Unconvincing Apologetics: Created Or Not, Part 2

So... back in December, I encountered a fellow named Tony Terrana when he commented on Bruce Gerencser's Facebook page. I summarized the exchange and what I thought of it here after Bruce got annoyed and banned him. (It's probably worth following the link and reading that, if only for context.)

Well, today he commented again.

It was the same comment. I mean, word for word, the same odd little block of text.

The Paradox of The Burden of Proof:

From our subjective perspective - either some higher-level creative Intelligence is responsible for our existence or not. There is currently no publicly-known, objectively-verifiable, scientifically-reproducible, peer-reviewed evidence sufficiently leading to proof that either is the objective truth. It is a choice to believe one or the other is the truth. Whichever you choose - you are using the concept of faith. Faith is belief without proof. Objectively speaking - only one is the truth and our subjectively formulated opinions or lack thereof have no effect on that objective truth. Such is the nature, beauty, and glory of The Truth - He is perfect and unbreakable.

So I queried him, and I got exactly the same response that I got last time, except without the bit about whether or not I believe in boots. Seriously:

Michael Mock - I'll simplify for you.
Do you perceive the following statement to be true or false?
1. From our subjective perspective either some higher-level creative Intelligence is responsible for our existence or not.

How about this one?
2. Of the two subjective possibilities mentioned in the preceding statement - only one of them is the objective truth.

So I responded again, and he "simplified" again. (For "simplified", read "reiterated".)

This time, I pointed out that I understood what he was saying, and I was impatient for him to quit saying it and move on to the next point.

(I should note that I'm assuming, at this point, that he's a person who has a selection of rote responses that he pastes in for most of his answers. The alternative -- that he's actually some sort of bot -- has occurred to me. In either case, it's a rather frustrating thing to attempt to have a conversation with him. I'm also having vague flashbacks to my attempts to interact with Dennis Markuze, which suggests some other mildly troubling possibilities.)

So, having pointed out that the points he was trying to make were so blindingly obvious that I was actually confused by why he'd insist on putting them out there, and repeating his own points back to him, I got this:

Michael Mock - right - what I am saying is so obviously true I should not have to say it - but many people do not understand these fundamental truths with respect to this conversation.

Well, first of all, these aren't "fundamental truths". They're starting assumptions for something that might eventually become an argument for Deism. And even then, I'm not sure the first point is actually undeniable; there's always the possibility that the actual situation is more ambiguous or more complicated than his either/or dichotomy suggests.

But maybe the dude thinks that this is a complete argument. It's hard to see how, but maybe... because right after posting that, he stopped responding. Now, maybe he's gone to bed, or maybe he's off having dinner, or maybe he's gone out to a club or something. (Or maybe he is a bot.) Maybe he'll come back and respond at some point.

But the fact that he posted this nothing-argument on an atheist's page, and a quick glance at his Facebook page, YouTube page, his website (which is full of odd, vaguely lyrical pseudo-scriptures which are peppered with actual Bible verses), and his Google+ Account (which is nearly empty)... well, all that leads me to believe that he isn't angling for anything as simple or basic as an acknowledgement that Deism is a defensible philosophical position. Whatever his specific beliefs, he isn't a Deist. His website looks like he's playing with a particularly gnostic and/or mystical sort of Christianity, something where God is knowable and active in people's lives, and probably the world at large. So I'm baffled as to why he would stop here. He hasn't shared his beliefs, or even laid any sort of groundwork for them.

So I'm going to give it a couple of days, maybe longer. And then there will be a follow-up post, if only so I can vent my frustration by taking apart his rhetorically-cute little comment. (Does that make me a small and petty person? Eh, whatever.)

Bullied Into Belief

Most of my regular readers are aware of the contributions of Dennis Markuze. If you're coming in late, Dennis - who also posts as DM, Dave (or David) Mabus, AtheistWars, and various other pseudonyms - is a Canadian fellow who lives in Granby, which is a suburb of Montreal. He creates long, incoherent diatribes which are punctuated with links to pictures or videos; then he pastes these creations in the comments of other people's blogs or message boards, or (I believe) sends them out as e-mail. He occasionally attempts a more personalized communication, generally in the form of death threats.

He stopped by a few days ago and left another threat: "michael mock you are a traitor against God and will be executed..." I responded by pointing out that if God is truly all-powerful, then He does not need Dennis' help to give warnings.

Dennis actually gave me a response to that:

don't worry, michael mock
we are going to have MERCY on you....
we just wanted to give you a little fright...
REPENT AND TURN TO GOD!

This is interesting to me, because it echoes something from one of my earlier exchanges with him. He said: "repent and turn to God and everything will be ok!"

Now, several people have pointed out that I'm probably overthinking this, and that Dennis probably does what he does because he's mentally ill. I'm not arguing the point, because (with the usual caveats*) I think it's likely true. What puzzles me, and has all along, is the shape of the pathology. What is Dennis trying to accomplish? Why does he use this particular method?

There's certainly an element of power fantasy to it. There's a grandiose quality to the way he delivers his threats and judgements and warnings; an assertion of knowledge and power that, in real life, he simply does not have. I suspect - though again, I can't be sure - that this is part of reason he's so unwilling to answer questions, or carry on a more normal conversation: delivering his pronouncements makes him feel powerful, and actually communicating would ruin that.

But insofar as this is an anti-atheist/pro-Christian effort - and I think, on some level, it is that, too - I think the goal is to scare people into finding God. The rants and the threats are basically Dennis' version of Scared Straight... or, to pick a more religious and Halloween-appropriate example, Hell Houses.



This is not a terribly winsome (or, I suspect, effective) approach to evangelism. I am not a Christian because, on a fundamental level, Christianity makes no sense to me. Trying to scare me does not change that. Christianity remains as incomprehensible when I'm afraid as it does when I'm happy, sad, angry, or concentrating on something else entirely. So by all means, explain to me that I'm going to Hell for not believing in God. It doesn't work. First of all, I don't believe you;** and second, you obviously don't understand why I don't believe.

I can dismiss the Hell Houses as more-or-less-harmless lunacy. Oh, I think they're placing far too much emphasis on the wrong portions of Christianity and missing the essential point of the Gospel. I can even see where they could do some actual harm - they are basically trying to change behavior through fear, after all, and that's an approach that's almost impossible to use without some level of bullying - but I'm also sure the vast majority of people who attend them are already sympathetic to the view they present. And, of course, if you don't want to be scared by them, you can simply not go.

Dennis Markuze, on the other hand, shows up uninvited, delivers explicit threats loaded with unequivocally violent imagery, and disregards requests that he either moderate his behavior or leave. In doing so, he crosses the line from preaching into bullying - or terrorism, though I think that word gets used far too loosely as it is. It's a strange, self-defeating sort of bullying - most of his "victories" seem to come when he annoys someone enough that they block him from posting, and I'd bet heavy money that the number of people who've read his diatribes and converted to Christianity is exactly zero - but it's bullying nevertheless.

I'm not really sure where to go from here. I still think Dennis needs help from a mental health professional, but obviously he's not going to take my word for that. The bullying behavior is completely inappropriate, but I don't see a really good way to make him stop. Most bullies, if you call their bluff, either escalate or back off and try something else; Dennis just keeps at it. Playing along doesn't seem like a particularly good idea, either; I don't want him to think that his behavior is in any way acceptable.

So I'm keeping the policy in place: meaningless, disruptive bullshit gets deleted. That's not just for Dennis, though he's the only one for whom I've ever had to invoke it.

And meanwhile, every time he leaves a threat - anywhere - I see someone who desperately wants to be important and powerful and dangerous, who ardently wants to change the world... and can't.

---

* I'm not qualified to diagnose him, and even if I were, I couldn't do it over the Internet.

** This should probably go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I'm not talking about all Christians here. I'm not even talking about most Christians. Hell, the denomination I was raised in mainly taught that God expects us to do our best, treat other people well, and trust in His forgiveness for the things we get wrong. As far as I know, that's the mainstream of Christianity - it's just quieter than the "damnation awaits" crowd.

Simplified For Dennis

God does not need your help.

If He wants to scare me, HE can do it.

If He wants me to repent, HE can tell me so.

As for you...

The Futility Of Opposing God

Here's the thing: God is omnipotent* - also omniscient, though I tend to think of that as a special case of omnipotence, rather than a distinct trait. What does that mean in practical terms?

• God does not need an army.
• God does not need you to stand up for him.
• God does not need you to defend His reputation.
• God can speak for Himself - He does not need you to tell me what He thinks.
• God does not need women; or men, for that matter.
• God does not need you to kill for Him. He's quite capable of smiting anyone He takes issue with - any time He wants.
• God does not need money.

What does it mean to be an "enemy" of God, when God is immune to any possible harm? How can someone oppose His designs, when everything that exists is His design? I don't mean that in a fuzzy, feel-good, why-would-anyone-choose-to-do-that sort of way, either. I mean it as a serious technical question: if God is truly all-powerful, then those things are not possible. God can do anything He wants, without effort. That's what all-powerful means. And yet, so very many of His worshippers act as if God is all but helpless without them. And in the process, they make God look weak and ineffectual - or, worse, they secretly believe He's powerless, so they try to hide this by making Him look like a monster instead. So who, exactly, is a traitor against God? Have a little more faith, please. I don't think God exists, because I don't see any reason to think God exists. But if He does exist, then my failure to perceive Him makes no difference to Him at all. He's above all that, and if you're one of his followers, then you should at least try to be above it, too.

---

* In the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, at least... though I still think that the entire metaphysical structure underlying the Bible makes a lot more sense if you assume that God isn't actually omnipotent. I mean, why was he wandering around in the garden calling after Adam & Eve, otherwise?

Curses and Prophecies

This is a thought I started playing with years ago, but a recent exchange with Dennis Markuze brought it back to mind. So, I thought I'd write it down while it was fresh in my thoughts again.

Curses and prophecies are, in some ways, two sides of the same coin. They're both statements about the future, and they both assume that the future is - or can be - fixed and static. The difference is that a prophecy predicts future events, while a curse (at least ostensibly) causes or shapes future events.

Mainly, this is something to consider when writing High Fantasy (which often includes prophecies as a means of foreshadowing or even pushing the plot along), or Horror (where, if you're going to employ or imply a curse, it helps to know how such a thing might work - for example, does saying it cause the victim to arrange the result, or is there some outside force nudging events towards the desired end?). It's also interesting as an element in mythology, where in some cases - the story of Oedipus is a classic example - it's hard to tell the difference between the two.

In the real world, of course, the future is fluid. (Either that, or it seems that way to us, which amounts to the same thing.) We can make predictions, but we can't speak with certain knowledge of events that have not happened yet.* Prophecies in the real world fall into one of two categories: either they're so vague as to be effectively meaningless, or they're easily falsified.

* Hell, we often have trouble speaking with certain knowledge of events that have already happened. There are two sides, at least, to every story; and eye witness testimony is among the least reliable.

Dennis Markuze, you need help

That's enough, Dennis. We've been over this before. Please see a psychiatrist.

I don't say this to make fun of you, and I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I genuinely believe that you need help from a qualified mental health professional. I think that getting such help would improve your quality of life. For your own sake, please consider it.

For no particular reason...

Here is a list of mental health professionals in the vicinity of Montreal.

Here is another list, this time of psychiatrists in the Montreal area.

Here is yet a third list of psychiatrists in and near Montreal.

If...

• ...you find yourself unable to communicate in a meaningful fashion with your fellow human beings
• ...you obsessively pursue one or more extremely antisocial behaviors
• ...you happen to live in Montreal or one of its suburbs

...Then you should seriously consider an appointment with someone from one of those lists.



On a related note, I thought this was an interesting discussion of the nature of conspiracy theories:

Hello, Dennis Markuze

You remember the policy, right? "Meaningless, disruptive bullshit gets deleted." That's the policy. I've asked you before - politely, even - to stop leaving your rants. I'd appreciate it if you'd abide by that request.

As always, you're welcome to leave actual comments; but do please keep the policy in mind.

Also, and I mean this as a friendly suggestion with nothing but your best interests in mind: please get help. Here is a list of psychiatrists in the Montreal area. I'm sure any one of them would be happy to work with you.

And while we're talking about you, are you any relation to Herbert Marcuse?

You cannot die, Macleod

So yes, I'm still alive - even my soul. Haven't you figured it out, yet? I cannot die unless another Immortal takes my head... and with it, my power.



Looks like it's going to be one of those weekends. I hope everybody enjoys it. I'll be in the living room, sharpening things. (Well, mostly oiling them. They're fairly well polished already.)

Still Not Dead

So, to the great surprise of... well, almost nobody, actually... I haven't snuffed it yet. All the little metabolic functions are humming quietly along, just the way they should (though a bit of food and caffeine wouldn't go amiss). I dropped by the local DPS* this morning, and it turns out my soul is still where it's supposed to be, and doing just fine. So, no problems there either.

I did have a couple of ghosts clustered around me, but they're (former) family members and well-disposed towards me. You could say, in fact, that I'm in good spirits.

I tell you, ever since I shook off those last few engrams and that pesky Body Thetan, life's been good.

Still, a bit more Monty Python never hurts. Bring out yer dead!


* Doctor of Psychical Surgery

Not Dead Yet

That's right, I'm still alive. (I'm sure you were all wondering.) Though really, I can only think of one person who might actually be surprised by this.

On a related note, I thought I'd try writing about aughhh...

The Lunatic Fringe Is Back

So, apparently Dennis Markuze noticed something I said on another site. Either that, or he's just randomly decided to come target my blog again. He left one of his rants, which (as a matter of policy) I deleted. He also left me a personal note: "you die today..."

So, first of all: I don't die today. God won't strike me down; He likes me and He thinks I'm funny. And you sure as hell won't kill me, because you're all the way up in fucking Granby, and I'm in Texas. You couldn't get down here today even if you wanted to. And let's face it: you don't want to. You gave us our final warning six goddamn months ago. If you were actually going to do anything, that would have been the time.

Look, I've tried to be polite. I've invited you to post actual responses, I've given you the opportunity to talk about why you post these long... rants, diatribes, whatever. Whatever they are, they're nonsensical - and you either can't or won't talk to me like a normal human being. You were amusing for a little a while, but that was novelty value and the novelty has worn off.

Seriously, take a look around the Internet. The only person posting things even remotely like the things you post... is you. Nobody else even comes close. There's a reason for that: that sort of behavior is insane. Even the Christians are asking you to stop, because you're making them look bad.

I'm sure you think you're impressive, mysterious, and threatening. That might even have been true, the first time you posted. But you're not mysterious. You're a known quantity. You're a kook, a crank who lives on the outskirts of Montreal and visits a variety of Internet cafes in order to avoid the more obvious sorts of IP blocking. Those long presentations that you post? They're neither persuasive nor impressive... to anybody but you. Leaving threats in my comment section? Your threats are empty, and everyone knows it. Everyone. Fucking. Knows. It.

Remember that moment when you decided that you were doing just fine and didn't need to take your meds anymore? That was a bad decision. Please start taking them again. If you can't do that by yourself, seek professional help.

Your rants and your threats aren't welcome here. I will delete them. Come back when you have something worth saying.

Dennis Markuze: Repeating the Request

Hello again, Dennis.

Please stop pasting your text in the comments on my blog. If you want to post an actual response - that is, a unique comment relating to a specific post - you're welcome to do so. Otherwise, I will continue to delete your comments as soon as I see them.

This...
...will not happen.

Seriously though, Dennis. You're being rude, and I'm asking you to stop.

Dennis Markuze: A Request

Hello again, Dennis.

Please stop pasting your text in the comments on my blog. If you want to post an actual response - that is, a unique comment relating to a specific post - you're welcome to do so. Otherwise, I will continue to delete your comments as soon as I see them.

This...
...will not happen.

Seriously though, Dennis. You're being rude, and I'm asking you to stop.

The Return of Dennis Markuze

A quick note on June 29, 2010: I see that people are finding this post while looking for information on Dennis Markuze. You can see the entire sequence of my interactions with him here. Thanks for dropping by.

So, Mr. Markuze came by to visit, and pasted the current incarnation of his message in the comments on my last post. I deleted it. He posted it again. I deleted it again. And I left him a message, which said:

Come on, DM. Say something relevant - about bad drivers or bad driving - and I'll leave it up.

Or, if you prefer, answer the question I asked weeks ago: why do you post your comments?

Dennis, to my surprise, actually answered. (Only the first line of this is relevant, but since I told him I'd leave it up if he answered, I'm including his whole message.) He said:

because I like the TRUTH over LIES...

http://www.loiterink.com/photos/products/182_3424_500x500.jpg

they are incapable of telling the difference between SCIENTIFIC *FACT* AND RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL *TRUTH*... FATAL ERROR!

they also preach a *VALUE FREE SCIENCE* called *POSITIVISM* that ignores the inequalities of wealth and power in capitalist civilization...



for a sample taste of PZ Myers' GARBAGE...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/sunday_sacrilege_imagine_no_he.php


HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!

http://hawaiiwebgroup.com/maui-design/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/website-hijacking.jpg


HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!

how can these HEADLESS IDIOTS BET AGAINST GOD!!!
________________________________________


what happens when you LOSE Pascal's Wager...


http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

_____________


you FIGHT PAPER MONSTERS...

the blood and bodies of the atheist movement...


you mofos killed MICKEY MOUSE!!!!


this has more TRUTH then what Dawkins, Randi, Harris, Myers, and Shermer
combined have said in their entire lives...


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5R2wE8Sduhs&playnext_from=TL&videos=hht1U_19anc&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-3-HM



they tried to BULLDOZE the entire METAPHYSICAL DIMENSION...

they LOST THE WAR......

you have FORFEIT YOUR SOUL, shermer... you have become an object in the
material world, as you WISHED...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/7/11792994_ffaaee87fa.jpg

we're gonna smash that TV...

They had become ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND OF GOD...
you pushed too much and *CROSSED THE LINE*

degenerates (PZ) or children (HEMANT) - ATHEISTS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRg2tWGDSY

do you have anything to say, you STUPID LITTLE F*CKER?

how about I tell you, Mr. Shermer, EVERYTHING YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD is

*WRONG*

THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek

RUN, ATHEISTS, RUN!!!

-------------------

Mr. Markuze, that isn't much of an answer. I do wish you'd give me more than cryptic, one-line answers. It would make talking to you a lot easier. Right now, talking to you is like playing a particularly surreal game of Twenty Questions.

You said earlier that my life was forfeit because I'm an atheist, and that I should repent and turn to God. Okay, I get that.

But I'm more interested in you. So tell me, please, is your goal...?
A. To deliver that message.
B. To show that atheists are lost, ignorant, and damned.
C. Both.
D. Something else entirely.

THAT is the kind of answer that I'm looking for when I ask why post your comments. I invite you to answer, or not, as you please. I do wish you'd do me the courtesy of telling me a little about yourself and your work.

And now that I have moved all this over here, I'm going to delete the replies on the previous message.

Dennis Markuze: Refining the Theory

I suggested, in one of my earlier posts, that Dennis Markuze changed his rant every few weeks in order to avoid SPAM filters.

I no longer think this is the case.

A little more searching around seems to indicate that many of the changes are the result of direct responses to particular individuals. These responses are then incorporated into the main rant, and afterwards propagated anywhere Mr. Markuze can paste it. This causes a sort of evolution in his writings, and creates a lot of the apparent non-sequiturs which make his rants so confusing.

Why would he do this? I suspect he can't tell us apart. He doesn't think of the people he spams as individuals. The people whose blogs he dislikes are basically a faceless horde - atheists, the enemies of God - and anything one of us learns, the rest then know. He doesn't answer when people ask him what he's talking about, because the question makes no sense: clearly, we know already. Even the "big names" aren't really individuals, they're just particularly distinct manifestations of the protean evil known as atheism.

At this point, unless Mr. Markuze cares to explain himself, I'm done. Conversations have to happen between (or among) people, and there's no point in trying to talk to someone who can't distinguish between me (an individual) and a rather large group of other people. So, until and unless we actually have a conversation, I'm just going to delete any of Mr. Markuze's tragic irrelevancies. DM, if you read this, I sincerely hope you can find the help you need.

Regular blogging will resume tomorrow, with the next installment of Reflections of a Deranged Cultist.

Dennis Markuze: One More Experiment

Mr. Markuze, I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm asking, because I do not understand you. Everything I post about you is a guess, based on what you say and do.

If you don't want me to guess, then please tell me why you do what you do. It's a very simple question: What are you trying to accomplish? All these messages you leave are clearly very important, but what are they for?

Because I seriously don't get it.

Dennis Markuze: another theory, and a question

Okay, so my last post actually received a response. It wasn't quite as much detail as I'd hoped for, but in truth it was more than I'd expected.

The response was, first, that my life is forfeit* for talking about God the way I do; and, second, that everything will be all right if I repent and turn to God.

Let me add a couple of caveats before I proceed. First, I do not guarantee that these answers were directed to me specifically. They seem to be, but... Anyway: second, as answers go, these are pretty oblique. They aren't a detailed answer to the questions I was asking, though I think they are an answer of sorts. It's probably also worth noting that he's addressing me in the plural: our lives are forfeit for the way we talk. I'm not sure whether this means that he's addressing my readers as well, or whether he thinks of atheists as a faceless horde sharing some communal essence ("We are Legion"). I have a very strong impression that he thinks of all unbelievers as atheists, and all atheists as being in active opposition to God**.

Which brings me to my next theory: maybe he isn't afraid of what atheists*** have to say. Maybe he's just offended. In this scenario, Dennis has a close, personal relationship with God. This is not so unusual; a lot of Christians have, or claim to have, such a relationship. So, naturally, when someone speaks insultingly, disrespectfully, or even indifferently about his friend, Dennis gets offended on God's behalf. That would explain why his rants seem to bounce back and forth between insults ("you headless idiot") and threats ("your lives are forfeit" - this may translate as, "you'd better not talk about my friend that way, or else!").

If true, this presents an obvious problem: God is quite capable or speaking up for Himself (c.f. the burning bush, Paul on the road to Damascus). Actually, this would be a problem even if Dennis were speaking up in defense of a human friend.

Also, this explanation doesn't make his posting/e-mailing behavior any more sane or reasonable. There are an awful lot of people who don't believe in God and are perfectly willing to say so; trying to respond to all of them has to be like trying to fix Hoover Dam with a roll of scotch tape. Also, if this is the case we're looking at someone who perceives God as, basically, a close personal friend (as opposed to, say, a still, quiet voice in one's heart), and who has a compulsive need to respond to anyone he perceives as insulting God.

Dennis, if you read this: is your goal to get people to stop speaking disrespectfully of God? Is that what you're trying to accomplish?

Thanks.

* Which is a nice bit of eighteenth century grammatical construction.

** As if that were even possible.

*** Etc. - I'm using his terminology, here.

Dennis Markuze: Some Theories

I wasn't going to write this post. I'd decided it was a waste of time, and would neither assist Dennis nor enlighten me. But since he decided to drop by again...

A while back, I received a couple of comments from Dennis Markuze. In response, I put up a post inviting him to explain himself, but he neither responded nor posted any additional ravings on my blog. Then, yesterday, he pasted some more of his spam. Mostly, I don't care about this. His comments are so... disconnected... that I can't even bring myself to feel insulted by them. I delete them because they're irrelevant, and life goes on.

But I am curious about him, so I did some looking around. The more I look, the stranger it gets.

For those coming in late, Mr. Markuze is a fellow up in Montreal, Canada. I don't know him; I've never even met him. He spends his time leaving comments on blogs, which is not in itself unusual. What brings his behavior into the realm of the pathological is the sheer volume of his efforts. His posts are long, rambling collections of odd assertions, vague threats, and disconnected links. He composes these things (changing them every couple of weeks, I think in an attempt to avoid SPAM filters), and pastes them into the comments of blogs he doesn't like. For the most part, his targets are focused on science, atheism, or both, but recently he's even spammed some Christian blogs. (I'm not sure whether that's because he doesn't like them, or because he's so busy propagating his nonsense that he barely bothers to read the pages he's targeting.)

People have tried to address him directly: either to find out what he wants, or to get him to stop spamming them, or to challenge (what we can discern of) his ideas. He does occasionally respond - or at least add text that seems to be a direct response to a particular comment from someone else - but unfortunately his responses usually include the entirety of his current rant. Worse, the response (made to a particular individual, mind you) often gets incorporated into the rant, so it then gets pasted into other threads on other sites. To summarize: it's difficult to get any kind of sense out of him, and basically impossible to have a real conversation.

That's not to say that these rants have anything to do with their targets in the first place. As best I can tell, Mr. Markuze has a serious interest in Nostradamus, and believes in the accuracy of his prophecies. Because of this, he thinks that James Randi owes him a million dollars. Also, he is intensely hostile (at least in print) towards atheists and other unbelievers. If he has any point to make beyond that, I (and everyone else I've seen discuss the matter) can't figure out what it is.

Now, I have several theories about why Mr. Markuze does what he does. I first thought that he a spambot - a program that goes to message boards and drops a preset advertisement anywhere it can - but apparently he is a real person. I have toyed with the idea that maybe this was some sort of performance art, but A) he does way too much of it, B) he's been doing this for years, and C) he never talks about the Meaning and Artistic Importance of his work. Another appealing possibility was that it might a sociology experiment, perhaps designed to catalog responses to abnormal behavior; but, again, he's been at it for years. I suppose that's still possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

This brings me to the theory which, I'm told, is pretty much the consensus among the people he's spammed: he's insane. I don't say that casually; accusations of mental illness should not be tossed around lightly, as it's a genuine problem which causes real people an awful lot of trouble and grief. It's just that the more I look, the more strongly I suspect that Dennis Markuze is one of those people.It's hard to explain his behavior any other way.

Most people, when they find out that others may disagree with them on fairly fundamental issue - whether God exists, for example - do one of two things: either argue the point, or shrug it off. At a glance, Dennis' ravings look like he's trying to argue a point, but I don't think that's actually the case. He sometimes reacts, but he doesn't interact, and he posts the same messages over and over, everywhere he can - the online equivalent of standing on a street corner shouting at passers-by. So, instead, I think his posts are more talismanic, designed to protect him against (or drive off) the things that he finds unbearable. This is why his messages include sentiments like, "Atheists - get out of my universe!" It's also why he seldom seems to read the things he's ostensibly responding to.

And this is where the question of mental illness comes in. Based on his apparent compulsion to place these talismans anywhere and everywhere - a behavior which, ironically, keeps him in constant contact with the very things he abhors - I think that Dennis is deeply, personally threatened by the existence of people who don't believe that God exists. Where a normal person might just shrug that off, I don't think he can. Another person might set out to argue that God does exist, but Dennis can't really do that either - because that requires looking at the atheist arguments, and looking at them makes them more real and gives them more (perceived) power to harm him. So he composes the strongest rebuke he can, and he posts it everywhere that he perceives a threat.

If I'm right, this can't be pleasant for him. We're looking at someone who lives in a constant state of fear and revulsion; someone whose only defense lies in typed (and copied/pasted) incantations; someone who is compelled to keep putting them up, over and over, just to hold back the darkness.

Is there any way to get him some help?

The Lunatic Fringe has found me

"DM" has started posting comments on my blog.

As I've mentioned before, I read (and comment on) a fair number of blogs run by agnostics, atheists, ex-Christians, and other unbelievers. I could do a long (and possibly even interesting) post on why this is, but let's make a token effort to stay on topic. "DM" has apparently noted my contributions, and decided to post some, er, contributions of his own. At a guess, he thinks that I'm some sort of militant atheist (I'm not), or else he thinks that my readership (all, what? ten of you) is a hotbed of subversive, anti-religious activity.

I've deleted these responses from the posts where they appeared, because A) they don't actually respond to the content of those posts, and B) they're essentially spam: identical, pasted-in responses which consist of a mixture of incoherent ranting and bizarre, semi-random links. Here's a sample:

Now I want you to listen to this little f*cker...

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_randi.html

Randi:

When I see your UGLY FACE I understand why you are an atheist




the really SHARP END OF OCCAM’S RAZOR…


they mix SKEPTICISM with ATHEISM…

KABOOM…
______________________



with the atheists:

they start begging when they start dying...


they PAY THE PRICE FOR ATTACKING THE SUPERNATURAL -

with their LIVES...


CRYSTAL NIGHT TONIGHT!

Atheists,

but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH... therefore you FAIL...


THE DEATH TRAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg
********

THE REAL QUESTION:

DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

AND THE ANSWER - NO!

visit:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f30/does-ath-ism-have-future-no-11202.html#post66570




Shermer - Harris - Myers - Dawkins - Randi VS. NOSTRADAMUS - EINSTEIN - MARKUZE


you're ANNIHILATED!


Atheists,

Repent and turn to God.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. A (very minimal) bit of research indicates that DM is actually Dennis Markuze, of Montreal, Canada; apparently he also posts as David Mabus, along with various other pseudonyms. His behavior here is entirely typical: drive-by postings of copied-and-pasted text with no direct relevancy to whatever he's ostensibly responding to. (More information is available here, here, and here; or just put his name in a google search.) The text is, as a rule, incoherent and vaguely threatening; it's also utterly repetitive. (Seriously. The first time I ran across his comments, I thought they were being produced by a spambot, rather than a person.)

I'm sure that in DM's head, this is all really impressive. Out here in the real world, not so much; I mean, he's clearly dedicated to his work, but his work consists of pasting in a single, pre-written response over and over, ad nauseum. It's almost like some peculiar sort of performance art, except for the lack of any appreciable artistic merit. (Actually, I guess that really doesn't distinguish it from performance art, does it?)

The psychology of this thing fascinates me. So, while I'm tempted to pick apart the text of DM's comments, instead I'd like to ask him a few questions. The first one is simply this: what's the goal, here? In other words, what is it that you hope/intend to accomplish by posting these comments? What are you trying to do?

DM, if you do choose to respond, please post your responses without pasting in the rant. I'd like to have some sort of conversation, or at least an online interview; and that's really hard to do if I have to skim past a full page of unconnected comments and links every time you post. I don't mind comments from people who disagree with me, but I do ask that the responses be specific to the post.