Raf

The clue about the wife is genuinely challenging. Two of the others are so obvious you will SYH when you realize it. No clues in this post.

Spencer Tracy?

Hitchcock had nothing to do with the Elephant Man. The Producer's wife did. She's a costar. They said she did not need to audition. In fairness, she was already an Oscar winner. MUCH later, the Producer became an EGOT winner. There's a grammatical/syntax error I am making repeatedly that gives the answer away.

The Producer was actually considered for the role of Sam Loomis in Halloween, which no doubt would have created even further confusion. Sam Loomis was played by Donald Pleasence, perhaps better known [but not to me] as Blofeld in You Only Live Twice. Coincidentally, he also played Victor Frankenstein and Baron Frankenstein in a comedy called "Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tilly." Incidentally, not all syntax errors are syntax errors. Some are huge hints.

Those guesses are hilarious. No, it was not John Merrick or John Landis. Yes, that was a hint.

These abrasive posters... are they the ones who accuse those who disagree with them of having massive egos, seeing the word through sh!t-colored glasses, or being responsible for Satan's takeover of America because they don't support your favorite political party or candidate? Or is your disdain for the guy who says "knock that off, GSC has rules and you're violating them"? Just checking.

Please save criticism of Mike's positions for another thread. It's off topic here.

Posters disagree with Raf = righteous indignation. Posters agree with Raf = circle jerk. And I'm the hypocrite. Ok. P.S. the issue you raised was fully addressed in detail.

The executive producer of The Elephant Man (1980), a heartbreaking black n white drama based on a true story, held a screening for studio executives near the end of production. Studio execs shared some ideas to make the movie better, to which the producer responded something to the effect of: I screened the movie for you as a courtesy. "Do not misconstrue this as our soliciting the input of raging primitives." The executive producer left his name off the credits of the movie because he thought including his name would confuse audiences. Who was he?

Mike gives me too much credit for rules that I had nothing to do with establishing. He also glossed over my role in making this place so inhospitable to him when he first arrived. For which I don't think I ever apologized. Nor will I. The Raf who did those things had a completely different worldview at the time. An apology would be meaningless. Nonetheless, thank you, Mike. [P.S. As much as many here would no doubt like for Mike to get lost, no one to my knowledge has asked moderators to ban him].

Since you brought it up here I will clarify it here, though it's really not on topic here... ALWAYS is an adverb. It modifies a verb. Not a noun. To say something ALWAYS happens is to say whenever you have a occurrence or circumstance, A, you will have a corresponding occurrence, B. So let's say A is "atheist admits he doesn't know something about how life appeared on the planet. Given A, it is a rhetorical certainty that some believer somewhere will come out and say "You're just saying I don't know because you refuse to admit the answer is God. CHECKMATE!" The more people involved in the conversation, the more that rhetorical certainty becomes a mathematical certainty. Note that the ALWAYS applies to occurrence B, something that always HAPPENS, verb. It does not modify the noun "believers" or "Christians." It does not say ALL CHRISTIANS DO THIS. Because that would be silly. Lots of Christians don't do that. But lots do. And there will always be someone who does. You can count on it. So by applying the ALWAYS to believers instead of to the occurrence of a believer saying what some believer always says, you completely changed the meaning of my comment. Now, you could have handled this by saying "you shouldn't say always. Not all believers do that." And I would have replied "That's not what I meant to say, but I can see where you might think that. Let me edit the post to add clarity." And it would have been over. Instead, you said... let's see... "you obviously have no clue to what other people think until you ask then shut-up and listen." Those were your words. "Shut up." After demanding to be treated with a respect you were not willing to show. "I grow tired" you said before accusing me of something YOU READ INTO my post that I never said. I specifically attributed that behavior to "the Ken Hamms of the world." Are you a Ken Hamm? No? Then lean in close... I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU. Despite your rampage, I still managed to see your point and I went back to the original post and added some modifiers to make it even more clear [as if limiting it to the Ken Hamms of the world wasn't enough] that I was only talking about some people and not a single person on GSC, much less all Christians everywhere. Now, if you had asked instead of joining the Let's Pile On Raf cult, we could have resolved this a lot more amicably. Let's assume we can all do that moving on. [Added later] By the way, there is such a thing as hyperbole. Most people in casual conversations recognize that always doesn't mean always and they never take it literally because there are always exceptions. It's like when people say Raf always hides pro-Christian posts when 99.99 percent of their pro-Christian posts are still on the site. Obviously they mean I delete MANY pro-Christian posts. Not that they have ANY examples that don't flagrant violate gsc rules. That one's literal, by the way. Not any examples of any post anywhere on this site that was moved or moderated strictly for espousing a Christian point of view. It always rains whenever I wash my car. ALWAYS? A watched pot never boils. NEVER? You are on a message board, not an English mayor's doctoral dissertation. You would never jump down someone's throat in person for saying always when he meant often. That's not what happened here. But if it were, there would be nothing abnormal about it except the overwrought response.

Touche! Repeatedly would have been the better word!

Oh, Nathan, you got here just in time. See Allan? Allan, say hi. So anyway, Allan has been given multiple warnings for [checks notes] more than four years to knock off the politics, but he keeps coming back and posting politics, only to get more warnings. With me so far? Cool, so Allan, who by the way is Christian, got another "one more time and that's it" warning in January, and he came onto a thread in the atheism forum two months later to complain that I'm an atheist (the post is still there), which would be FINE if the thread were about me being an atheist, but it wasn't. So we asked [not demanded. Just asked] him to stay on topic and his reply was to post a video. About politics. And still he wasn't banned. Nope. He was invited to talk it out, let's work this out, we don't want you to leave, but you're constantly violating the no politics rule, man. But he declined to have a real discussion. So naturally, we... warned him again. Now he's here to talk about how intolerant I am. He's HERE. Not banned, still. Not restricted. Not on moderator approval. Still posting freely. About how intolerant I am. Should be good.

Ask Mike and Oldiesman what they think now. And Allan! You're still here? Aren't you Christian?

Montpellier, Vermont

Guilty. Sometimes. I get annoyed when we leave the topic and make it about people. It's also bothersome when there's, to put it politely, a reading comprehension issue. Over the last few days I've nearly bitten my tongue clean off over distortions of my posts that could be resolved in nanoseconds with just a single working brain cell. The doctrinal section, the entire Matters of Faith section, is NOT a "Christians only" safe space, nor is it a "Christian hunting season is open" space. Some people just can't handle the fact that atheists post here and that Christianity gets no special treatment [even in light of an entire subsection where Christianity gets special treatment]. NOTE: CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF MY POSTING IS WELCOME HERE. PLEASE DM IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MY MODERATING.

Thank you. And likewise. I think what I was trying to get at was that I no longer consider praying to be doing something about a situation. Whether someone does the right thing because they feel moved by God or because they feel no One else is coming to the rescue, the right thing gets done. I rejoice in that.

The article you cited has a section called "Skeptical Explanations" that appears to answer your question quite neatly without any help from me.

This thread actually STARTED as a self-policing "when is it rude for an atheist to bring up atheism when we're having doctrinal discussions?" At least that was the intent. And I think we reached a consensus that there are very limited circumstances in which it is polite and on topic. For example, if we're talking about whether the Trinity is Biblically accurate, it might be best to back off. Maybe point to a couple of contradictory verses and say you don't see a way to resolve them without doing damage to one or the other. But for the most part "Jesus Christ is not God because there is no God he was at most a troublemaking itinerant preacher with a massive ego" is not a viewpoint that is either welcome or polite. However, if we're talking about the historical development of the Trinity doctrine, your Christianity or atheism is largely irrelevant. Facts is facts. Sometimes revealing yourself as an atheist [or reminding people] is a constructive way of demonstrating a lack of bias. Do Christians need to tithe? Studied that one back and forth. And I can honestly say I have no dog in the fight. No, Christians do not need to tithe. That is the Biblical answer. And it is as close to ironclad as you're going to get. The Biblical God doesn't expect a tithe from Christians, never asks for one. He DOES, however, expect generous giving, commensurate with your faith, your understanding, your love, your outward devotion to speaking the Word, and your commitment. If that says 10 percent to you, give it. If it says 8, fine. Maybe it says 25. OK. But it's on you. There's no floor, and the ceiling is only 100 percent because math. All of which is to say, for the wondering atheist, is READ THE ROOM. More later.

Ah yes, the Disclaimer. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods. That's it. You can be atheist and still believe in ghosts, spirits, astrology, crystals, reincarnation, past life regression, witchcraft, chiropractic, bitcoin and the comedic genius of Rob Schneider. You just can't believe in gods. Now, context is critical, because most of the time atheists will have chucked it all out: There is no baby. It's all bathwater. But you can't guarantee that. The only thing you know about any atheist is that he or she does not believe in gods. That said, oldiesman's question was aimed at me and therefore properly worded for my sake. But if anyone else were to read it, the response might be different.

I submit that part of what you're missing with this excellent, respectful question actually seeking an honest response without a hint of being judgmental or dismissive is that the process is not an immediate or instantaneous one. Personal experience of the miraculous. Honestly, I think we call things miracles when they're not. We call our intuition Revelation when it's not. Most of the "personal experiences with the miraculous" I had easily and neatly fall into the category of "you know, coincidence explains that just as easily as divine intervention." A few fall into the "you know the other person involved was lying, right?" Some of it was "you made that up" and "there is a mountain of evidence contradicting that claim and zero evidence supporting it." What was left, for me, are stories OTHER people told. And I honestly respect their integrity. But I don't believe there was anything supernatural at work. No matter how cold it was (who has ears to hear). I remember thinking at ROA 89 that LCM had bugged the RV we had rented for the week, because there he was on stage every night addressing something we were discussing in private hours earlier. He must have bugged us! And, admittedly, he easily could have. BUT: isn't the more likely explanation that hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, at ROA 1989 were all talking about and thinking about the same controversy that had just decimated the ministry? Did he really need to bug a bunch of nobodies from New York (and Texas) to find out what our complaints and arguments were? A few months back, Mike posted a thread trying to explain the "paucity" of miracles. It was a stunning admission right there in the title of the thread. Folks had to argue whether the evidence really supported a "paucity" of miracles. I just sat there thinking, "finally, someone admits it." ... On a semi-related front, if ANYONE on GSC has cause to think I am biased against his religious beliefs, it's got to be Mike. The utter contempt I had for him as a human being cannot be overstated. I often joke that half of GSC's rules were developed to combat the ways I talked to and about Mike. My personal favorite is we can no longer distort the person's screen name for comedic effect. That's because I used to call him "Smikeol," like he was Gollum from Lord of the Rings protecting his precious PFAL. Ah, the good old days. One thing I have noticed about Mike though: he follows the GSC rules. He may annoy [some of] us [more than others], but he knows the difference between arguing his position and arguing against people. I respect that. And my comments on his thread would have absolutely derailed the conversation you all were having in Doctrinal (which is to say, "of course there's a paucity of miracles; there's no God to perform them!') So I had to start a parallel thread here in the atheist subforum OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE CHRISTIANS WHO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS THEIR FAITH WITHOUT MY INTERFERENCE. And I bring it up now because Oldiesman, your question was the best example I've seen in a long time of conducting a respectful inquiry despite holding a [presumably] polar opposite point of view from the people of whom you are inquiring. So thank you for that.

Stephen Hawking had ALS for 55 years. Augie Nieto had it for 18. The average life expectancy after diagnosis is two to 5 years. My sister lived four years and 11 months after diagnosis. So Hawking, the atheist, outlives the majority of Christians praying for a miracle by a factor of anywhere between three and 11, if we're being charitable. I know, that's a MEAN thing to say. And no one wants to hear it. But it also unfairly singles out one person's experience and tries to make an example of it. The MUCH more fair thing to do is recognize that regardless of faith, an ALS diagnosis is more often than not a death sentence with an execution date within two to five years. It doesn't care what you believe or how much "faith" you put in science. It's there to kill you, period. But what about the exceptions? They're exceptions. Statistics tells you to expect them. My sister's ALS was not God's fault. Stephen Hawking's ALS was not God's way of giving a prominent atheist as much time as divinely possible to change his mind and see the light. How do I know this? Because I literally just made that up! This idea of clinging to the possible as likely just because it hasn't been ruled out is not an honest approach to the facts. I suspect the reason some Christians think atheists are angry at God is that they recognize, if they were in our shoes, that they would be angry at Him (too, from their perspective). And I could see where that would make sense. Dozens of GSers prayed for my sister and contributed to ALS research on her behalf (THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR THAT). Did God just not give a flip? Too busy keeping the evangelical atheist scientist alive to give a sick nobody one or two more years of a quality life before she watches herself deteriorate painfully with the knowledge that eventually she will basically drown in her own saliva? Hell, I would be mad at Him too! But it's not his fault for the same reason it's not Allah's fault it's not Zeus' fault it's not Odin's fault it's not Horus' fault it's not Joe Pesci's fault. None of those guys exist. Well, maybe the last guy, but I'm half convinced he's a fictional character being played publicly by an amazing actor. My son has autism because he was born with a brain that misfires in the area of communication. Happens to a lot of people. Happened to my kid. Would have happened if I never believed in God. Would have happened if I were the right reverend so-and-so. It does.not.care.about.my.religious.beliefs. That's kind of the sad part about realizing you're atheist. You can't pray for people anymore, and let me tell you, that hurts. Because we WANT to do SOMETHING. "I'll pray for you." It sounds like something. And to the person praying, it is. But as it's written in James, if I'm hungry, and you say "I'll pray for you," um. Thanks, but you haven't flipping fed me. I think that's in James. I give a lot more as an atheist. Not to churches, but to real causes. Like clean water. Medical research. Feeding programs. Journalism associations. First Amendment defenders. I could pray for them, but that would not pay a single bill. I foster kids. I could pray for them, but that wouldn't rescue them from an abusive home, comfort them when they're having nightmares. Feed them. Play with them. Teach them. Clothe them. Take them to their first baseball game or swimming pool. People need to do that.

There you go reading what's written and letting the book speak for itself. So arrogant. :) So my adaptation of Jonah gets nothing?

Yeah I realized. Well at least it's a source. Now what's HIS source?

P. 127 of what?