MINK... oh how you amuse me.
this one inparticular had me rolling.
"because when you actually look into it, unravelling the Bible is as hard as unravelling quantum mechanics."
for who ? a monkey ? or someone who is gullible beyond belief.
a great many people have easily unravelled the bible with ease. why, how you ask ??
because the bible makes grandiose absurd claims that are not backed up by history, archeology, or any factual evidence.
check out some of the books on this link (I've provided synopsis's for you)

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/my-books-list-4chris.doc

Christians do follow a poem (a theologist and priest dude told me that so it must be true)

Writing back then was very very very different, you can't judge it by modern standards. Even the word "poem" is wrong but we don't have a word for the style the authors of the Bible were using. We call it Biblical I guess.

This guy makes the mistake of taking the Bible literally, and then tries to use that as an argument against all Christians. It's the literalists he should focus on.

As for "it's stupid to believe in a poem" well.. AHA! You fall into my trap, said the spider to the fly. Yes it is stupid to literally believe in your personal interpretation of a poem, just as it is stupid to believe in Hawking when you have no idea wtf he is talking about and even Hawking himself refutes his own previous assertions (as any great and proper scientist SHOULD do when they encounter new information)

So the trap is, you think it's a polarized debate, and you made an assumption about my position.

My position is best summed up by the russian word XUJZNAET.

I refer you to this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Youre-too-stupid-to-be-an-atheist

I could also make one called "you're too stupid to be a christian" because when you actually look into it, unravelling the Bible is as hard as unravelling quantum mechanics.

But at least we know the Bible exists. Whereas Hawking's stuff is all particle mumbojumbo and blackboards that you couldn't possibly read.

btw I am not christian or atheist, and i don't take a firm position in debates where the finer points are too complex for any of us to understand.

As my Religious Studies teacher said... "You don't think atoms are actually balls spinning around other balls, do you? They're just maths."

Show me a graviton and I will show you Jesus' diary.

No I disagree for cutting corners for people just because they submit good content.

We went over this rule when self-linking was re-dressed by MLX herself, I came forth and vouched all my self-linked posts. None of them were commercial either (Robert Johnson doc and a doc on Robert Capa), this is not so much about content as setting a precedent for other users that come to the site.

The moment we start to be lenient on users, for submitting content is the day the entire dynamic of this site unravels. If I can post anything just because it's awesome and then link my own website. Am I really self-linking? Am I self-promoting?

I rather not get into discussions over details, and rather have a blanket rule for all posters.

Because I know it would make us look rather stupid for banning other self-linkers, some who don't just come posting garbage, but good content that simply violates the rules of the site. Should we give them a break as well?

Sounds and looks kinda like a Phantoms clone...

"yo, Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms!" - Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Unspeakable horrors have mysteriously befallen the whole town of Snowfield, Colorado, leaving behind only a few mangled body parts and unanswered questions. Enter two vacationing sisters and a sheriff and deputy from a nearby town, who try to piece things together with the help of a scientist-turned-tabloid hack. But will they unravel the mystery of the monstrous subterranean killing force before they become its prey? Adapted by Dean Koontz from his own novel.

It is interesting that none of the quotes in this video actually come from the New Testament. They are all quotes from male christian scholars - and many of the quotes are heavily influenced by the Old Testament. For me, this video is evidence not that Christianity is inherently sexist, but that for far far far too long men have had a monopoly over the interpretation of religious texts. Over the years this has led to a patriarchal religious hierarchy in almost all faiths which propogates a misogynistic perversion of the original message of the religion. Thankfully, many women are now fighting for equal access to religious institutions and an equal say in interpreting religious texts. But a great deal of work is required to unravel centuries of institutionalised sexism.

from wikipedia:

It has also recently been discovered that the mucus excreted by the hagfish is unique in that it includes strong, threadlike fibres similar to spider silk. What is interesting about hagfish slime is that it is fibre-reinforced. No other slime secretion known is reinforced with fibres in the way Hagfish slime is. The fibres are about as fine as spider silk (averaging two micrometres), but can be twelve centimetres long. When the coiled fibres leave the Hagfishes' 'slime' gland, they unravel quickly to their full length without tangling. Research continues into potential uses for this or a similar synthetic gel or of the included fibres. Some possibilities include new biodegradable polymers, space-filling gels, and as a means of stopping blood flow in accident victims and surgery patients.

Pretty neat!

We must be able to unravel this knot somehow. *save

Ah! They still think they can control what the hordes on the Internets do? All it takes for all this for all media companies to unravel is for someone to start a YouTube like service in Russia offering all the clips for free, preferably in HD just to drive them made. The MPAA knows better, they got bled out when they wanted to control the Internetz.
http://www.oscartorrents.com/?

Joost, Audeo, TVExt, WinampTV... Who are these companies kidding honestly? YouTube is market dominant. The only reason they cannot reach on a settlement deal is because they are too scared of piracy, the benefits of online video are not explained to them properly in terms of marketing, and most important they want to control the method in the users watch the content. Because then you can do all kinds of stuff again they can't now because of Tivo, mostly force you to watch advertising.

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

A dark period for YouTube - not only has Viacom demanded that they remove the 100K or so videos of ViaCom content - but YouTube's own deal with CBS to show clips for David Letterman et. al, has unraveled.

It makes me wonder if YouTube will continue to be the dominant player. I think the content is going to spread across multiple hosts with Video Keiritsus forming between broadcast TV companies and online video hosts.

Oh, and to be clear, ANY general tell can often go either way. With some people, trembling hands means they have a big hand (80% of all people perhaps), with others it means they have a poor hand (18%) and the rest of the time they're old men who tremble all the time (2%)

I also highly recommend The Psychology of Poker. It's helped my online game a lot. The book is about why various types of players play poker, which helps unravel the motivations behind the actions they take.

I want one. Just so I can unravel it at sexy parties.

Plot Summary for
Spin (1995)

Pirated satellite feeds revealing U.S. media personalities' contemptuous plans for their viewers come full circle in Spin. TV out-takes appropriated from network satellite feeds unravel the tightly spun fabric of television, a system which silences public debates and furthers the intolerance of anyone outside the pack of journalists, politicians, spin doctors and televangelists who manufacture the news. Spin moves through the L.A. rebellion and the floating TV talk-show called the 1992 U.S. presidential election.

Too bad all beliefs cannot be unravelled as easily.