Re: 20% dogma, patriarchy, and business. You could say the same for the pure sciences. To me, medicine is as much a science as physics and biology, with the difference that there is a professional/practice component that isn't there with the 'pure' sciences.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re:HadouKen24
You do seem well-informed on this topic.

1) "These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis."
It doesn't seem similar to empirical analysis if people's experiences of mystical feelings are all mutually contradictory. One person believes he or she senses one thing when reading a religious book, and another person senses nothing.

Strictly speaking, simply having a feeling when reading a book is not a mystical feeling. It is just a feeling. I am referring more to things like the [i]writing[/i] of the Bible or the contact that the Oracle of Delphi was said to have with Apollo.

2) "Why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology?"
These videos are intended for the portion of the population that's open to a rationalist approach. If scientific thought builds civilizations, with their advanced medicine and space travel, and religious thought doesn't have a history of verifiable achievements, a portion of the population will regard the balance of evidence as favoring a rationalist approach.

Sure, a scientific approach is extremely useful for developing new kinds of vehicles, safer homes, and so on. No one denies that. It is not at all clear to me how or why a scientific approach ought to be taken for all phenomena or to explain all ways of thinking about things.

There are a number of philosophical and religious positions which are utterly undecidable on the grounds of science and, if correct, render science woefully incomplete. One must evaluate these positions according to criteria other than scientific, such as coherency, consistency, etc.

3) "If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. "
Yes, if there was a verifiable supernatural event, that would constitute some evidence.
However, using mystical feelings as evidence, as most people would, doesn't seem to be supported by the balance of evidence when neurotheology, the neuroscience of theology, is taken into account. (Since 1994, neuroscience has been breaking down exactly what happens in order to (assumedly) create mystical feelings... e.g. turn off the neural circuits responsible for the sense of division between self and world, and suddenly we feel "connected to all things.")
Not everyone believes in relying on the balance of evidence, but this video is intended for those who do, or to at least give folks a sense of the advantages of relying on the balance of evidence.


The "balance of the evidence" is that, when you put people having similar religious experiences in an MRI machine, you see similar things happening in their brains, and the things you see are more or less the kinds of things you'd expect to see whether or not you believe there is an anomalous element to the experience.

"Neurotheology" is not nearly advanced enough to come to any conclusions about the ultimate nature of such experiences, and may in fact be incapable of making such conclusions.

>>HadouKen24
Thank you for a well-reasoned point of view from the opposite side. We're seeing way too little of that.

1) It's a bit erroneous for QualiaSoup to claim that the spiritual or supernatural realms proposed by various religions are conceived as realms we have no connection to or ability to contact or explore. If that were the case, then all religion would be a non-starter. Rather, the claim is that there are points of contact--specifically, those central to the particular religion, such as the temples and oracles of ancient Greece, or the revelation of Holy Scripture in Christianity. These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis.

QualiaSoup does indeed assume that the spitiual realms or deities of religions are unknowable. I'll show you why:

2) Skeptics treating God concepts as scientific hypotheses is getting a little tiring. It's not intended as a scientific statement; why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology? It is, in fact, the primacy of such an epistemology which is under contention.

There, you said it yourself. Treating God as a scientific hypothesis is simply a sophisticated way to say that you demand a reason to believe in it. This reason has to be either some sort of evidence or some logical or philosophical argument. As QualiaSoup points out, the philosophical arguments are flawed. So skeptics seek evidence for God.

It seems like you are trying to evade the question by having it both ways. First you assert that God does have an effect on our daily lives, through points of contact with our world. Then you refuse to treat these effects as potential evidence requiring analysis.

There are a few things about this video that I feel I should comment on.

1) It's a bit erroneous for QualiaSoup to claim that the spiritual or supernatural realms proposed by various religions are conceived as realms we have no connection to or ability to contact or explore. If that were the case, then all religion would be a non-starter. Rather, the claim is that there are points of contact--specifically, those central to the particular religion, such as the temples and oracles of ancient Greece, or the revelation of Holy Scripture in Christianity. These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis.

2) Skeptics treating God concepts as scientific hypotheses is getting a little tiring. It's not intended as a scientific statement; why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology? It is, in fact, the primacy of such an epistemology which is under contention.

3) QualiaSoup's point about the inconclusiveness of miracles is well-received--but it is on the same continuum as arguments that we can't know if we are just brains in vats being fed stimuli by mad scientists. If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. To be sure, scientific investigation may then question that claim and open it to further scrutiny which may or may not confirm the hypothesis, but that does not mean that, prior to such disconfirmation, we do not have at least some good reason to believe in Amaterasu.

All empirical judgments must be made in terms of our background knowledge. Part of that background knowledge is our knowledge of popular religious beliefs. If we have an independently verifiable experience which matches well with the religious beliefs of our--or perhaps another--culture, then we would have grounds to at least provisionally accept at least some of those beliefs--if only in modified form.

4) Finally, it is certainly the case that the kind of demanding pushiness that Soup criticizes is thoroughly unpleasant and unreasonable. Private reasons to believe in a God or gods do not justify that sort of behavior. His words on the problems with that particular attitude toward faith are perfectly appropriate. I worry a bit that the problems with the video will make it difficult for reasonable Christians and Muslims (since those are the two groups I see engaging in that sort of "dialogue") to perceive where he does in fact hit the mark.

If he's not going to phrase things in a manner that such people will respond to, it would be nice if he could present a few comments on the aspects of those two particular religions that encourage such attitudes and behavior. It seems to be strongly linked to monotheism--Judaism has less of such problematic attitudes, but they are still present, and seem to have been much more present in ancient Judaism. In polytheistic traditions, one tends to find a much higher respect for debate and diversity of thought. One need only look at the vigorous debates between Greek philosophers, who could agree on the subject of the gods no more than in any other areas, or the staggering profusion of religious practices and beliefs to be found in India. It is misleading to speak of such traditions as "tolerant;" the word implies that it takes some effort of will to maintain civility, when in fact polytheists tend to accept such diversity as a matter of fact.

vivid called and offered me a job. 60/40 commission split,all expenses on them (the 60 is for me) except id be using my own gear. Friday nights and Saturdays only. think im gonna take it. maybe try out that fundraising idea i had. maybe stay here for the lower level genetics courses next semester.

come over. i need an oracle.

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

For me parts of the sequels seemed very poorly executed. Compounding that was it was impossible to tell in advance after only seeing the second movie. For instance the Merovingian seemed like such an interesting and mysterious character in the second film, but he amounted to nothing interesting by the end of the third.

Mentions of ghosts and vampires (or was it werewolves) by the oracle, having no real part to play in the movies.

Persephone's just one kiss scene in part 2, it seemed like such a pivotal and dramatic scene yet it didn't amount to anything really.

There's just all these elements.. especially in the second movie that don't play out. That goes for the conclusion of the series itself.

Then came the ultimate answer to all of this.. the MMO that was made in corelation with the developers of the film. The Merovingian becomes a faction in the game. I believe the whole ghosts and werewolves thing becomes relevant in the game (I haven't played it). The resetting of the world.. well.. you need that in place if you want to have a game taking place in the world. I seriously think it's their plans for the MMO that weakened the over all plot of Matrix 2 and 3, though part 2 is a VERY fun action movie.

Another big element... there's barely any gun fights in the sequels. I know The One has no use for guns, nor are they effective against him, but come on... they could have had one mega gun fight somewhere in the story. There's a short shoot out in the third movie at least, that's actually one of it's redeeming qualities for me.

The other point someone made about the part 2 and 3 answering so many questions about the world is relevant too. They also seriously fucked up the setting when Neo used his powers outside of the matrix. That's when the tightly constructed universe of the first became a notch closer to a generic super-hero movie.

...nothing in the Matrix movies is as bad as what Indiana Jones 4 did for THAT series however. /derail >.<

The biggest problem i see is that there are so many ways to approach to the problem that all seem to do what is needed, but right now are scattered between researchers and projects all over the world, and i dont have access to them! For instance, you have massively excellent ideas, but would i have even known about them if i didnt come on videosift? so who else might already have another piece to the puzzle that i am completely ignorant of? that is my base starting point, because of my experience level and resources.

you are correct in approaching the linguistic AI component as the heaviest and most critical task to work on. Everything else is trivial in comparison.

The researchers at Cornell started a project in 2004 with a 10 year goal to accomplish basically what we're talking about in terms of analysis, only for a different purpose. I would not like to... spend time on that component when that research will save time and ultimately be better than what i can think of or make with my resources. I could essentially dig the hole, and fill it in with their system... a desire not driven by a particular ... inability... but out of desire for maximum efficiency.

I seem to be my best at unifying already developed systems, so right now... im identifying what components are needed, in what stage, if any, do they exist currently, where do they exist, and how can i use them in this new way.

The database component and GUI is likely where i personally could do the most work, but soon i will have access to the brains here at the CS department, and hopefully they will be interested enough to give me pointers in the right direction for the rest. I am about 7 months out from even getting to that point, so in that time, i am going to keep basically brainstorming and researching all the stuff i can so that the concept is presentable and accessible to new minds.

I can't contribute much at this point besides vision, time, and energy, but i feel like its such a worthy goal that i could easily spend a lifetime on it and consider it well spent. Your ideas make total sense to me, but... i wouldnt have been able to produce them in such logical context as efficiently... so at least, i can identify the need to be educated and educate myself more. I want to see what specific areas i excel at here at school so i feel i have validity to ... waste the time of more brilliant individuals such as yourself.

I mean, you already have such practical solutions for an AI framework, and i haven't even done anything as defined. so it makes me feel .. unworthy of attempting to interact at your level when i know i am not ready... but i know now you have a piece to the puzzle... so progress has been made... perhaps soon i can make the call to arms for the project in a way that is appropriate to the end goal, which is participation of everyone.

That's all i can spew forth ... once again thank you for making me see that it really is important to other people... that alone is enough to keep me going on this. I belive soon i will make a .org website for people to start brainstorming on, with a forum and such... that is how i can most effectively contribute at this point... organizing channels for ideas regarding the various components, as they are identified. My younger brother, for instance, is getting heavy training in the PeopleSoft/oracle suites, so there is another piece right there.

Sorry to be so vague in response to your very specific ideas.. all i can say to them is... YES MOAR PLS!1 and lol you found the same funny definitions for the acronym i did... heh heh heh. There needs to be a clearing house for these ideas... that's where i can come in the soonest, i believe... i would love to watch the conversation develop between more parties with interests and abilities such as yours! ok, well, back to the drawing board to channel some of this excitement productively! i have a large break time coming up in late august, and with that i hope to be in full swing making the website and "conceptual" framework for others to spin off of.

boy this will be neat... thanks D!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I loved Accelerando. - you're right, Stross's writing gets a bit muddy at times - but he's a high concept genius. The ideas in the book had me spinning for days.

For me, the best SF writers are futurists - oracles of potential futures- in the tradition of AC Clarke. Stross fits this description nicely.

I was lurking and couldn’t resist posting a response to this deebub81. There is considerably more to Mormon theology than what is currently taught in Sacrament meeting or Sunday School every week. While the doctrinal points you cited from the video may seem salacious, they were not made up out of whole cloth. I will leave you with a few comments and choice quotes from Mormon publications. Many of these publications are available online – including the Journal of Discourses http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/– and I’d encourage you to authenticate the quotes from men Mormons consider inspired oracles of God for yourself.

A brief list of inaccuracies, requested of me on my profile (I don't mean to skip over anything or hide any doctrine. I just didn't want to write an essay. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on anything.):

-We don't believe in any being higher than God the Father. We worship Him and His son Jesus Christ. Not countless gods.

We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'" (Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball in "Our Great Potential" from the April 1977 Priesthood Session of General Conference

-We don't teach about any unidentified god and his wives.

-We don't teach anything in our doctrine about where God came from or that he lives on a planet with His many wives or "endless Celestial sex."


"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;" (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)

-Only one God was present at the council spoken of in the video with Lucifer and Jesus. God the Father.

Don’t know about this one.

-Lucifer DID want the glory for himself but he wouldn't have forced us all to become gods. He wanted to force us all to obey.

Agreed

-It was never mormon doctrine that black people were neutral before this life. We don't believe that black people are inferior to white people.


Though he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan. (Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp102)


-"White and delightsome" is never used to describe the faithful followers of Jesus in the pre-mortal life. We believe that ALL who live or have lived on Earth, regardless of race or color or religion, were faithful to Jesus Christ's plan and chose to be here.


And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. (Book of Mormon --2 NEPHI 5:21)


-Adam is not Elohim. He is a child of God, as we all are. Eve was not a godess wife.


How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our father and God ..Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation...I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle...' (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873)

-We believe that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was still a virgin. We don't teach anything about God having physical sex with her. We don't teach anything about how the miracle was performed, only that Jesus is Begotten of the Father.


"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115).

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 6).

-We don't teach any specific doctrine about Jesus' marital status or children. Especially not that he had "at least 3 wives."


"Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the 'grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.' After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were 'Mormons' " (Jedidiah Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)"

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it."

"I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail."

"At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ." (All the above statements: Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)

"When Mary of old came to the sepulcher. . .she saw two angels in white. and they said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have take away my Lord, OR HUSBAND, and I know not where they have laid him." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)

". . .we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation-how and by whom he was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by the act; the number of wives and children he had. . ." (The Millennial Star, Vol 15, page 825)


-We believe that the Nephites and Lamanites are descended from Israelites. Not quite how it's said in the cartoon.

Agreed. Now if we could only locate some of that pre-Columbian Israelite DNA in America…..

-Joseph Smith was not a known treasure seeker. Neither was he known for any tales except his testimony about Mormonism.

Referring to Joseph as a young boy, his mother wrote "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."(Lucy Mack Smith - Joseph's mother, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet 1854)

Joseph most certainly was a treasure seeker. Joseph met Emma while searching for treasure on the property of Josiah Stowell. In 1826, Joseph was taken to court for the crime of ‘glass looking’ which basically amounts to defrauding people into believing you can find buried treasure through a gift of second sight. There is a court document that has been recovered to prove this. Even later, after his ‘prophetic call’ when the Kirtland Safety Society illegal bank he founded was going belly up, he and a group of his inside circle headed back to Salem, Massachusetts to try to bail themselves out by finding a treasure that was supposedly located there. Although there is much to document these activities, interestingly, there is nothing to suggest he ever found anything.

-We believe that we will be judged by Jesus Christ because he was and is perfect, he suffered all, and atoned for our sins.

-I have never been taught that I will be a polygamist god.

While church leaders no longer allow the practice of polygamy here on Earth, they do allow a living man to be sealed to another woman after the death of his wife, or after divorce. This leads to the obvious situation of establishing multiple sealings on Earth that, according to Mormonism, will necessitate polygamy in heaven.

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants- the revelation on polygamy remains canonized scripture. The practice of polygamy was suspended on earth, but will be standard practice in the Celestial Kingdom (heaven).

-Joseph Smith himself never claimed anything about doing more for us than any other man.

-We absolutely do not believe that Joseph Smith did more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ.

“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (Joseph Smith sermon, May 26, 1844)

The video was obviously designed to be as scandalous as possible, but just because something puts your religion in a bad light, do not assume it is untrue.

Based on their understanding of the world, you are.

I'm sure I am, but ignorance is not completely relative the way I see it. I see these peoples beliefs and I think of the people in Sudan, who thinks children who loses their parents must be witches. Look, in order to claim your local highway is somehow "Gods way" you simply NEED to be ignorant about history, philosophy,biology,astronomy,engineering, transportation or whatever.

Put another way, I'm willing to bet that I know more about the bible than they know of any field of knowledge outside the bible. I probably couldnt beat them on their "homefield", the bible, but I'm pretty sure that in overall knowledge, I would be seen as "less ignorant" by any 3rd party observer. And I'm no oracle here, I think of myself as knowing no more than what you'd expect of a normal person living in the 21st century.

The thing is, these people live in a trancelike state of willful ignorance,perhaps a better word would be "Ignore" as thats what they seem to do with everything in the outside world.

At any rate, I stand by my claim that these people are spreading ignorance, which to me is a lot worse than imposing it on yourself.

Holly Hell ! Great Stuff !

Even if it's sponsored by Oracle

This makes me wonder, how many times HAS Zelda been rescued?:
Legend of Zelda
Zelda II
Link to the Past
Ocarina of Time
Minish Cap
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess

There are other ones: Majora's Mask (N64), Link's Awakening, Oracle of Seasons (Game Boy) but she wasn't in those. She was in Four Swords, but I don't think Link had to rescue her (I never played it, so I don't know) so I guess that's 7? 8 if you include Phantom Hourglass, depending on the plot details. I probably forgetting some.

I worked for Oracle when this came out. I'm pretty sure Scorpio was based on Larry Ellison (but in a good way).