I rather enjoyed watching Mariosep evolve from a lost puppy with bad logic to a complete nutjob.

(November 14, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Now, dear Simon Moon, let us talk about causation, the concept.


You still try to make a mess of causation.

Do molecules in a proper sense cause your coming to existence and life?

Or your papa and mama?


That is the tactics of atheists, they just keep on and on with intentionally confounding the use of language when they speak.

In Christianity there is the teaching that lying is speech against one’s mind, meaning instead of communicating what one knows to be the truth, the fact, the logic, and what the history of ideas teaches of genuine lessons for mankind, the liar speaks the contrary, in order to deceive his listeners.

That is what I call an appeal to or more correctly a flight to take to refuge in intellectual perversity, by the abuse of language - one form of intellectual perversity.


Dear readers here, I am glad that I have stayed this far in Atheistforums.org (thanks to the gentlemen atheist founders and owners and operators of the web forum), for I have come to the insight about the phenomenon of intellectual perversity with atheists, namely: instead of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they seek all the time to abuse their reason and intelligence with for example messing up language, in order to succeed in their intellectually perverse motive, viz., to escape from the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

When you read atheists saying something on the issue God exists or not, see what they are doing to language: abusing it, so that as with Simon Moon, they talk as to misrepresent and defraud folks from the real issue involved, namely, God exists or not.

That is why they talk about flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, orbiting teapot in space to describe God, when there are already concepts of God which center on the core achievement of God, namely the creation and operation of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Exactly, that is their tactics similar to the intellectual perverse practice of unethical advertising agencies, conditioning folks with lies, because they know that lies continuously repeated will bring about in people the conviction that they are getting truths from these unethical marketers of useless and even harmful and still expensively priced merchandise.


Okay, dear atheist Simon Moon, tell mankind, do molecules no matter how you distort your language brain cells, in a proper sense caused your coming to existence and life, or your papa and mama.


Dear readers here, the first instinct of Simon Moon when he reacts to this message from me, is to go into another instance of intellectual perversity, most probably with more abuse of language.

So let you see if he at least try another tack instead of abusing again his faculty of speech.

In excerpt from #798 Simon Moon Wrote:You continue to miss an important distinction.

The causation that is responsible for me, is creatio ex material.

In other words, my existence, from the time I was conceived until now, is a rearrangement of existing matter and energy. When my mother was pregnant with me, her appetite was quite a bit greater than when she was not pregnant. Have you ever heard the saying pregnant women use, "I am eating for two"? Where do you think all the nutrition form all that extra food went? It was converted into me.

I'm done.

Your consistent misunderstanding of what has been communicated to you by various members here, your intellectual dishonesty, and your reliance on invalid logical arguments, has me convinced that you will never get it.

I might check into this thread from time to time, but if I ever post on it again, it will only be to point at you and laugh.

You can go ahead and erroneously take this as a victory if you want. But that will only be more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

(October 28, 2016 at 11:39 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 12:13 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You have time to go through them with me in detail in PM, but don't have time to repeat yourself in public? How about you just give me an example of the premise you are most confident is true? If you can show me one that bears scrutiny, I'll accommodate your odd request to go to PM where no one but us and the moderators can see our conversation.

We require perception. Either we are that perception that sees us as we truly are or something else sees us as we truly are, and maintains who we are. The reason we require percpetion is because consciousness is unlike physical thing, it requires a perceiver.

Either when we do an action, we become the judge and jury of how that action get's inherited to our value and constantly make that action part of our value or something else causes that.

I say the problem saying we are that which does it, determines our measurement and value, is that it would be done inaccurately at best (which makes our value not true in a sense) or falsely on total false grounds at worse (like what a person like Hitler might think of themselves). Another thing is we forget our actions or sometimes don't recognize our faults and bad habits.

Also the way we compare people whether to ourselves or just between people, is a judgement, but I don't think any of us claim we have the exact right criteria that is exactly accurate in that regard. Yet we acknowledge there is a real difference between people so who judges people truly and assigns their true value?

What I mean by that, if there is no judge, then we would not be estimating to what that judgement is. You may say well our judgement is good enough and close enough as it can get, but close enough to what?  Good enough compared to what? Even in that, we are silently acknowledge there is a truth.

We have true accourate self of who we are. And everytime we do an action, we are to a degree asleep to our innermost intention and secret behind that action. Yet that is the most important component, not simply what we tell ourselves why we are doing an action.

As many people lie to themselves of who they are and measure others with false judgement,  for us to even strive to come to "a more accurate view", there has to be an accurate view that sees us as we truly are.

Now I further argue that if you really think about it, you will recognize the best possible judge is the absolute judge, and in a sense and a way, no one can truly judge us but that judge.

And since we require judgement to have true existence as opposed to simply inaccurate existence and even in some cases total baseless identities people make up about themselves, if we have true existence, then God is required to exist.

So the premise in all this that is argued is "If we have true (objective accurate) existence, then absolute accurate sight that judges who we are in truth is required which can only be God".

If you can accept that much, we can then discuss whether we do have true (objective accurate) existence.

Mister Agenda?

(November 14, 2016 at 4:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Seriously.... mario, don't have kids. They'll either grow up to think you have some serious mental problem (regression to the mean), or be new versions of idiocy as predicted in the movie Idiocracy.

It may be to late, depending on what you mean by "have".

(November 14, 2016 at 4:39 pm)Primordial Bisque Wrote: I rather enjoyed watching Mariosep evolve from a lost puppy with bad logic to a complete nutjob.

Its a sure way to expose those with weak to no real position and reason..........keep them talking. 

Wow, Marisep. Do the words ad hominem fallacy mean anything to you? You really are an offensive twat.

Dear readers here, I am asking Simon Moon to for us to talk about causation, because he is into the intellectually perverse tactics of ascribing to molecules the causation agency of his coming to existence and life, instead of his papa and mama.

Now you see, instead of joining me to work on the proper sense of causation, in regard to his papa and mama being the agents of causation for his coming to existence and life, he said that he is done (with our exchange).

Well, I guess he realizes that he could not anymore continue to engage in the intellectual perversity of distorting language, to avoid the conclusive proof of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, dear readers here, I am inviting a poster like Simon Moon, to take over and to continue the present trend, namely, when Simon Moon left, we were or I was inviting him for us to work on the proper sense of the term causation in regard to the sexual causation leading to babies, starting of course with him and me also – we were babies once, coming forth from the sexual causation of our papas and mamas: but he kept on talking about molecules causing him coming to existence and life, instead of his papa and mama.

So, dear atheists here, please one of you, one at a time, accept my invitation to replace Simon Moon.

He is a civil opponent, no foul language from his mouth: so when one of you come forward I have to check your posts here, if you use foul language against me in your up to date posts, then I have to reject you: because your tongue is a giveaway evidence of the kind of heart and mind you nurture, not at all conducive to civil exchange of thoughts, but more at home with, may I use this term, rabbles.

In an excerpt from #802 Simon Moon Wrote:I'm done.

Your [Mariosep] consistent misunderstanding of what has been communicated to you by various members here, your intellectual dishonesty, and your reliance on invalid logical arguments, has me convinced that you will never get it.

I might check into this thread from time to time, but if I ever post on it again, it will only be to point at you and laugh.

You can go ahead and erroneously take this as a victory if you want. But that will only be more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

(November 14, 2016 at 11:40 pm)Mariosep Wrote: So, dear atheists here, please one of you, one at a time, accept my invitation to replace Simon Moon.

Oh goody. How will we ever decide who gets the honor and joy of accepting MerryOldSop's invitation? Only one can see if they're up to debating the obscure his god proof of this barely sentient person. Think I'll pass.

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks a lot for your presence and contribution.

Forgive me, please don't get annoyed with me, because I see in you all, that you seem to be into throwing cu** and sh** and fu** with impunity.

So, instead of waiting for you to accept my invitation, I will choose one of you, someone always present, like Astreja?

What about you Astreja, care to exchange thoughts with me on causation of babies; you can take over from Simon Moon, and continue with his tack that molecules caused his coming to existence and life, not his papa and mama.

Are you the one who told me that you are also a mama, or was it Mathilda?

Anyway, you know what? I have found causation to be the most crucially decisive factor for the resolution of the issue, God exists or not, but in favor of God existing.

You see, no matter how atheist thinkers want to dissolve causation into nothing, it cannot go away, like for example there is no end to babies coming forth from the causation by their papas and mamas.

What do you say, will you take over from Simon Moon?

I love all women because they are the mothers of mankind, they take care of mankind when mankind are babies, they care for mankind when mankind is sick, they mourn for mankind when mankind passes over to the other side of the grave i.e. go under the earth surface, giving mankind a decent burial.

That is why I love women all of them; I have women in my home and family, my wife and daughters are women, my mother also, and then the women coming to my life by their marriage to one or another of my extended family members.