Brother Mario

[Brothermario]

Wertbag, you’re complicating what is simple. The skeptic’s great fault is not his pride, but his inability to see the forest for the trees.

 

The greatest creation is the human personality. To debate this is to use the very personality that you are debating against being the greatest reality.

 

It is absurd thinking fancying itself as sophisticated thought.

 

Every skeptic I have ever met did not have the intellectual ability to comprehend the simple reality of greater or lesser things. Every single one!

 

That’s some serious brainwashing coming from somewhere powerful and centralized.

 

I know where it’s coming from, for it can only come from a principality and power hellbent on the destruction of all of humanity from the inside.

 

[florduh]

7 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

It is absurd thinking fancying itself as sophisticated thought.

 

My irony meter just broke.

[Brothermario]

A one-liner and a laughing emoji.

 

I’m toast.

[Edgarcito]

33 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

A one-liner and a laughing emoji.

 

I’m toast.

It’s not absurd to want to know the Creator of the “greatness creation”. Matter of Christianity, God places a form that we might know, and is a prime desire that we know Him.

 

How is it that your understanding of our individual paths is somehow greater??

 

Here’s your chance to say something compelling given these are EX CHRISTIANS.

 

Edit:  your personal greatest creation needs needs desperately to see what is greater for these folks.. speakIng of.  Me, I’m just going with you being behind the curve...

[Brothermario]

Edgar, if you are sincerely eager to know God, he won’t disappoint you.

 

But being an ex-someone is by default the losing position at the beginning of an argument with someone.

 

I’m making a claim of positive experiences; everyone here, negative experiences.

 

And, to be honest, I don’t expect to say anything compelling to many here who are the embodiment of untrained thinkers.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

What will be the outcome of this discussion?

[midniterider]

23 minutes ago, Weezer said:

What will be the outcome of this discussion?

 

Lockage due to lack of substance? 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

18 hours ago, Brothermario said:

 

Nothing really gets accomplished beyond posters gathering together to support like-minds or to attack different-minds. It’s all rather insignificant and unproductive, really.  One writes a concoction of shoddy research and opinionated drivel with a slight touch of originality into large unreadable paragraphs, which one will read back to himself or herself and feel pleasure from both the writing and reading of it. It’s a vigorous intellectual masturbation of one’s mind.

 

Never mind my above question.  I came into this late, but discovered what it is all about in his original post.  It is really nice to have God's right hand man speaking directly to us.  Maybe he can convince God to join him.  But why are we posting if "nothing really gets accomplished"?  But I guess he gets his jollies from the mental masturbation.  He is really good at it.

[Wertbag]

I've tried to have a polite conversation, but so far you've not answered any of the direct questions asked.  While you may have the answers to the life, the universe and everything, you don't appear to have communication skills in order to explain those ideas to those genuinely asking to understand where you are coming from.  Especially when it comes to educational communication there is a real skill to it.  You need to engage with your audience, make them feel your enthusiasm and work to explain your ideas in a way your audience can follow.  When you say:

6 hours ago, Brothermario said:

Every skeptic I have ever met did not have the intellectual ability to comprehend the simple reality of greater or lesser things. Every single one!

The thing that is the same with those engagements you have had, is you and your message.  You are quick to place the blame on others, but poor communication skills will scuttle even the most interesting subjects.  You need to consider your style and tactics, because half the problem is your approach automatically puts everyone on the defensive and makes them feel like your enemy.  Once you've burned those bridges there is little chance of your message getting anywhere.  So far your only clarification on what "greater or lesser" means, seems to be that it is subjective and your answer is right cos you are super smart.  That is not a winning argument.

 

Some advice:

Rein in the arrogance.  Statements putting your audience down and putting yourself on a pedestal is a losing position.  Even if you are a narcissist and truly believe yourself superior, tone that down or you'll be talking to an empty room.

 

Rein in the insults.  As soon as you insult the intelligence of strangers who you have never met, then it shows preconceived ideas, gross generalizations and a combative personality.  Again you will just put everyone on the defensive and fail to have a productive conversation.

 

Clarify your message.  You have something you want to share.  An idea, a revelation, an event that changed your life.  You need to get that message clear in your mind and figure out the best way to clearly explain it to people.  If people aren't understanding a "simple" idea, then you aren't explaining yourself correctly.  Word salads turn people away from your message very fast, so make sure it reads well before you go public with the ideas.

 

Understand your audience.  When you say:

4 hours ago, Brothermario said:

if you are sincerely eager to know God, he won’t disappoint you.

You show a lack of understanding of the people on these forums.  The people here were eager to know god and gave their lives to serve Him.  He did disappoint because He did not engage with those openly seeking Him.  If He did then there wouldn't be ex-Christians.  If He wants a personal relationship and is all-powerful then He would have it.  You see statements like your quote there have been spouted many times, so hearing the same empty promise holds no weight.

 

Then to top it off you say a statement like:

4 hours ago, Brothermario said:

being an ex-someone is by default the losing position at the beginning of an argument with someone.

 Which is arrogant (I'm better than everyone here), insulting (you are all losers for having changed your minds) and shows a clear lack of understanding your audience.  Someone being ex-something is a boon to their experience not a loss.  A Christian knows one way, it was taught to them and they cannot imagine a life view without religion in it.  An ex-Christian has lived that life, understands their position but has moved to a new realization and can now speak on the subject from both sides of the debate.  We have heard the apologetics, in many cases the people on here were those who used them themselves, and we have found them wanting.  Christians cannot understand Ex-Christians, but Ex-Christians can understand Christians.

[WalterP]

Here's a thought that came to me about our dialogue, Brothermario.

 

You claim to have had a true (but entirely subjective) experience of god.

 

When I tackle you about this you make and repeat a further claim.

 

That I can also have exactly the same, true (but entirely subjective) experience of god.

 

So, how can you know that?

 

How does your exclusively subjective experience allow you to say anything objective about me?

 

Please explain this to me.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, Brothermario said:

No, Josh, I don’t agree with a Protestant Carl from some Bible school.

 

The skeptic was better intellectually than Carl, but did exactly what I said skeptics do—find a Protestant to argue against, and display an inability to understand philosophical principles.

 

He was wrong to say that the universe could exist without being an effect of a cause.

 

One of Aristotle’s best philosophical principles is that “it is impossible for there to be an infinite line of finite things”.

 

Aristotle’s mistake of the origin of life is completely understandable, for we still don’t know how life began.

 

The skeptic is wrong to say that the theory of abiogenesis has been proven true.

 

So I disagree with both guys.

 

Abiogenesis needed a greater thing than life itself to make dead organic material into a living organism.

 

A lesser thing than life would have been impossible. And an equal thing to life would have been redundant.

 

One thing, the skeptic didn't say abiogenesis was proven true. Just that it's not been ruled out. The origins of life remains a mystery as far as I know. And what we have are people inserting "god" in place of what is truthfully pure mystery. 

 

What I'm looking for is your argument for the existence of god. We can set aside some of these protestant arguments that you do not agree with. 

 

The way I see it, life seems to be the result of natural processes. And in the grand scheme I see the universe as likely a small part of an infinite and eternal natural cosmos that can't be fixed with a beginning or end. Realms of existence within larger realms of existence where universes and worlds could have always been rising and falling. Where life on planets could have always been rising and falling and possibly repeating over and over again. These are all aspects of modern conceivable cosmological theory. Multiverse scenarios. Infinite replication paradox. And related ways of conceiving of conceptual models of an infinite and eternal natural cosmos extending out forever. 

 

And that, the natural cosmos extending out forever, is the "thing" which is "bigger" than any one specific finite "thing." Infinite and eternal natural cosmos inhabited with finite material objects (life). 

 

This is the direction that I'm going with you...

[Brothermario]

Walter, you keep writing “subjective” to describe my claims of God’s existence like you’re putting a tourniquet on a pierced artery in your neck.

 

Since you’ve already convinced yourself that all the great and wonderful stories of God choosing certain people as his messengers, people who changed human history (see the calendar) and humanity itself (see the churches), are stories about subjective psychological experiences and nothing more, then what could I possibly say to you that will deprogram you from the cult of one in your mind?

 

You have looked up and seen a cross piercing the sky above a magnificent cathedral, to only walk away shaking your head because you think psychological delusions put it up there.

 

If God’s wondrous story can’t inspire you to seek him out, then my particular story won’t either.

 

For the record, in England today there is a growing atheist movement unique to itself in its misjudgment of the parameters of scientific research. Richard Dawkins is its face, its smirking self-promoting untrained-thinking face. 

[Brothermario]

Wertbag, there aren’t many theists who know the “audience” of skeptics in the world today as I do.

 

And for you to lambast me for my approach towards arrogant skeptics who ridicule believers in God like they’re coloring by numbers is rich.

 

I have been debating skeptics online ever since I saw Sam Harris talking to Bill Maher over ten years ago. The arrogance in Sam Harris’ voice as he was saying nothing but opinionated bullshit was infuriating. Skeptics today are his disciples, holding up a science book over their heads and preaching against people who hold up a Bible over their heads. It’s all the same bullshit that I know is bullshit because God revealed to me what is not bullshit.

 

I don’t come to these forums looking for another Sam Harris, or to make friends.

 

I know without a doubt that the spirit of God is in every one of us, despite what our intellects convince us of.

 

It is God’s spirit that will teach a person what is true when that person’s intellect becomes unable to do so.

 

God’s spirit is who I am speaking to.

 

But I have to also meet the intellectual arrogance of the skeptic on the battlefield he has marched upon.

 

Of course there will be violence.

[Brothermario]

Josh, you snuck in as true a very debatable concept—“pure mystery”.

 

I’m not mystified by the great questions. I don’t know with complete understanding how God does what he does, but I know he’s the one doing it. The fly in the ointment making the mystery of God impure is the greatness of God himself. Our ability to know and understand God is not nonexistent, just limited according to each person’s talent and willingness to develop this ability.

 

And the universe having an outer edge is the logical position, not an “infinite cosmos”.

[florduh]

9 hours ago, Brothermario said:

...the embodiment of untrained thinkers.

 

I would say, "teach us, oh master," but you seem incapable. Maybe we're just too stupid to learn from your obvious (to you) greatness.

 

Whatever you might expect to accomplish by being here is short circuited by your giant, festering ego. It's been kind of entertaining watching you show off, but interest is waning. Maybe you can change up your act and keep it going. If not, time runs short, I'm afraid.

 

[Brothermario]

florduh, don’t you have an orange to squeeze?

 

I moved to Miami when I was 19 years old. I met a dude who lived there and drove back up here to Massachusetts to sign divorce papers. The next morning after meeting him I moved out of my apartment and drove down to Miami with him. We took a two-lane toll free highway all the way down while tripping on acid.

 

After a month of not being able to drink the stinky water and working at a hotel restaurant on Miami Beach for minimum wage, I jumped on a plane and got the hell out of there.

 

The easy girls and pool on the roof wasn’t enough to keep me there.

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

I would say, "teach us, oh master," but you seem incapable. Maybe we're just too stupid to learn from your obvious (to you) greatness.

 

Whatever you might expect to accomplish by being here is short circuited by your giant, festering ego. It's been kind of entertaining watching you show off, but interest is waning. Maybe you can change up your act and keep it going. If not, time runs short, I'm afraid.

 

Yeah, he's certain of God's greatness and is simultaneously omniscient himself.  He's on a mission with his "staff" or should I say "rod" in his hand.  You science people are doomed.  (Glory! per Brother Jeff).

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Brothermario said:

I have been debating skeptics online ever since I saw Sam Harris talking to Bill Maher over ten years ago.

If your idea of a "debate" is to simply make bald statements and then mock those who disagree, then you do not understand the actual meaning of the word.  You certainly have not debated anyone on this website; and I seriously doubt you've ever debated anyone.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Help us out, here, @Edgarcito.  Ain't you and Brothermario supposed to have the same spirit of god working through you?  Why do y'all see things so differently from one another?  

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Brothermario said:

Walter, you keep writing “subjective” to describe my claims of God’s existence like you’re putting a tourniquet on a pierced artery in your neck.

 

Since you’ve already convinced yourself that all the great and wonderful stories of God choosing certain people as his messengers, people who changed human history (see the calendar) and humanity itself (see the churches), are stories about subjective psychological experiences and nothing more, then what could I possibly say to you that will deprogram you from the cult of one in your mind?

 

Well, you could start by telling me how either of us can know if the other's experience of god is the same as our own?

 

2 hours ago, Brothermario said:

 

You have looked up and seen a cross piercing the sky above a magnificent cathedral, to only walk away shaking your head because you think psychological delusions put it up there.

 

If God’s wondrous story can’t inspire you to seek him out, then my particular story won’t either.

 

For the record, in England today there is a growing atheist movement unique to itself in its misjudgment of the parameters of scientific research. Richard Dawkins is its face, its smirking self-promoting untrained-thinking face. 

 

15 hours ago I wrote this, here in this thread.

 

Very well Brothermario, let's talk only about experiences and leave religion out of it.

 

I've been good to my word.

 

Therefore, I can't have don't any of the things you've accused me of.

 

I haven't mentioned crosses in the sky, cathedrals, the calendar, god's messengers or English atheists.

 

You did.

 

I've confined myself exclusively to our dialogue.

 

And I'm still doing so by asking you to tell me how either of us can know if the other's experience of god is the same as our own?

 

Please confine yourself strictly to our dialogue and don't bring other matters into it.

 

Please answer my question.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[Brothermario]

Redneck, you are claiming that I am not debating because I’m debating from a position of authority about subjects I have either educated myself in or have experience in.

 

What are you a professor of, Musical Theater?

[Brothermario]

Walter, sip your tea and be happy.

 

You’ll find only sadness outside your door.

[Edgarcito]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Help us out, here, @Edgarcito.  Ain't you and Brothermario supposed to have the same spirit of god working through you?  Why do y'all see things so differently from one another?  

Well, I guess at some point we realize that all we ultimately have is faith and grace.  Takes awhile to understand.  BM is not there yet.  My own experience with the Spirit is smaller steps of understanding, insights that I don't believe were my own.....directions to do something that I didn't really want to do...proddings.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Redneck, you are claiming that I am not debating because I’m debating from a position of authority about subjects I have either educated myself in or have experience in.

 

What are you a professor of, Musical Theater?

No, dumbass, I am claiming that you are not debating because you neither follow nor seem to understand the actual rules and process of formal debate.  You can have all the authority you want on bald claims, mere assertions, and ad hominems but none of that holds water in an actual debate.

[Brothermario]

No, Edgar, all we have is not faith and grace”.

 

We also have knowledge and understanding.

 

Skeptics love spending time with Protestants because they go to Bible school for a couple of months and become ministers.

 

A Catholic prelate isn’t allowed to study Theology without first getting a degree in Philosophy.

 

So where is it that I haven’t gone yet?

 

Protestant Bible College?

 

I’ve met a few of you “believers” hanging around skeptics to get the attention you don’t get anywhere else.

 

They’re just using you when they’re not thinking you’re delusional, by the way.