CP3S

doubleKO said:

CP3S said:

Rife, not appreciating rejection, apparently, claimed it was a conspiracy among the AMA to discredit him and suppress his research.

Loads of money at stake makes for some good suppression. Drug companies have the money and power behind them to discredit and suppress whatever they like, and care nothing for human life.

Thus proving there was a device invented in the 1930's that can cure cancer along with any other disease?

If Rife's discovery was real, he would have taken it to other sources, shown it to people, saved lives with it, proved it was real. If not in America, in some other country. If I discovered something that could cure any disease (which would, without a doubt, change the world more than any other invention ever made by man), I'd fight until my dying breath to get it out in the open. If I could really cure any disease (or even just cancer, would be pretty amazing), I'd have no problem succeeding in getting that word out.

The whole "germ theory" was conceived by the ethically-challenged Pasteur when they should have been listening to Bechamp; the medical paradigm is based on treatment when it should be based on prevention - something that will never happen while society is driven by the almighty dollar.

[Insert quadruple face palm gif here]

That sounds all cool and anti-establishment and shit, definitely the sort of thing I have a natural tendency to want to get behind, the only problem is that "germ theory" is very easily proven even in amateur settings (i.e. we don't need an AMA controlled environment or equipment to prove germ theory). To ascribe to germ theory denialism, you have to throw out everything we know (know meaning what can be seen and observed) about microorganisms. Germ theory denialism is so far out there, you have to have a very poor grasp on the science to be able to take it seriously. The AMA may be a big greedy entity with loads of wealth and power, but even if they are, they'd have to rig every microscope in the world and be able to practice influence over the bodies of every human being and animal on the planet in order for germ theory to stand as firmly as it does if it is a conspiracy.

Edison said "The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease." I think he underestimated the scope of human greed and stupidity.

Prevention is a very large part of medicine today. Doctors do push the care of the human frame, proper diet, and prevention of disease. The real thing Edison didn't understand wasn't the scope of human greed, but the scope of peoples' general lack in desire to be healthy.

No new material eh, Abes? You posted a link to that Tesla video a year or more ago.

Hmm, just a thought, but that video constantly bemoans the fact that nobody has ever heard of Nikola Tesla and that he is all but forgotten. Is he really that obscure? I remember learning about him in school and being fascinated with him ever since. He also pops up in popular culture fairly often. The video game Red Alert has been using his name from the early nineties until present, with the most recent game in the series coming out just a couple of years ago. The film The Prestige featured him as an important character to the plot (though a very sciencefictionized version of him), and Fallout 3 features a book you can find lying around the wasteland called Nikola Tesla and Me, that increases your science skill when read.

Throughout my whole life he has never been that obscure, yet I constantly hear about how very obscure he is.

As for Philo Farnsworth and Dr. Rife: I remember reading about Farnsworth as a child and always being really sympathetic to him. Always having been a bit of a Neo Luddite, even as a child, I absolutely loved the idea of the man who invented the television living to deeply regret it. He is definitely obscure, and deserves more credit, though perhaps not as much as some of his supporters claim.

Dr. Rife on the other hand... there is absolutely no reason to believe the man's "cure for all diseases" ever worked. In fact, consider the "too good to be true" factor of that claim. Cures all diseases? You know what they say about things that are too good to be true... they usually are. So, Rife's claims were unable to be replicated (meaning, they didn't work) and so were rejected. Rife, not appreciating rejection, apparently, claimed it was a conspiracy among the AMA to discredit him and suppress his research. The only reason we even know Rife's name today is because people are drawn to a good conspiracy theory, coupled with the warm fuzzies one gets from the thought that there is a single cure for every disease. I'd like to believe that was true too, it would be amazing. But it was an outrageous claim that the claimer was never able to substantiate, so there is no reason to grant it any validity.

TV's Frink said:

Speaking of which, I sort of enjoy the fact that he wasn't posting quite like he used to until C3 pointed out who he was.

I know :(

You have no idea how much I regret pointing him out. I guess the dumbass was lying low so people wouldn't realize it was him, despite the obvious name and use of his trademark lack in ability to form sentences that make sense in the English language. But then again, I seem to recall it was kind of an annoying ABCesque post that spurred me into mentioning him, so perhaps it was inevitable that he couldn't contain his BS packed self in the shadows for much longer anyway. 

darth_ender said:

I can't help but worry that somehow what I feel was a very sensible post will still somehow be misinterpreted and you will not even address the bulk of the post due to some phrase you find "childish" or inaccurate.

It is an unfounded worry. I haven't intentionally avoided addressing anything. I haven't said anything more about the eleven because you explained that my lines of questioning were not what this thread was for, and I conceded you were right. I am not out to offend you, and don't want to do so.

After reading your post last night and doing a lot of reading and googling of my own, I found Martin & Lucy Harris and the lost 116 pages particularly interesting (I have of course heard of the incident before, but it has been a while since I have actually looked at it in detail, rather than just coming across references to it and summaries of it in other works. In fact, last time I read about it in detail was before I even had access to the internet with the endless links and wealth of information and varying viewpoints it provides).

I was also kind of surprised to find via your links that the gold plates (if I am understanding what I am reading correctly), were not actually physically seen by the witnesses in person (including Martin, who was transcribing for Smith as he translated them), but rather through visions. Did I misunderstand that? Smith was the only one who actually physically saw and handled them? I don't even know how to begin to respond to that.

darth_ender said:

There comes a time when even calm, humorous remarks, or at worst, remarks such as "oversensitive" and and "irritable" are met with "shockingly childish" and comments indicating I have "personal problems" (now edited I see).

You are being shockingly childish (this I say in the friendliest way possible).

I edited out the "personal problems" bit when I added the stuff about reading your responses carefully and appreciating them, because I felt it was harsh and inaccurate.

What I meant about thoughtless comments was how easy it was to postulate something about which you knew little about.  I remember you said you once made out with a girl who had a gun in her jeans.  I could make some "plausible" explanations about why that relationship didn't go further, but the truth is that I know little of the situation.

I know this wasn't your point in mentioning it, but to follow up: it was never a relationship. We spent a bit of time together for a couple of weeks and as soon as things started to get a bit boring we moved on. Haven't talked to her since. Surprised you remembered that post, I barely remembered it.

I put you on ignore and do not respond to your posts...

Lol, you're taking this really far. If ignoring me makes you feel better, have at it. I won't be offended or take it personally either way.

darth_ender said:

...this is coming from the guy who has yet to acknowledge the amount of work I've put into answering his thoughtless questions.  You didn't even say, "Thanks for an answer."  You didn't even say, "I see you at least made an effort."  You've instead chosen to dwell on my joking sarcasm and "grumpy grump" comment.  I'm the only one who has addressed the issue at all!

Oh for Pete's sake... I told you you didn't need to bother wasting time on more of a reply. I would have rather you didn't, rather than do begrudgingly so as you did. Having a busy life myself, I get how valuable an hour can be.

I do appreciate the effort, I read it all very carefully. I also want to say I read all your links when you first posted them, since you seem to be under the impression I didn't, for some reason. Reading about the history of the gold plates and the witnesses for over an hour last night, I had several other questions I felt like posing, but you are so worked up about things, I really don't see a point, and you've mentioned several times you feel my arguments are "thoughtless" (if true, perhaps because it takes some heavy thinking to believe in something extremely unlikely, but takes no thought to dismiss it), which makes the effort feel even less worthwhile.

darth_ender said:

Until you take the time to read posts thoroughly and possibly put a little of your own effort into this discussion, until you stop taking every joke as a personal assault or a weak-minded defense...

 

You're being shockingly childish. Take a second to unbunch your white underwear. I read all your posts thoroughly, what makes you think I didn't? Taking every joke as a personal assault? They're not personal assaults, nor did I take them as such, but how exactly is accusing someone of being "overly sensitive" or complaining about them being "irritable" suppose to be taken as a joke?

Dude, I encourage you to simply go back and reread our discussion from the start, all I did was comment on your sarcasm, it was a mere two lines in a much longer post. I wasn't hung up on it, I commented on it, then proceeded with my post not mentioning or thinking about it again for the remainder.

I truly regret commenting on your sarcasm, had I thought it would cause you so much distress, or cause you to become as defensive as it did, you can be sure I would have left it out.

darth_ender said:

....^gosh, I hate that gif!

Okay, I admitted to perhaps being overly sensitive.  I tried to take down the tone.  I tried to point out that I intended lighthearted humor and nothing more.  What did CP3S do?  He points out that walkingdork is other posters (plural) that I've "freaked out over" for not being PC.

The day CP3S admits he's ever even contributed in some small way to the contention I've seen him take part in on so many occasions will be highlighted and underlined in my calendar.

But that is the thing, you are trying to make this about me, rather than the topic. Even if I was being the absolute worst scathing critic of you and your religion, who cares? Why not just address the points and prove me to be a dumb idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about instead of trying to gripe about how horrible, irritable, grumpy, and wrong I am acting?

Clearly, I didn't pose my positions topped with whip cream and sprinkles, nor do I claim I did, but I feel like I was perfectly fair and that my questions were reasonable; there was really no reason for it all to devolve into this.

darth_ender said:

but it amazes me how often I feel like I'm stepping on his toes.

And it baffles me why you feel this way. I've never once felt like you stepped on my toe, or felt the slightest bit "irritated" or "grumpy" toward you.

georgec said:

I agree that some of the claims in the links I provided were erroneous.

I just want to make it absolutely clear, MOST of those claims in your first link  were not erroneous; they were flat out fabrications.

 

But, if we think about the monotheistic religions as essentially the same lineage of teaching at different times (or in different regions)...

Uhh... Do we think that?

Maybe God has been fine tuning how he reveals himself to people over the years.

In which case he probably needs to drop the claims of all seeing, all knowing, and perfection in the next iteration, because if he is responsible for all of them, he's really been sucking it up big time for quite sometime now. Something that is all seeing and all knowing doesn't need to fine tune.

darth_ender said:

Geez, man, you're right, we never get far because you misinterpret me at every turn as well, whether you realize it or not. 

I honestly don't have time for this kind of BS discussion, and I am pretty sure you don't either. Let's not go around in circles for ever. How am I misinterpreting you explicitly stating that you think I am in an irritable mood or that I am being a "grumpy grump"? I don't think there is anything to misinterpret there. I was referring to walkingdork as the other person who you've freak out over regarding attitude. From everything I have read, everyone else you've interacted with regarding religion on the forum has taken the pins and needles PC approach when the subject of religion has come up.

I don't avoid what doesn't match my point of view.  Here in this thread I've taken it head on.  Have you actually read the past several pages?

You avoided the points I brought up, explaining that isn't the point of this thread. Which is legit. Yes, I've read the last several pages.

As for the timing of my sarcasm, did you even read the rest of the post? 

Yes I did. It didn't answer my question about other evidences for the gold tablets apart from the eleven.

 

I truly will go into greater depth to answer your questions, even though I don't even feel they were that well thought out.

If my questions weren't that well thought out, by all means, please feel free to disregard them. Personally, I'd be extremely impressed if you could provide a reasonable answer to all (or any of) the points I brought up in my posts. But like you said, that isn't the point of this thread, so I am not going to ask you to bother.

darth_ender said:

No, you didn't  Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling.

Just because I don't pepper my posts with apologies and claims I have the utmost respect for your religion, doesn't mean I intend to be condescending or belittling. I am simply calling ducks ducks. Any "belittling" things I have said have been factual weak points I was interested in hearing your response to, but as you said, that was not your intention for this thread, thus I overstepped. 

And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism.  Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response.  If I misread you, I apologize.

I am not easily irritated and I am almost always in a good mood, you're reading a lot that isn't there into my posts.

As for "snappish", you were using sarcasm to mock/dismiss the train of thought I presented to you, sarcasm can be great fun when used at relevant times, but it is an extremely immature and really poor way to try to win/dismiss an opposing argument. I wasn't being snappish, I was simply pointing to the immature use of sarcasm.

Discussion between you and I don't get very far, because you have a tendency to bend it around and somehow make it about me. You've done this in the past. You also do it with other posters that voice opposite views from your own without apology or excessive tact, perhaps it is your form of lite "character assassination", by complaining that they have a massive stick up there ass, any pressure is off of you to continue the discussion, and you can walk away feeling like the bright and cheery always positive upstanding poster. Am I reading way too much into your posts and reactions with this assessment? Almost certainly. Obviously I am just being a "grumpy grump".

darth_ender said:

 but I suspect your irritable mood may have interfered with you noticing...

Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this? I wasn't in a bad mood when I wrote my previous post. Your newfangled computer that can read people's moods and emotions through the internet must need recalibration.

Feel free to press me a bit hard.  But know that I admit now that I will never prove my faith as correct, and if you want to take the time to be a bit demeaning (you mean that's the only reason you believe in your church???), you are missing the intended spirit of the conversation.

Someone asked about the gold plates and the seer stone, you mentioned the eleven witnesses, and I was surprised that was considered "strong evidence" for the existence of the gold plates. Yes, I was legitimately asking if that was really the best evidence for their existence, but from the sounds of things I way overstepped the boundaries of the sort of inquiry your are comfortable with.

darth_ender said:

I have to say that for someone so *tough*, most of our conversations have at times startled me with your over sensitivity.  It was a joke.  Geez, man!

What are you even talking about? Where did I come off as sensitive at all, let alone overly so?

I feel like every time we have a discussion you want to read all sorts of things into my posts that aren't there.

darth_ender said:

Aw, crap!  You're right!  I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob*  How could you!?!

...

I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else.  But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own.  The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source.  My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.

Good use of mocking sarcasm as a defense. If you're just going to get on the defensive when you can't answer something, this thread probably wasn't a very good idea. I felt my question was legit and fair.

I am not sure why you think I am easily and quickly dismissing your eleven men without real thought or research of my own (other than the obvious answer: because my conclusions are different than yours). I grew up in an area with a very high population of Mormons, my closest friends growing up were Mormons, and just about every neighbor and friend I ever had from childhood to my early teens tried to convert me every chance they got. I've studied with many Mormons and spent a fair deal of my own time reading about their history and about their leaders. It is a subject I've always found really interesting, and I've spent a good deal of time in it.

There is so much objective tangible evidence that raises some very large exclamation points such as the Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphs really being Egyptians texts having nothing to do with Abraham, or the history of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon being entirely at odds with historical evidence, or all scientific data showing the Native Americans originated from Asia and were most certainly not descendents of the Hebrews (I'll definitely take some time to look into the case you mentioned), it is kind of hard for me to even begin to think in a way that would make all these inconsistencies and lose ends fit together.

I know Mormon apologists have an answer for everything point I could possibly bring up, and all are explanations they are 100% confident in, but all those answers have one very large factor in common: they all start in the middle and work their way outward. They all start with the conclusion, and build a circle of semi-plausible explanations and potential evidences around that conclusion; rather than looking at the evidences and following them to the most plausible conclusions. So no, I am not impressed with Mormon academics, while they may not be dismissive of contrary evidence, they certainly don't treat it fairly.

A non-Mormon and entirely non-biased observer isn't going to look at the same pieces of evidence as a Mormon and come to the same conclusions. No one else is going to look at what remains of the Joseph Smith Papyri, translate it, and say, "Yeah, see, if he translated these in a "nontraditional" way, they could say things totally different than what real Egyptologists have found them to say, therefore we can conclude that the Book of Abraham is totally legit". Only someone starting at, "These have to be legit, but the evidence clearly indicates otherwise... so how?" would come to these kinds of conclusions.

I only looked at the first link,

http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages/origins_of_christianity.shtml

Just skimming it I can tell that it is mostly bullshit. Just minimal research into the backgrounds of these other characters will show you that many of the "facts" about each of them are entirely made up. Horus was never born of a virgin, in fact, his origin myth is pretty explicit with his father being torn apart and his mother reconstructing him, but discovering the genitals to be missing, forcing her to build a new one for him which she puts into use right away resulting in the birth of Horus.

Stuff like the claim he was born in a cave/manger on December 25 (what's with the "/"? Those things are so far apart it is about like saying someone was hit by a bicycle/schoolbus) was completely pulled out of someone's anal cavity. As was "Anup the Baptizer", which actually gave me a good chuckle. Go ahead, google search "Anup the Baptizer". You'll find plenty of hits, but every instance you will find of him is sourced from the same place georgec link is using for a source (a 19th century poet, it would seem), some of them debunking the made up claim, others blindly perpetuating it. 

Dig deep enough and you'll find there is no "Anup the Baptizer" in Egyptian mythology.

While there are some striking similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, you'll find many of the claims of their connection in that link are also completely bunk.

All three bullets on Prometheus were accurate enough, but if you are familiar with the story of Prometheus and the story of Jesus, then it is a pretty obvious stretch to make the claim that the Jesus narrative is in anyway a copy of the story of Prometheus.

When you take out all the made up stuff, you're left with little more than a number of minor coincidences. Many of them only coincidences if your word them right (like with Prometheus).

Bingowings said:

It's almost like gays and women are human beings, quite spooky when you think about it.

Bah! Nonsense!

;)

darth_ender said:

We have plenty of reasons to justify why we believe the plates were actual, real objects.  Joseph Smith had 11 official witnesses of the plates, not one of whom ever denied having seen the plates in spite of the fact that many became estranged from Smith and the church.  Most of those stayed within the movement, often joining some schismatic group, and two returned to the main branch.  This singular fact is strong evidence of its authenticity, as those opposed to the church or its leadership had a wonderful opportunity to discredit a key element of the Church's doctrine.  Even those who never came back to Mormonism in any form still maintained their original testimony.

Wow, so eleven men who lived over a hundred and fifty years ago may or may not have claimed they saw these plates, but they certainly didn't deny it, and are never recorded to have done so even after they had falling outs with Joseph Smith. This counts as strong evidence?

Other plausible reasons for the 11 never to deny the existence of the plates even if they never really did actually see them: Admitting they are fake would be admitting their own dishonesty in the matter and devaluing the credit of their word in all matters, followed by a potential backlash from those followers they led astray. They may also have feared violent action taken the others who were still members of the movement. These are just a couple of plausible explanations, there could be any number of others.

Surely if you are going to believe something so unlikely, something that contains in its text a history of America that is so abundantly at odds with what the objective world knows of America's history, you are basing it on stronger evidence than 11 men who are said to have seen the original plates and never denied it. Right?

Wow, you guys are old.

A conversation between ABC and Tim... This could be amusing...

Me.

Well, if you want to PM me a link to the files, or at least PM me a few more details, I could try to help you out more. I am not clear why you think the method you are using to download them might be the problem. 

Looks like you are dealing with a split file, not an avi file. You need to download all the files and reconnect them before they'll play. That is why your file extension is .003 and not .avi. There should be several other files that go along with the .003 file you have, including but not limited to a .001 and a .002.

If the .002 came before the .avi, then you'd be dealing with a complete avi file that is part of a series, but with the .003 coming after the .avi it means its actual extension is .003 and not .avi, so you are dealing with just a piece of a larger file.

I love it! Now that is a Star Wars shirt I'd actually wear.

There are plenty of legit avi videos you can download, I don't even see the point in bringing up the possibility that they may be pirated.

I've never run into anything VLC couldn't handle, unless it was corrupt to start with.

I think the joke is that he is playing Uncharted, which obviously borrows some of its ideas from Indiana Jones.

Seems so far the Vita, despite having some decent games at launch, is totally tanking in Japan. Meanwhile, the 3DS saw good sales number in Japan and the US, regardless of taking a year to actually get any titles for it worth buying. I spent the last year mocking my friend for spending over 200 dollars for a system so that he could play a game we beat together when we were when we were 12 years old (Ocarina of Time was the only 3DS game he found worth spending money on up until recently). It was even funnier when the price took a drastic drop less than a year out the door, and still prior to having any kind of a library.

But now, truth be told, I look at the new Resident Evil game (with its misspelled title) or think of how cool it would be to have Snake Eater on a handheld, and I kind of want one. Resident Evil: Revelations, looks like the first Resident Evil title they have gotten right in quite a while, finally going back to survival horror, rather than being just a clunky third person shooter (clunky controls, because clunky controls are scarier).

At this point I am kind of expecting the Vita to be a repeat of the PSPGo. Maybe I am wrong, but either way, I am pretty sure the Vita is not going to be the competition for the 3DS that Sony clearly hoped it would. For at least another generation (which come and go quick in the handheld world), I think Nintendo is going to remain king of the handheld consoles.