‹ First  < 171 172 173 174 175 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Brother Mario

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
26 March 2020 17:45
 

The Beatles had boots, haircuts, songs, fun, girls, money, talent, etc., and every kid lucky enough to be a kid when they showed up was on a ride that every other kid was on.

It will never happen again.

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
26 March 2020 17:52
 

Nhoj, you still haven’t learned how to write your thoughts in a manner that makes an impression on someone other than yourself.

In your words, your input has no measurable bandwidth.

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
25 April 2020 08:13
 

Hello, everyone.
What a difference a month makes, eh?
I know most of you are safe because most of you never went out much anyway, especially your dear leader in his basement wandering around “the frontier”, as he calls it, of his mind.

I see Ron is promoting another Ron who is another “atheist”. I tweeted this other Ron the atheist awhile back when he was tweeting his “not afraid of burning in hell” shtick. Of course, such a fear was around centuries ago, but he might as well be as ridiculous as the whole “critical thinking” atheist shtick.

Speaking of which, the replies in Ron’s thread tried very hard to be profound, but just became more stupid than a fundamentalist holding a snake. At least the fundamentalist doesn’t think he’s the snake, while unsmoked thinks he’s a fish.

And the other guy never saw the exquisite irony that he was being totally “out there” the whole time he was trying to claim we can never be “out there”.

Anyway ...

Enjoy the fresh air and empty streets.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9943
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
25 April 2020 13:10
 

https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Know-Whats-Really/dp/1451675046

A sequel to ‘MARIO’S RELIGIOUS CONDITIONING - Wey He Doesn’t Know What’s Really True’

The story of your body and why it looks the way it does - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BlAVkcGEso

[ Edited: 26 April 2020 09:41 by unsmoked]
 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
26 April 2020 08:23
 

On the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., wrote this:


Evolution Is Religion—Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

“Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.”

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.”

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

“Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.”

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

“We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.”

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

“(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.”

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
26 April 2020 09:20
 

Mario, you may be posting that just to stir up argument so you can get into a fight and insult people. It’s just nonsense. The very first two sentences are false and show that either the guy is lying, is blinded by his own beliefs, or just doesn’t understand science. And the following sentence is also false. Evolutionary scientists won all debates with creationists, and more importantly, all court cases where creationists tried to force their dogma into the school science curriculum. They don’t debate creationists now because it just gives them publicity and is a waste of time. And his rhetorical question of why evolutionary scientists oppose creationism is self-serving: they oppose it because creationists are trying to pass it off as science and force schools to teach it. If the creationists just sat back and said “well, this is our religious belief” and relaxed there would be no problem, they can believe what they want. But they go on the attack. So basically this character is shovelling bullshit and I know that you are intelligent enough to see this. Posting it in the midst of a world-wide example of evolutionary change does have a certain ironic twist, though.

Hope you’re all well and not suffering from that other horrible disease, cabin fever. Here’s a little jingle for you, the lead in the appendix to my book of limericks (soon to be published, one way or another, in a week or so I’ll send it off to a publisher who specializes in books with a religious theme, or in theological studies. If they don’t want it, it will go to a Buddhist publishing house that does, fun either way and keeps me out of the pool halls). You will get an autographed copy when it finally comes out:

If you’d trade on divine rapture, show
The way from here to there, if that you know.
Lay out a path, please,
Don’t be a rude tease.
We’re all looking for a way to go.

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
26 April 2020 10:09
 

No, burt.

The points made in my post above I have been making for years. I have literally posted that science and scientists have never moved past an unproven “theory” for every big question they have tried to explain, such as the beginning of life and the evolution between species, because they stubbornly limit their theoretical progress within the natural world and never follow their evidence where it is leading them, i.e., an infinite divine power.

Our physical bodies and our divine minds did not evolve unaided within the physical universe of matter and energy. And there is no scientific data supporting such an unaided physical explanation.

Taking fossils from here and there, and looking at our similarities to fish, does not create an unbroken link between us and aquatic life moving onto land a billion years ago.

And a brainwashed academic that has gone all in on Richard Dawkins and his ilk as being the keepers of scientific facts would sound and act exactly as you do above.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing unless something even greater than the greater thing is added to the lesser things.

This is the answer to evolution and every other scientific theory that scientists don’t even know the question to.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
26 April 2020 12:10
 
Brother Mario - 26 April 2020 10:09 AM

No, burt.

The points made in my post above I have been making for years. I have literally posted that science and scientists have never moved past an unproven “theory” for every big question they have tried to explain, such as the beginning of life and the evolution between species, because they stubbornly limit their theoretical progress within the natural world and never follow their evidence where it is leading them, i.e., an infinite divine power.

Our physical bodies and our divine minds did not evolve unaided within the physical universe of matter and energy. And there is no scientific data supporting such an unaided physical explanation.

Taking fossils from here and there, and looking at our similarities to fish, does not create an unbroken link between us and aquatic life moving onto land a billion years ago.

And a brainwashed academic that has gone all in on Richard Dawkins and his ilk as being the keepers of scientific facts would sound and act exactly as you do above.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing unless something even greater than the greater thing is added to the lesser things.

This is the answer to evolution and every other scientific theory that scientists don’t even know the question to.

Total disagreement, of course. Note that Dawkins isn’t the ultimate authority for evolutionists today. He’s considered as rather an odd duck. Not disagreeing that science today is incomplete, but that’s a different point. And of course, no scientific theory is ever become a certainty (the concept of proof or lack thereof is really a category error when applied to scientific theories, which are always taken as best current ideas, not absolute truth). And your favourite metaphysical principal is a bit off, too. The catch is the word “added.” (It also ignores the results that can arise through interactions between the lesser things, an electron and a proton can unite to form a hydrogen atom; two humans can unite to form a couple.) Go back and check out Aristotle on the Prime Mover. Do you think that this Unmoved Mover is the direct cause of change?

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
26 April 2020 14:59
 

burt, I’ll make just one crucial point.

A person who has spent his life putting God on a shelf in the concept section will always take the limited meaning of a word, such as “added”, and stop his mind from any further understanding of the limitless perfection of that word when it is being used to understand God.

I know, through experience, that the limited qualities we possess God has in limitless perfection. For example, we live our lives tethered to time and space, and we couldn’t live in the physical universe otherwise, while God lives his life moving through time and space freely, with an infinite being that knows the beginning and end of time, and is present from one end of the universe to the other. In reality, God existed before time and space became limited for us to have a time and place to exist in the first place.

So the philosophical principle, which you don’t have the experience to understand because you don’t have the experience of God to understand it, is profoundly true because “God” is the “something even greater than the greater thing is added to the lesser things”.

How God “touches” his creation to have his creation move forward and ever more complex, and not succumb to its innate entropic system, is hidden from us because we are not free from time and space as he is. And only such freedom can account for human beings existing on a planet that was once completely dead and mindless.

However, what is not hidden from us is the philosophical understanding of the necessity of God, and our scientific discoveries that support our philosophical understanding at each and every turn.

And then there is the reality that God sometimes does something really cool and plays among us on a particular day at a particular place, and for a particular person.

It’s these “touches” of God that reveal his other touches with a far greater understanding than anything philosophical or scientific.

In a word, when God touches you, he imprints himself upon you and, for a brief moment, you become like him, free and infinite.

[ Edited: 27 April 2020 05:21 by Brother Mario]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
26 April 2020 18:13
 
Brother Mario - 26 April 2020 02:59 PM

burt, I’ll make just one crucial point.

A person who has spent his life putting God on a shelf in the concept section will always take the limited meaning of a word, such as “added”, and stop his mind from the any further understanding of the limitless perfection of that word when it is being used to understand God.

I know, through experience, that the limited qualities we possess God has in limitless perfection. For example, we live our lives tethered to time and space, and we couldn’t live in the physical universe otherwise, while God lives his life moving through time and space freely, with an infinite being that knows the beginning and end of time, and is present from one end of the universe to the other. In reality, God existed before time and space became limited for us to have a time and place to exist in the first place.

So the philosophical principle, which you don’t have the experience to understand because you don’t have the experience of God to understand it, is profoundly true because “God” is the “something even greater than the greater thing is added to the lesser things”.

How God “touches” his creation to have his creation move forward and ever more complex, and not succumb to its innate entropic system, is hidden from us because we are not free from time and space as he is. And only such freedom can account for human beings existing on a planet that was once completely dead and mindless.

However, what is not hidden from us is the philosophical understanding of the necessity of God, and our scientific discoveries that support our philosophical understanding at each and every turn.

And then there is the reality that God sometimes does something really cool and plays among us on a particular day at a particular place, and for a particular person.

It’s these “touches” of God that reveal his other touches with a far greater understanding than anything philosophical or scientific.

In a word, when God touches you, he imprints himself upon you and, for a brief moment, you become like him, free and infinite.

More to the point of my original response, the Creation Institute stuff is still bs.

You will enjoy my book of limericks, especially the appendix.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9943
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
01 May 2020 11:14
 
burt - 26 April 2020 06:13 PM

More to the point of my original response, the Creation Institute stuff is still bs.

You will enjoy my book of limericks, especially the appendix.

Speaking of limericks:

“There once was a man from Nantucket
Who kept all his cash in a bucket.
But his daughter, named Nan,
Ran away with a man,
And as for the bucket, Nantucket.”  -  1902

another:

A wonderful bird is the pelican,
His bill will hold more than his belican,
He can take in his beak,
Enough food for a week,
But I’m damned if I see how the helican. - (D.L. Merritt)

Then:

God speaks to a poster called Mario,
And tells him atheists will be sorrio,
Tho’ exposed to the Father
They prefer the blather
Of Harris and Dawkins and Darwinio.

[ Edited: 02 May 2020 12:44 by unsmoked]
 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
15 May 2020 07:30
 

To the reformed smoker who thinks the dictionary is where wisdom is found:

blather
[?blaT?H?r]
VERB
talk long-windedly without making very much sense.
“she began blathering on about spirituality and life after death”
synonyms:
prattle · babble · chatter · twitter · prate · gabble · jabber · go on · [more]
NOUN
long-winded talk with no real substance.
“all the blather coming out of Washington about crime”
synonyms:
prattle · chatter · twitter · babble · talk · prating · gabble · jabber · [more]


And a limerick:

My pajama is now my pants
So comfy in them I dance and I prance
To the store or out for a ride
My pajama I don’t even hide

The boys are free and the girls kinda see
But the comfy is worth the creepy

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1926
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2020 10:55
 

It’s the Unsmoked / Brother Mario show!

Try the veal.

Don’t forget to tip your waitress.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9943
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
15 May 2020 11:41
 

For skeptics, blathering about science is more interesting than blathering about make believe.

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1343
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
15 May 2020 11:48
 

Says the guy who wrote science fiction and writes about Buddhism.

And eternal life is one amazing bit of “make believe” that gives meaning to our lives and brings justice where there is none to be had.

But, of course, “science” did give blind people dogs and is getting its ass kicked by another virus it wasn’t the least prepared for or capable of curing.

 
 
‹ First  < 171 172 173 174 175 >  Last ›