http://news.videosift.com/talk/NetRunner-hitsTop-15-Sifters-of-All-Time

http://cinema.videosift.com/talk/Willy-rasch187-Wonka-gets-his-250-Diamond-Ticket

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
*promote


Thanks!!

It's YouDieJoe's 250 Party!

A Clockwork Orange was better, I think. The Godfather movie is superior to the book. Lord of Rings by far. Let's see, Lolita, by Kubrick.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Like the song. Love the Movie. Did I mention that the book is awesomely phenomenal? Also, Ken Kesey is just the shit in general. IMHO this is the best book to movie adaptation ever. If someone else has a better alternative, I am open to examine.

Hey, you know humans have that same reaction to adrenalin. If you look at American football player (think defensive linemen) they usually have huge pupils. This happens so that an animal can see movements better, even in a well lit area.

you may have heard a story of people talking about an intense experience, where they say every thing was slower and seems like a dream. That is the effect of adrenalin. Even if you are having fun the animal instinct is still there. With animals who do not foster the ability to rationalize, they are always on he edge of an adrenal gland outburst. Paranoid people seems to be like this cat too!:D

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Whoa, the way his pupils change size when he gets excited is almost freaky.

Thanks for the excellent articles you posted in the comments section of the "abortion protesters" video.

Nah, but I'll check it out. I found it on youtube.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Hi saw your first post. I've only seen videos of that sort on one site I frequent. You wouldn't happen to be familiar with entensity would you?

thanks!

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Its not as hard as it looks once you figure it out.
http://www.videosift.com/talk/How-to-create-a-Custom-Player-in-YouTube

That's awesome! did you make that?

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
OM NOM NOM
http://i26.tinypic.com/5dkui9.gif

By the way, I meant to say 8 of them touched it and saw it. And sorry for the agnostic/atheist comment. It was stupid.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Finally got in contact with my bro, he is a busy man. He said he read several books on the subject but that "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" by Grant H. Palmer was the best account of the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Palmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Insider%27s_View_of_Mormon_Origins

A podcast from Grant can be heard at
http://mormonstories.org/?p=92
I'm listening to #3 right now.

For him it held special weight because of Grant's standing in the church. Ironically, his own doubts in the faith began after his sealing to his wife in the Mormon temple. He didn't go into specific details, but did describe it as bizarre. (I couldn't witness it due to not being a believer.)

And just as a note on the 11 witnesses, which you mentioned

"One very big one is that there are ar least 14 other people who saw the plate, 11 of whom gave solemn witness to that fact which can be read in the pages before the Book of Mormon. 3 of them saw it, 11 of them touched it and saw it."

My brother pointed me to http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm which is a heavily cited article that is reinforced by Grant's podcast.

I too am a junkie of the debate regarding theism. Lately I've been getting my fix at http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/ , I enjoy the civil discussion but am running out of podcasts to listen too.

I have to admit I chuckled a little bit when you mentioned that Mormon theology had solved the problem of evil. I am pretty sure they are not the exclusive to the claim. In my view its whether or not you yourself can reconcile the problem, not the theology. Its whether or not it makes sense to you. That being said I would be very interested in reading your paper on the problem of evil. I promise not to be to mean in my criticisms

Oh, haha. I didn't mean to say that Mormon theology has any kind of corner on the claim, but that their theology, to me, seems to justify it naturally. The reason that I brought it up is because I find it FASCINATING that the basic doctrines treat the problem of evil in a totally different way. Whether you believe it or not is a different issue. I'm not trying to save you, I jsut thought it would be an interesting topic for debate. I've never seen other Christian faiths try to reconcile the problem of evil without falling into one of the traditional arguments, which can all be shattered at the blink of an eye.

You don't have to disprove Mormonism to me. I was just pointing out that the South Park episode was erroneous, because Joseph Smith did provide witnesses. I'm not making a claim about whether or not they really saw them, I'm just stating the fact that South Park was misrepresenting Mormon beliefs and making them seem naive to the point of utter idiocy.

I've been on here way too much and need to do my homework.

I'll catch up with you later on the paper thing.

You can't be atheist AND agnostic. That's just downright silly. I say this in the kindliest way possible.

But, seriously, Ace, I like you. You give me a good challenge. I was delighted to see that you lost your faith because of the age-old "problem of evil," which is the name for the whole hell+justgod=wtf? phenomenon you described. I wrote a ridiculously long paper on JUST THAT TOPIC about a year ago. Did you know that Mormon theology actually solves that problem? This is what got me so into that book, Mormon Doctrine. I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING. It's crazy! I can send you my paper sometime if you want.

The dilemna is:

1. All-good
2. All-powerful
3. Evil exists

Does that look familiar? Man, I love this stuff. I don't want to convert you or anything, I just find it incredibly interesting to talk about. We should chat.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
I left this response recently on pinky's page in response to her critique on http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Mormon-Theology-Is-Really-All-About-1975 and thought it was applicable to the thread so I am pasting it.

"After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly."

Come back to me with this argument when you've found better sources. A lesson about church doctrine: You cannot believe that Mormons believe it unless you get it straight from the source. That is, it has to come from canonized scripture, church lesson manuals, or at least General Conference talks from the 12 apostles or the prophet. Someone with authority has to have declared that it is doctrine in order to claim that it is doctrine. Okaybee? Wiki does not count.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly.

Keep in mind that this theology rests on top of the church history, which is also more shockingly ridiculous then the general joe on the street has any idea of.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Wow. This is extremely inaccurate. I don't even know where to begin. Lies, people. Don't believe a word of it!!!

Well I have to admit I was wrong!

That physicist couldn't be more wrong about the phones not transmitting when they are recieving/ringing - they always do both at the same time. And the fact that they will interfere with each other would be cumulative interference which is what causes a harmonic. This is why I thought the videos were genuine, because there WILL be standing waves present, of that there is no question - whether there is enough energy in the standing wave to pop corn is another matter, you'd have to do the maths using the standing wave ratios, and that's way out of my league.

I'm surprised that a physicist didn't work out the standing wave ratios, that would have been a proper scientific debunk.



In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/cellphones-cant.html