any attempt to “discuss” anything with someone ranting and blathering on like he does if it were live and in person. I can see listening for maybe 5 - 15 minutes, but then it would just become background noise when you see “that guy” cruising around down town with his dog, wearing a sandwich board. I can imagine greeting his dog and developing a relationship there, but for me the dude himself would just be the noisy baggage the dog is always hauling around.
The reason people respond to him, even knowing that he won’t listen, is because they find some form of entertainment in the process. Perverse entertainment, perhaps, but they must derive some pleasure from it or they wouldn’t continue doing it. Unless they are masochists.
SKEP:...guy” cruising around down town with his dog, wearing a sandwich board. I can imagine greeting his dog and developing a relationship there, but for me the dude himself would just be the noisy baggage the dog is always hauling around.
Nice word picture. Dogs are wonderful. There owners are sometimes abhorent.
The reason people respond to him, even knowing that he won’t listen, is because they find some form of entertainment in the process. Perverse entertainment, perhaps, but they must derive some pleasure from it or they wouldn’t continue doing it. Unless they are masochists.
Yeah, probably in many cases, probably most, but in at least some it seems to only be continual frustration and anger, yet they still seem compelled to continue. That’s what makes no sense. If people are entertained, that’s understandable. I don’t really get it, but that’s impertinent ... I didn’t get the appeal of Forest Gump or Paris Hilton either.
