• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Truth about James Randi

realSloJoe

realSloJoe

Member
Subduction Zone said:
I had my doubts about poj, but a quick Google search of his user name tells me he spams the internet with this.

The question is why?
Click to expand...
The best explanation I've found is mental illness. He started posting this stuff on another forum under another username about a year ago, and one of the regulars called him by his real name and shared this link: Dennis Markuze - RationalWiki

It's really a sad story, and highlights the risk Dennis takes to post this gibberish.
 
prophetofjustice

prophetofjustice

Member
realSloJoe said:
Dennis, when you gonna tell us about Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School?
Click to expand...
realSloJoe said:
The best explanation I've found is mental illness. He started posting this stuff on another forum under another username about a year ago, and one of the regulars called him by his real name and shared this link: Dennis Markuze - RationalWiki

It's really a sad story, and highlights the risk Dennis takes to post this gibberish.
Click to expand...

Thx for forcing me back to the computer and the forums. I really don't like this "job".
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
realSloJoe said:
The best explanation I've found is mental illness. He started posting this stuff on another forum under another username about a year ago, and one of the regulars called him by his real name and shared this link: Dennis Markuze - RationalWiki

It's really a sad story, and highlights the risk Dennis takes to post this gibberish.
Click to expand...
Wow!! That is rather amazing to say the least. At least he has not made any open death threats here yet. Maybe he has learned a bit over the years or perhaps medication has helped his condition.Clearly he still suffers and hopefully he will get better. I don't see a lot of hope for that yet.
 
prophetofjustice

prophetofjustice

Member
PZ Myers: We need to call ourselves atheists


A puffed up little scientist geek who would try to USURP GOD HIMSELF!

And the only man in Minnesota who says there is no God has suddenly become an arbiter on mental health!

WRONG

BLASPHEMING *****ES:


I think she sums up the INSANITY of the atheist position quite well..

Whatever her motives, her argument is the *only* valid one for atheism.


And to clarify and move on:

This being the only legitimate argument atheists can make against the existence of God: The enormity of human and animal suffering throughout human history appears to disprove the idea of a loving and compassionate God. The rest of their arguments are just fluff.

ANIMALS NEED LIBERATION, TOO!

animal.jpg


USDA's official number of animals killed for food

Animal Liberation Front bomber jailed for 12 years

SOMETHINGS ALMOST EVERYONE HAS FORGOTTEN – COWSCHWITZ

randihead.jpg


RANDI READING A 1671 EDITION OF THE PROPHECIES OF NOSTRADAMUS.

James Randi Educational Foundation


AND THE STAR OF OUR SHOW:

KittenSniper.jpg

CANADIAN SNIPER! – HE JOINED THE “OTHER SIDE”

WTF are you waiting for?

Randi is…


Let’s move along…
 

Attachments

  • Animal.jpg
    Animal.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Animal.jpg
    Animal.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 0
  • RandiHead.jpg
    RandiHead.jpg
    121.7 KB · Views: 0
prophetofjustice

prophetofjustice

Member
BUZZ...

HOW TO SQUASH A PSEUDOSKEPTIC!

THE ARGUMENT FROM FIRST CAUSE:


From “Why I Am Not A Christian”
by Bertrand Russell, 1927.

“Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. ”

Probably the best they got, and he is not convincing. He just decides to duck the question by not wasting any more “time” on it. Unlike the gang of New Atheists we present here who keep asking the same useless questions over and over again.


He just seems to be missing one possible cause – GOD?


And this MONSTER is not convincing at all:


Well SPEAK N DIE got it wrong. Apparently only “scientists” know how the universe operates.



You need to relearn your ABC's...
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
prophetofjustice said:
BUZZ...

HOW TO SQUASH A PSEUDOSKEPTIC!

THE ARGUMENT FROM FIRST CAUSE:


From “Why I Am Not A Christian”
by Bertrand Russell, 1927.

“Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. ”

Probably the best they got, and he is not convincing. He just decides to duck the question by not wasting any more “time” on it. Unlike the gang of New Atheists we present here who keep asking the same useless questions over and over again.


He just seems to be missing one possible cause – GOD?


And this MONSTER is not convincing at all:


Well SPEAK N DIE got it wrong. Apparently only “scientists” know how the universe operates.



You need to relearn your ABC's...
Click to expand...
Your first video is merely a strawman. In other words it was made by a person that was dishonest and could not deal with the actual arguments.
 
prophetofjustice

prophetofjustice

Member

We’ll use my website…

Randi is a bully, a harasser, a liar, a hypocrite, and a stalker…

He chooses easy targets then generalizes to all paranormal phenomena. Remember this has been seen by millions. The techniques of propaganda have never been so deadly effective.

An Email Dennis Markuze received from Victor Zammit (February 24, 2014):
“Strange that JREF is taking you to court for alleged harassment .
I have stated that JREF is a cheat and a liar see: A LAWYER ON THE SKEPTICS by Victor Zammit (right column below SCEPCOP item)
For example, when he organized his dupe to pretend to be a known psychic/medium – the ‘Carlos Affair’, bringing him to Australia, JREF knew he was being fraudulent, JREF knew he was cheating, knew he was misleading many people. He’s done that several times. His Alpha project: he got his dupes to cheat and lie on his behalf!!!! And this JREF illegally harbored this dupe Carlos for over some fifteen years or so!!!!
I stated on youtube and elsewhere that his million dollar challenge is a FRAUD!!
You will also read in my cross examination of JREF more details about JREF –in the above url.
What the ****, the JREF talking about ‘harassment’?
JREF could be bluffing – because in the U.S.you have a constitutional right to freedom of speech – and you have to right to write what you wrote about JREF.
I think he is waiting to see what kind of a response you are going to give him. Just tell him that you will be claiming all costs if he intends to take the matter to court. That should shut him up.
JREF harassment is the continuous and the systematic attack over 15 years on mediums, on afterlife investigators – including myself, on psychics and on anyone who is promoting the paranormal and the afterlife.
Victor”

There are more effective methods to shut him and his followers up...
 
Last edited:
Thermos aquaticus

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
prophetofjustice said:
Randi is a bully, a harasser, a liar, a hypocrite, and a stalker…
Click to expand...


That's rich.

"After an August 2011 online petition[4] attracted more than 5000 signatures,[10] each resulting in an e-mail to the Montreal police,[11] the police took action and announced they were finally investigating years of complaints[12] (after pleading with people to stop sending them emails[13]) and arrested Markuze on August 16.[14] Markuze was charged with 16 counts of criminal harassment on August 15 and August 17, 2011.[15] To the relief of many concerned for his well-being, the criminal court ordered him to undergo a 30-day psychological evaluation. After being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, compounded by alcohol and substance abuse, Markuze was sent to rehab while awaiting the next court date[16] but was later released.[17] After pleading guilty to issuing threats, in 2012 he received a suspended sentence of 18 months,[18] which required him to abstain from internet discussions and forums."
Dennis Markuze - RationalWiki
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top