Thanks to TIFF I've seen a bunch of famous actors/directors, mostly during Q&As, occasionally out and about. The most memorable time was when I was running late for a movie (it's generally a good idea to arrive at TIFF screenings at least half an hour early, if you want to get a decent seat), and there was a man and a woman standing side by side on the escalator, blocking me from running past. I was thinking "what a couple of douchebags," and I quickly turned around to get a look at them as I was finally able to run by. I did a double take when it turned out to be Joseph Gordon Levitt and Lynn Collins, the two stars of the movie I was about to see.

I was tempted to say something like "I'm about to see your movie!" but I'm way too big of a chicken for that.

Wow! The mormons must be pissed!

Many things from Freemasonry were taken, changed, and used by Joseph Smith--who was a Mason--but the annotations are incorrect about all Masons receiving a "new name" during initiation (5:32).

>> ^artician:
This can't have been real...
It wasn't.

But imagine if it was... Welles as Batman/Wayne, Joseph Cotton as Gordon, Marlene Dietrich as Catwoman/Kyle and Edward G Robinson as Penguin/Cobblepot.

while this is not really a *controversy ,many entrenched in the body politic may view it as such.
but i admire peter josephs *philosophy
the anarchist in me is pleased.what a great video.i hope there will be more.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?

cough Hudson Hawk cough Armageddon cough


While both those films are fairly bad, they are FAR more watchable than the true dregs of movies that have been made by people such as Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan--when M.N.S. made a good show, followed by a decent one, and then proceeded to believe that he made the best films man had ever bear witness to. Plus we both know that there was an audience (and a large one for Armageddon) for BOTH of those movies and also Air Force One, @Payback; sure, they weren't me and you (or @Payback), but there are a lot of people in this world that do not ask very much from their movies.

It's when a movie lets down EVEN THEM that it is a pure and utter failure, able to be ridiculed without equal until the end of time. These are the worst films made. Of course many of the movies that DO succeed, like Prometheus right now (June 2012--for reference), can be made fun of A LOT (like Armageddon, which has been the punchline to many jokes). Why? Because, they have MASSIVE disconnects from reality or other bad writing and screenplay mechanics that they are just ridiculous when thought about with any amount of real thought and prowess in a subject dealing with the movie and it's attempt to portray reality in another light that is utterly false. As I said they appeal to the "entertainment" type audience; someone that would go see Independence Day over and over again. Not to us were we watch someone take off a helmet in a potential zero atmosphere environment "to test it out"; that is UTTER NONSENSE, no one does this in reality! This is the stuff that makes us hate those movies (and create the myriad of jokes for it as well). But, not the entertainment crowd who can enjoy a movie for what it is and suspend their connection with reality for awhile.

Granted if I were to use my "full-on" reviewing analysis of what I would include as good movies--the count of "alright" movies would plummet (for Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis). I can think of atleast 3-4 shows that Bruce has been in that I would consider failures in this light, but I know that many people beyond me DO like these movies--that is why I don't count them as failures as there remains an audience--a decently sized one--for those movies. I have to admit I have my own "cult" movie favorites that no-one likes, really, except for me and maybe a few other people I know. I also have been able to like movies for their entertainment value although I know if I treat them with reality they fall completely apart, quickly. Sometimes it's best to let your imagination rule your heart.

Same thing here. I'm just not on the end of the spectrum that enjoys those movies, if you get my drift. So, trust me, I know Bruce has his bad movies (same with Harrison Ford)--but his bad movies, so far, are better than the real dregs and bottom scraped-up leftovers that are out there. That is what I was trying to say in a lot less context--I hope this clears it up. We most likely see things fairly close or the same; I'm just giving credit to the people that DO like Hudson Hawk, Armageddon, and Air Force One.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?


*cough*Hudson Hawk*cough*Armageddon*cough*

>> ^kceaton1:


I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.


Air Force One?

>> ^Sarzy:

FYI Rian Johnson (the director of this film) posted the following on Twitter:
"If you're already set on seeing Looper, I'd avoid any trailers from here on out. They don't ruin the movie, but they tip a few little things that are fun to discover in the context of the movie."
If the director of a film tells you to avoid the trailer, it's probably a good idea to listen.


...And this should also be a calling card to START telling movie companies to reign in their trailer releases, editing what information and scenes are still in and what isn't. You can easily make a perfectly good trailer that still gives you an idea of what the story will be that pulls the crowds and still not give away really anything. Hell, sometimes it's good to even leave the STORY a secret, as in my point below.

I may not have liked Cloverfield too much (although it did do a lot of things right, like atmosphere; leaving you in perpetual suspense with the characters--rather than you being the omniscient overseer as usual), but damn it's small burst trailer and viral craze was enough to make people foam at the mouth. The reason why it worked is right down below...

BTW, Hollywood executives I'm about to tell you what makes a good trailer:

This is ALL you need, produce curiosity and you have your audience (in fact I'd dare say that by putting more information in that gives away ANY plot lines will actually DIMINISH your crowd size). Just give them curiosity and if your film isn't good enough to form curiosity then you happen to be releasing a Tyler Perry movie, again (or Adam Sandler).

This obviously isn't ever true as the majority of people STILL see movies even though these trailers are released. But, is this because they don't care about the trailers or they just want to see the show either way (trailer be damned, like us). For us commenting, we are movie goers that actually LOVE cinema hate having movies ruined by seeing one bad trailer.

It would be nice if they would atleast give it a chance.

BTW, this looks like an interesting film, but yet again--why in the hell do we need to know the whole story and how it will end (you can almost guess a few ways it will; I shouldn't even be able to conceptualize it yet!) basically before going? Does everybody release Michael Bay style trailers now (The Transformers trailers were REALLY bad in this area, as is Michael Bay...)?

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

this looks goooood. might be crap... but it looks gooooood. And I love me some Joseph Gordon Levitt. In a very non-gay, masculine sort of way.

Oh Yeah.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is fantastic!

@shinyblurry
yaaaay.a video argument.
well allow me to retort:




i always find it interesting when people assume that i get my information from zeitgeist.as if the idea that i studied under a biblical scholar is something to not even be considered.

as for defending the sabbath as being sunday. might i suggest that when you use a souce *cough* wikipedia *cough* that you may wish to read the article in its entirety.

achary s has sourced ALL her claims in zeigeist and provides it:
(ok ok.its from the you tube page.too lazy to link diving for all her sources)
The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) Transcript
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

The Mythicist Position - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w

'The REAL Zeitgeist Challenge'
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge.html

9 September 2009 Listen to Acharya S on Peter Joseph's blogtalkradio. Show begins Wednesday September 9th at 3PM Eastern (12PM Pacific)
Acharya appears from 4PM Eastern (1PM Pacific)

This show is now ARCHIVED here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Peter-Joseph

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

Listen to Acharya on blogtalkradio - Truth or Fiction? Show April 4 2009: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/7hunder/2009/04/04/truth-or-fiction-with-very-sp...

Listen to Acharya talk about her new book on Gnostic Media - Podcast 21 March 9 2009: http://www.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com

31 July 2008 - Listen to the streaming radio interview with Acharya on Black Op Radio...Show #385 Part 1
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html - thank you Len

Cette vidéo avec des sous-titres français: http://tinyurl.com/594awz

The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1 is a 49-page ebook containing a scientific investigation of some of the facts from Part 1 of the ZEITGEIST movie, dealing with the comparisons of ancient religions and Christianity.
http://www.StellarHousePublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

http://www.TruthBeKnown.com

Acharya's blog post "Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted? - NOT!" -
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitgeist-refuted-not.html

The sun/son issue was addressed long ago in Acharya's FAQ's:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4835#p4835

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997

"Astrotheology of the Ancients"
http://truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

Special thanks go to Freethinkaluva22 for providing tremendous assistance with the research.

Was Krisyhna's mum, Devaki, a virgin?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1597

The Origins of Christianity
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf

shiny.
you know i have no interest in changing how you believe or perceive the world around you.
your faith is your own but please put a tad bit more time into rebuttals when concerning my posts.
apply to boston university and get your degree.i hear their theology courses are top notch.
ooooor continue to play whack a mole with every post,comment or inference that challenges your world view based on limited religious and biblical understandings.
i am sorry if that offends or hurts you but i read your posts and it is painfully obvious that you dont know what you are talking about concerning religious history.

so.try seminary school.
graduate and then our arguments can become legendary!

oh.and another thing.scholars are still unsure of the exact date of resurrection.
just sayin....

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Well, that didn't work either.
Hey, @lucky760 what the hell do we do now?


Ban doesn't work if the user is already banned. I'll scrub his mess off the floor manually...

Hey, Joseph, we don't allow self links here. You're going to get in trouble!

>> ^messenger:
Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.


If you're referring to the geneology of Jesus, it is presenting one geneology through David's son Solomon, which is the royal line, and one geneology through David's son Nathan, which is the non royal line. The lineage in Matthew is Josephs line, and the lineage in Luke is Marys line. There is no actual contradiction there, or anywhere else in the bible. What skeptics call contradictions are usually things they simply do not understand.

In any case, it would not be unreasonable to believe the bible, even if there were contradictions. This is simply a fallacious argument.

>> ^messenger:
The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)


Your contention is false for a few reasons; first, that miracles do not occur, and second, that we should expect to find an abundance of miracles. Not only have I seen miracles occur, I have been a party to them. As far as the number of miracles, we shouldn't expect to know how many miracles occur. God isn't performing for the general public. Even the post-resurrection appearances were only for a limited number of people.

We do have circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, such as the information in DNA and the evidence of fine-tuning. The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for these phenomena. We should never ignore a theory which better explains the evidence.

>> ^messenger:
This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.


It is the persistant claim of atheists that science has sufficiently described the Universe and is regulating God to a smaller and smaller corner. It's called the "god of the gaps" and you hear this all the time. You hear it from eminient scientists like Dr Krauss. So I don't wish it is being said, it is being said all the time.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are more evidences for a young earth than an old one. Since you don't know much about macro evolution, you probably don't know much about the theory of deep time either. Paleontology and archaelogy are historical sciences. The age of the earth is assumed, and the evidence is interpreted through that assumption. The assumption itself is never challenged.

>> ^messenger:
This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.


Messenger, you seem like a thoughtful person, so step outside of your box for a moment and think about this. The statement that "If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence" is a scientific statement of absolute fact. If it isn't, explain why not.

>> ^messenger:
You and I agreed before, no solipsism.


I engaged in no solipsism, as you will see, and I also thought we weren't going to be doing cherry picking either. I noticed you avoided these questions:

The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

>> ^messenger:
You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".


I am not using logic to disprove logic, I am using logic to show you that you don't have a foundation for your own rationality. You live your life as if logic is a transcendent and absolute law, the same way as you do right and wrong, but you can't account for it in your worldview. It's a bit like sitting in Gods lap to slap His face. If logic doesn't have the same value independent of human belief, then you have no basis for your own rationality. Words do have meaning, which is why I am pointing out you have some intellectual sinkholes in your worldview that you just accept without thinking about it.

>> ^messenger:
Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.


I didn't say God created logic, I said He is a rational being. Since we are made in His image, we are also rational beings.

>> ^messenger:
No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.


It doesn't mean that, no, but it does mean that you spoke authoritatively and condescendingly about something that I actually know more about than you do, jumping to conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I said, that on a lack of knowledge about the theory itself. I would say this is positive evidence in my favor, and negative evidence against you.

>> ^messenger:
But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.


They aren't outdated quotes, they are predictions that were made about what we should expect to find if the theory is true. Darwin made a great discovery, that changes can occur within a species. From there, he made an unjustified extrapolation that all species had a common ancestor. He expected to find evidence for this theory in the fossil record, but what he found was evidence against his theory. He blamed this on the relative poverty of the fossil record. 120 years later, we know it isn't the poverty of the fossil record; there simply is no fossil evidence to confirm macro evolution.

Do you know what a gluon is? It is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that binds quarks together. It has never been observed; it is simply a fudge factor, and without it, atoms would fly apart. Scripture says God is upholding them.

>> ^messenger:
Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.


You're talking about the theory of punctuated equillibrium, or the modern "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of my favorite quotes:

In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'

Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136


It's the theory to explain why there is no evidence for evolution. How convenient. Do you realize that this makes macro evolution unfalsifiable? It also makes macro evolution a metaphysical theory, like abiogenesis, which you must take on faith. The video you referenced is not an accurate demonstration of macro evolution, either, since nothing is being added to the genome. A reconfiguration of the same genetic material is not traversing above the species level and is therefore micro evolution.

Since you're never read a book on macro evolution, try this one and challenge yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

Thanks

40 to go.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
*promote the street music!