‹ First  < 4 5 6
 
   
 

Science and “logic”

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
21 February 2013 17:46
 

Concerning God, or concept thereof, which is a tautology, what comes first the experience or the belief?

 
 
Fool4Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
Fool4Reason
Total Posts:  715
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
22 February 2013 02:36
 
Dennis Campbell - 18 February 2013 07:19 PM

Therefore, I could care less what the idiot posters above write or think.

God is on my side. The truth is on my side. Who or what could I possibly fear?

I know God exists because God has given me this knowledge himself.

No skeptic can take away what God has given. But they do look stupid trying.

What every religious fanatic says as he’s chopping off your head.  It is perhaps a form of psychosis.

Those quotes by BM pretty much sum it up. He seems to exhibit symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, and also delusions of grandeur. It has also been speculated elsewhere on this thread the he may suffer from MPD (multiple personality disorder, although it was called schizophrenia in that post. I’m not a shrink or anything, but I know a crazy fool when I see one.

And speaking of crazy religious fanatics, and the chopping off of heads, Dennis, I saw this post on the LA Times site earlier today:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-man-beheading-son-incompetent-20130221,0,2001495.story

So what your backs people. if BM ever gets his chance to go Lizzy Bordon on ya, he might not need to worry about standing trial. He seems marginally certifiable based on his writings here.  Of course establishing an insane on-line personality could be a clever ploy to avoid prosecution. One never knows with the BrotherMario…

[ Edited: 22 February 2013 02:38 by Fool4Reason]
 
 
Fool4Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
Fool4Reason
Total Posts:  715
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
22 February 2013 02:53
 
NicLynn - 18 February 2013 11:20 AM

Mario, yesterday I was musing that I tend to think in terms of intentions, less so than literal words spoken. This is probably a weakness on my part, it doesn’t serve well to be very biased in either direction (intent or literal meaning.) Even so, I think this is why I have a soft spot for you. Sometimes, your intention seems downright nasty, don’t get me wrong. But sometimes I think you really want to help people. Granted, a fervent desire to help paired with dangerous ideas can be one of the most dangerous things in the world. But I’ve never seen you promote anything outright harmful, I don’t think you’d haul people off to the Gulag if you could.


I see a lot of people argue with you here. Sometimes I think the intent is to be helpful, sometimes I think it’s to curb dangerous ideas - but sometimes I think it’s simply to bully, because you’re in an easily bullied position, to shoot another person down or be ‘right’. I actually don’t care a lot if said person is right in that particular situation, to me, they’ve still lost in some sense. Although I take full responsibility that this may simply be a personal failing of mine, cold hard logic might not be my “thing”.


Anyways. I guess my question for you is - what, ultimately do you want when it comes to persuading other people in the direction of God and Christ? I mean, the more literal answer would be to help people believe in God and Christ, I get that, and we simply disagree here. But I guess my question (and here I’m trying to figure out if my earlier assessment of you is correct or incorrect,) is why you want to do that. What do you think the result would be for an atheist upon accepting the things you’ve accepted? For the world? Etc.

You had me going for a minute there NicLynn. I almost felt sorry for BM and I was remembering some of my previous exchanges with him and feeling like an online bully. However I think he has shown his true colors in his replies to your posts, and I think we should seriously consider reaching out to the authorities and having him undergo a full psych work-up, before he does something dangerous.

Brother Mario, if you are reading this, and I’m pretty sure you are, I personally think you should seek help before you loose it and hurt someone. I’m not kidding, I’m not bullying, I’m honestly concerned about your mental health, dude. Read my previous post. Please go directly to a good shrink and do not pass go until he tells you it’s me who is nuts.

BTW, do you own any guns? If you do, please lock them away from yourself, until you can think more clearly about what you are saying and writing.

 
 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
22 February 2013 11:18
 

Here’s something that none of you, NONE OF YOU, know or understand:

Science becomes anti-intellectual when it is encased in an impenetrable box of “facts” that blocks out “pure reason”.

The posts throughout this thread demonstrate this aversion to reasoning, as each poster absconds behind words like “proof” and “evidence” rather than moving their minds out in the open and contemplating the ideas I have put forth above, all of which the “facts” support.

Another demonstration of the inability for rational considerations of these scientific facts is the further absconding behind a litany of ad hominem descriptions of how I am this or that, to the point where I must be insane.

In response to the last “thinker”, who has a description of me in his mind as lacking understanding of science and logic (an advanced understanding of these would not be appreciated by someone without it, by the way), I will bring up again the evolution of the human eye.

The “science” behind this evolution can be found in Wikipedia as it is taken on face value. However, the “facts” do not add up and are not facts at all but “theories”. So anyone who reads these theories and drills them into their understanding as facts has deformed their understanding by allowing false information to take hold of their intellects.

Scientists, as I point out in other posts above, are discovering “facts” that are intermingled with “theories” in a manner that, when the lines are not clearly drawn or simply dismissed, turns skeptics into superstitious folk, not great “thinkers”.

In a word, the modern skeptic has become a person who values scientific errors over truth.

“It is the unscientific who are materialists, whose intellect is not quickened, and the divinity which is everywhere eludes their stupid gaze.”  George William Russell

[ Edited: 22 February 2013 11:20 by TheBrotherMario]
 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14433
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
22 February 2013 11:42
 
gsmonks - 22 February 2013 05:46 AM

Why is it that people who know little or nothing about subjects such as science and logic feel compelled to opine in these areas as though they were somehow magically endowed with insight and/or expertise?


What’s much more puzzling to me is why more critically-minded types bother to try and engage someone like that, much less repeatedly ... or perpetually, it seems. Why someone in general denial would feel compelled not only to misguidedly opine about science but to proactively “misunderstand” it isn’t at all puzzling to me though—has a lot to do with why good reasons to attempt to engage such a person are pretty scarce.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1719
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
22 February 2013 11:59
 

It’s the glee in slapping down the lunch tray carying today’s ration of stupidity.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  489
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
22 February 2013 12:05
 
TheBrotherMario - 22 February 2013 10:18 AM

Here’s something that none of you, NONE OF YOU, know or understand:

I now appear to have experienced a complete orbit of Mario’s mind.
Is there a graduation ceremony?

Oh, and Mario, any chance you could do a phone in show? Your posts are becoming horribly stale and an AV upgrade may spice things up.
May I suggest calling The Atheist Experience on Sunday and spanking their ungodly behinds in real time. Think of it as pre-launch publicity for your book.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
22 February 2013 12:10
 

Mario has no clue about Science. He doesn’t understand that scientific theories are more powerful and have more explanatory power than facts, because theories are made up of and supported by many facts and also, laws.

He also thinks he is Immanuel Kant trying to conjecture ‘pure reason’ above empirical knowledge.

Not every idea captured during the enlightenment is valid today Mario. Just as Descartes ghost in the machine, Kant’s pure reason, is pure fantasy. There is no such thing except in people’s imaginations.

It does sound very philosophically astute to the average observer however.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1719
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
22 February 2013 12:45
 
TheBrotherMario - 22 February 2013 10:18 AM

The posts throughout this thread demonstrate this aversion to reasoning, as each poster absconds behind words like “proof” and “evidence” rather than moving their minds out in the open and contemplating the ideas I have put forth above, all of which the “facts” support.

Let’s go back to where this BM pile started from in the OP and see what it tells us about any kind of “aversion.” 

BM started out quoting (or attempting to) Neil deGrasse Tyson to lend some credit to a “scientific” view that god exists in the enigma of dark matter/energy.  When other posters challenged this misrepresentation of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s actual statements, BM spent the next series of posts attempting to discredit Neil deGrasse Tyson and everybody else in his typical flamboyant, barking-mad way.

Which is it BM?  Should we listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson or should we ignore him because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about anyway?  Does Tyson support you or undercut you?  Are you coming or going?  You’ve got enough averting going on to rival fido chasing his tail.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
22 February 2013 12:53
 

Approximately 4% of the universe is matter. The other 96% is dark energy/matter, whatever that is, although we are getting closer to understanding what it may be, and it has been reiterated recently that new evidence is forthcoming soon.

Why would a supernatural creationist God pick those percentages exactly? he could have made it 50-50 or 75-25 or 95-5, or anything he wanted to.

This is just another argument from incredulity. Everything without complete understanding is attributed to the God concept in some form or fashion.

Same old weak outdated argument.

 
 
Fool4Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
Fool4Reason
Total Posts:  715
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
23 February 2013 02:02
 
SkepticX - 22 February 2013 10:42 AM
gsmonks - 22 February 2013 05:46 AM

Why is it that people who know little or nothing about subjects such as science and logic feel compelled to opine in these areas as though they were somehow magically endowed with insight and/or expertise?


What’s much more puzzling to me is why more critically-minded types bother to try and engage someone like that, much less repeatedly ... or perpetually, it seems. Why someone in general denial would feel compelled not only to misguidedly opine about science but to proactively “misunderstand” it isn’t at all puzzling to me though—has a lot to do with why good reasons to attempt to engage such a person are pretty scarce.

Here, here ! Could not agree more. I oftentimes find myself reading BM’s posts and our responses to them and wondering why anyone still bothers to entertain him with any response at all. I am still waiting for a new post from him that goes completely ignored. That would be really cool.

 
 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
23 February 2013 03:18
 

To come to a thread I started and complain about what I write shows two things: 1) you’re coming to a thread I started to read what I write, and 2) what I write is bothering you.

Two more things: 1) “critically-minded” is not “skeptically-minded” (the first can be traced back to Socrates, the second back to his opponents the Sophists), and 2) “understanding” science is not a “superstitious belief” in science (the first can be traced back to reading comprehension, the second back to a superficial personality.

Cool…I just read my post.

 
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  489
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
23 February 2013 11:19
 

An AV upgrade may spice things up.
May I suggest calling The Atheist Experience on Sunday and spanking their ungodly behinds in real time. Think of it as pre-launch publicity for your book.

So Mario, do you have the minerals to call the show tomorrow?

Your public awaits . . .

 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
23 February 2013 13:00
 

Hey, I just clicked on the link above. It seems this fantastic “experience” drew about 15 people in 2007 (and one unfortunate little girl), according to the dinner gathering photo.

So I’ll wait for a bit more exposure.

Oh, and atheists claim “no experience” of God, that’s why they call themselves “a”-theists.

This makes the atheist experience a subjective lack of experience and a subsequent opinionated interpretation of this lack of experience. So I’ll pass on these accounts, also.

If you wanna read about an “experience” that changed the world, read about Paul on the road to Damascus.

Here’s the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

 
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  489
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
23 February 2013 23:32
 

Mario, it’s disappointing that you look to the attendees of an after show dinner to denigrate the show’s audience (which incidentally achieves many millions of aggregate viewers across YouTube alone).

The fact is, you’ll get slaughtered – and you know it!

Your intellect’s just not up to it and your bravado is a sham. Pity.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6