An Atlanta-based videogame development company has announced plans to create a virtual online faith-based community.
Universe of Faith (UOF) is being developed by Entertainment Arts Research, Inc. and is billed as the first of its kind, with plans to be a “catalyst of change” for the online Christian community. The $2.5 million project is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2010.
Entertainment Arts Research President Jonathan Eubanks, dubbed the “brainchild” of UOF, added, “My goals for creating Universe of Faith are to bring high production value to faith based media offerings, remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues, use modern technology to innovate on missionary and ministry outreach and create an experience that is engaging and fun.”
Browser-based, UOF promises to be an “intriguing venue for social networking,” with a “diverse and immersive experience for users to create a life beyond the tangible world.”
The project is being developed in conjunction with Legacy Group Global, an advertising agency that specializes in working with non-profits and ministries.
On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."
Comments
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I'm going to make it clear that I didn't read your post, and you wasted your time posting it. Way to go. I hope you had fun.
Wall of texts aren't going to be taken seriously anymore.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Actually I did have fun posting it & too bad that you didn't read it b/c it is info that you don't read b/c I am going against what you said. :)
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Okay, how many intelligent, educated Christians have you questioned about this? I've talked to a good number, and I can tell you this: many people have very good reasons for believing. I'm not saying you'll think they're good reasons (you'd be a biased judge, after all), but they do have reasons.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
If, by "biased judge" you mean "Based in reality", then yes, I wouldn't think they were good reasons. Like I said, it seems no stauch religious person can provide LOGICAL reasons for thier belief.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Oh & btw Valdearg we the believers have been giving logical reason including myself. You using the word logical means reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind. So basically we believers have been giving logic to reasoning of believing our religions or beliefs. B/c we believers are agreeing w/other religions or the bible. Like myself. So I have been giving logical reasons b/c I am agreeing w/another religious person. :)
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
That's because your entire worldview stems from certain base assumptions that differ from the base assumptions of a relgious person. When you view the world from completely different standpoints, you can't really expect to see the same things. Their reasons would seem absurd to you, and your reasons for being an atheist would seem silly to them. You've essentially reached a stalemate where all you can do is yell at the other person for being absurd.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
The only "assumptions" I have made are that anything and everything I believe in must be based on Logic and reason. It doesn't make sense to live any other way.
It's very hard to respect the decisions of someone else, who chooses to ignore intelligence and logic in order to worship some mystical being who's very existance would defy all sanity.
While trying not to get too insulting, It's my opinon that to a belief in such a ridiculous story borders on insane. I think that every person who truly believes in these mystical spirits and magical angels, all guided by the magic man upstairs is, at least in that little way, insane. It's the only explanation.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
You know how you are making assumptions? You know what they say about people who make assumptions? They are an ass. LOL!
& b/c you are assuming on anything & everything you believe in based on logic & reason & b/c you chose the word "assume" means it's your opinion. Just b/c me & others on here don't believe in your belief of logic or reason doesn't mean we are insane......lol.....it's our decision to believe. So answer me this: Does that mean that the insane made a decision to become insane & are now in insane asylums? OR is it b/c they have something wrong in their head as in a little retardation & they went insane? OR Were they born that way & just mutilated animals growing up? Hmmm Can your logic & reasons be input into these questions? IDK........But that must mean that a lot of people in the South like myself must be insane & OMG especially the Holy Rollers which I don't believe in them b/c they are nutty to begin with. Or what about Budhism? Or Muslims or Jews? & other religions? Are they insane too? Well the Muslims that think the Americans are infidels of course.....but they are going w/their religion & want all the virgins in heaven. But that still means the believe.....So answer me are all those religions & more that I didn't name insane? B/c if so, you are far from grace & I feel sorry for you. You know why I say that b/c it's logic & reason why I feel sorry for you. I mean you are saying the same thing about religion so why not make a decision & I say you are full of logic & reason.
& how can the bible be ridiculous & insane?!?!?! Lol! I laugh at you again. I am writing this w/a smile on my face too. Oh & even in MW2 the voice talking throughout the most half of the game says Cain was killed by Abel. Oh look that's in the bible. So why would they put that in there? Oh don't tell me b/c you will say the game is a story. Oh & there is a reason why, but it's not the reason of what I'm thinking b/c it differs from yours tremendously.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Ok, now I regret wasting my time in responding to your first comment..
You are clearly uneducated, and can't seem to convey a clear thought into text. In fact, I think by reading that, I literally was viewing a trainwreck in action.
You are exactly the kind of uneducated, unintelligent, and gullible individual that would spew that kind of nonsense in defense of religion.
Also, before you accuse me of calling all religious folks stupid, let me clarify. I'm speaking strictly about you and your idiocy. I've had plenty of intelligent debate with religious individuals about thier faith. They've provided well thought out, relatively intelligent, and very clear points about why they believe what they do. Despite the fact that thier ideas and points are almost always flawed in some way or another, I can still acknowledge that they are smart individuals.
YOU, on the other hand.. are not. You've got the writing ability of a 4th grader in the special needs class, you can't put together any semblance of a point before shooting off and writing down the next thought that rambles through your head, and you've got a habit of making your posts painful to read due to the broken flow of words and lack of paragraphs.
In conclusion, I'm truly surprised, given your previous posts, that you can even READ, let alone manage to peck your keyboard in such a way that words actually appear. So, do me a favor. Don't even THINK about posting again until you learn even BASIC Communication skills, and can put your thoughts out in a well thought out, well structured manner. Until then, I'm done even acknowledging your existance.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I laughed at your post. The only reason you are saying this to me is b/c again I am giving my opinion, which is going against your opinions & thoughts. When I read your post, you whined through the whole thing about a single person. I also laughed at your post b/c I, one single person, can make you irritated & mad & upset at what I say. I think that's funny & that I penetrated your "skin of words". Oh whats wrong? Can't take my opinion against your opinion? Too bad!
Also, before you accuse me of calling all religious folks stupid, let me clarify. I'm speaking strictly about you and your idiocy. I've had plenty of intelligent debate with religious individuals about thier faith. They've provided well thought out, relatively intelligent, and very clear points about why they believe what they do. Despite the fact that thier ideas and points are almost always flawed in some way or another, I can still acknowledge that they are smart individuals.
But w/you saying how other people have given their well thought out & intelligent & very clear point & ideas which again their ideas are their opinions.....& to you how it seems flawed in some way or another.......& "smart individuals" has nothing to do w/religion. You're just adding shit in to make what you say seem more common sense to your view.......but yet now I am confused b/c you said that their points & ideas are flawed? So what is the flaw in them & what they are stating what they believe? Really? I mean again this goes back to someone not agreeign w/you or coming up w/a legit "logic or reason" for religion or a God or the Bible or Jesus.
The only thing I see wrong here is that you sound like an unhappy person, that probably gets upset easily when someone doesn't agree w/you. & also people that "get under your skin" like I am......Which again I think is funny b/c now I know how to push your buttons. LMAO!!!! :)
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
"While trying not to get too insulting, It's my opinon that to a belief in such a ridiculous story borders on insane. I think that every person who truly believes in these mystical spirits and magical angels, all guided by the magic man upstairs is, at least in that little way, insane. It's the only explanation."
So everyone who doesn't believe as you do is insane? Before assuming anything does or doesn't "make sense," where are you getting that credibility from? You seem pretty certain your views are accurate, where do you get that authority?
Don't say "common sense."
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Exactly thank you, b/c I would like to know too where he is getting is assumptions from. Really I would like to know. B/c you haven't said anything in your comments except what you are typing. Come on buddy tell us......& don't say logic & reason. I mean we believers have already told you especially me & the ones defending the religion are in some little way agreeing w/the believers, b/c we believe in our bible. Where is your logic & reason coming from? You haven't said it yet! So come on say where you are getting your logic & reason.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I wasn't planning on justifying that stupidity with a comment, but I'll bite.
Why not use Logic and Reason? Thats EXACTLY why I believe what I believe. It's more logical to believe that things that are plausible, tested, and verified are more correct than thing that can't be. What's more logical? That the world is only a couple thousand years old, or that it's millions of years old? Well, given the MOUNTAINS of evidence that support the latter suggestion, it's more logical and reasonable to believe it. Yet, many religious individuals believe otherwise.
Now, for another. What's more logical? That god created everything at the beginning of the world, in 6 days, and that, that predators and prey existed in perfect harmony because God managed to magically suspend all biological needs of all creatures in the garden of eden, until Eve, who was LITERALLY made from a bone god ripped from Adams body, decided to defy God's will? Or that the world has slowly formed and changed over the past 100+ million years, that creatures evolved and slowly adapted to those changes over time, and as time passed, only the strongest of those creatures survived, passed thier genes on to thier offspring, and so on, until we arrive until our modern age.
Keep in mind, mountains of scientific evidence support the latter suggestion, yet again. Not to mention, the process of Evolution is literally being used today by many individuals in this world. They use it to breed new species of pets, like dogs and cats. (Labradoodle? Yep, Evolution at work!) They also use it to create new species of plants, mostly through cross polination and playing with the genes. The Grapple (Grape + Apple) comes to mind, here.
What's more logical? To believe the one of THOUSANDS of different creation stories in this world, or to believe the one that has the most evidence to support it?
On top of that, consder that, at its core, almost every Christian faith in the world takes the bible as literal fact. Catholocism is one of them. Whether or not it's parishoners do is irrelevant, by the way, because Catholic Dogma suggests that the bible is true, and that what it says is exactly what happened in the ancient world. If science has effectively gathered enough evidence to, in my mind, completely disprove several MAJOR aspects of the bible, then why should I believe that ANY of it is exactly as it was written?
To add to even that, if you need more, you need to recognize that most religions have similarities in thier dogmas. Christians, Pagans, Native Americans, and Muslims all have a creation story, for instance. Yet, why does a Christian pass off the other beliefs as false, while treating thier, equally questionable, beliefs as unequivocably true? Why is it that we call ancient polytheism, like the roman or greek religions "Myths", implying that they are false, yet we can't call the similarly structured and presented stories in the bible the same?
You ask why I believe what I believe. It's because I questioned what I was being taught, looked on it with an unbiased eye (back then, I was literally trying to find out the truth), and realized that it all didn't add up. The teachings of religion require such suspension of logical thought that it was impossible for me to believe the stories they were telling me in Church.
Now, why don't you give me the reason YOU believe in whatever religion you practice, despite the LACK of evidence to support your beliefs. Oh, and you can't use "I have my own reasons" or "I just have faith." Explain to me in no uncertain terms what PROVES the existence of God to you, in your mind. What evidence do you have that makes you SO certain in your beliefs that you feel the need to defend them here?
Re: Heaven in a Browser
"On top of that, consder that, at its core, almost every Christian faith in the world takes the bible as literal fact. Catholocism is one of them. Whether or not it's parishoners do is irrelevant, by the way, because Catholic Dogma suggests that the bible is true, and that what it says is exactly what happened in the ancient world."
This is astonishingly ignorant, on the same level as "All atheists are nihilists" or "all atheists worship Rama, who they believe to be an avatar of the god Vishnu." You are like someone who notices that the Soviet Union was an explicitly atheist regime that killed millions of innocent people and repressed religion, and concludes that therefore all atheists lack respect for human life or want to oppress and persecute Christians. Catholicism takes the Bible as no such thing; the idea that the entire Bible must be considered literally true as history, with the cosmos going from nothing to an Earth with human beings in six days and so forth, is a predominately Protestant notion, and hardly universal there either.
This is not obscure knowledge; even a cursory examination of the subject would have made it plain, had you bothered to make one instead of relying on crude stereotypes. You're quite right to say that it's more rational to believe claims that are "plausible, tested, and verified." Try actually acting that way instead of just talking about it.
Check out my video game humor and commentary blog, Pointless Side Quest!
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Just like everyone else does? & why do I have to explain myself to you? Are you demanding why? I don't have to explain myself to no one, & not the likes of you! All I can tell you is I don't go by logic or reason to explain my religion or why I believe in God or Jesus. I believe in my heart & soul & for a fact there is a God & there is Jesus. You think otherwise. If you want more of a "reason" or "logic" well tough shit.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
So now you're just grouping religions together again.....Well I'm sorry but I don't pray or worship a God or Goddesses that is of trees, stones, the wind, the earth, the fire, the water & so on. That would be Pagan. I am not Pagan. I do worship one God, that is God & my savior is Jesus Christ.
& from what I read, you are going by science b/c that's what you believe. Just like Ratros, I am the same as him. I believe what he believes, not me being a mormon, but me being a Christian. & Catholics have so many loop holes in their religion that I won't go there, b/c its ridiculous to talk about. Yeah I am glad they have a Bible & ministers & pastors & alter boys & so on. But they add & take away in their bible. I won't do that in my Bible. The diff between you & me is you go by science. I go by the Bible. You won't change my opinion about the Bible. Neither will I change your science of what you believe. Wouldn't you have a religion of scientology though? Or is that diff from what you are talking about? This is why science & religion don't get along.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Yeah, that's your assumption. To you, it makes sense to live that way. Not everyone starts from that same premise. You're not going to agree with them, and they're not going to agree with you. You're probably better off, though, if you can respect that and avoid belittling their beliefs. Just recognize that you each start with different base assumptions and agree to disagree.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Valdearg, you silly little man, you're not even working on logic or reason. You're working on what you're told, as many others are. Further more, calling people insane for what they believe is very insulting. Before you make statments about logic and reason, you should try to better understand what they are.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Re: Heaven in a Browser
you've managed to say a whole 'lotta nothing in that comment.
Where, exactly, do you think I'm working with what I'm told? Where does that differ from what you are working with? It may be insulting to some, but to me, it is absolutely nuts to believe in something as crazy as you do.
Note: Especially Mormons, who, despite all archaeological evidence to the contrary, seem to think the book has a literal interpretation of the history of Mesoamerican culture, prior to the discovery of America by Columbus. To put it nicely, when many, many scholars and archaeologists can point to proven inaccuracies in your religious text, it's not exactly sane to continue to believe it.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
There right there. Who says I believe in any of that crap? Who says that's what my belief is? You lump me together with what your told and not with what is true. Just because some believe in it, doesn't mean that all believe in it. I said I was Mormon, but I never said what my beliefs were. You're jumping to conclusions, is that logical?
Moving on, you say it's crazy to believe in something like an ultimate being? Well is it any saner to believe that nothing could happen to nothing and thus life was born? That's one of the basic theories of evolution ya know. We all came out of the primordial ooze, so why are there so many different species? Questions without answers, our science can't explain everything.
It isn't logical to think that you know everything, and it is insane to dismiss theories that you cannot disprove. The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, it just makes it more likely.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Re: Heaven in a Browser
1) You're mixing descriptions for 3 entirely different concepts: big bang "nothing could happen to nothing" abiogenesis "life was born" and evolution. Furthermore, you're descriptions are wrong about all 3.
- Simply put, abiogenesis is the study of how living things could have arisen from nonliving matter. There are also many more theories behind how it happened besides the "primordial ooze", each of which bringing something different to the table. There are those favored more than others, but to quote only that one as if it were the only one shows ignorance.
- Evolution is the study of how living organisms change over time. It also explains why there are so many species, so you really shouldn't be asking that question.
- The big bang theory actually doesn't deal with the beginning of the univese either, it simply describes its expansion mere moments after that. As for how it started, we don't know. The best we can do is make educated guesses, hypotheses.
As it stands, we have no way of observing (recreating) the actual beginning, so we have no significant way of studying it. Some hope the LHC will rectify that, but it may take something much bigger than that.
2) You're right, it is insane to dismiss a theory that cannot be disproven. However, your assertion, im guessing, is based on misinformation. A theory in science is a detailed model that explains an observable, testable phenomenon: a fact. Since any god is neither observable, or testable, it cannot be construed as a fact to meet the requirements for a theory to explain it. As such, this is why religious beliefs in a creator are deemed unscientific. Science makes no comment about religion. Any scientist worth their salt will completely ignore the topic on scientific grounds. They may express opinions, but they do so as a person and not a scientist.
You are right in saying that "our science can't explain everything" if it is interpreted in the sense that our current knowledge of science is too limited. I can, however, say with confidence that even if we don't know now, someday we will. To quote a line from Tim Minchin (see storm, its good) "Because throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be... not magic." Personally, I think that trend will continue.
If you're going to bring science into this, at least have an understanding of some of its basic principles, and of the actual workings of the various theories you want to use.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
If it costs money to join, I doubt it, but it's a social network site so I presume not. Therefore, for a sneak preview go and look at Youtube comments on any religious or atheist-themed video. *Shudders.*
I wouldn't mind seeing some parody of this, called "Hellnet" which is the same but a preview of people's eternal suffering in Satan's domain (Probably a bit like a PUG run of Blackrock Depths in WOW).
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Lol, so, the Status Quo is maintained? :)
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I love the pic of the blonde-haired white family on their protfolio website.
I really am suprised there weren't already online Christian-oriented social networking protals on the internet.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Tell that to my e-mail spam box, which is filled with "Looking for Christan singles?" ads from Christianmingle.com. Took me two weeks to get it through their heads I was unintrested in their services.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
The biggest crooks & liars are people that call themselves a religion & are bible thumpers then when not in church & not talking about God & angels & demons & hell & the Holy Spirit or Jesus & His teachings they go do evil like back stab people & judge others. Oh yeah I've been around people like that before. I will try & get away from them as fast as possible! But only way I can tell if someone is good hearted religious person is if they have compassion for others & like to help a lot. Don't talk down about anyone! But then there are some again that have 2 personalities. So I know what you mean man. Whether its a dating site or not! lol..... :) I think it is a good thing you didn't get on that dating site though.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Wasn't the Vatican, after having denounced social network sites, planning on creating a social network site?
Actually, there appears to be a number of other Christian Social Network Sites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=christian+social+networking+sites&aq=1&oq=christian+social+ne&aqi=g5g-m5
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Conservapedia anyone?
Fine, segregate. Seems to be a lot of it from the company. Not only segregating by religion but by race as well. Segregation lives on.
Of course, we know that segregation and locking out opposing views is necessary for those who have no legitimate counterargument to the opposing views. Again, see Conservapedia.
I still get a chuckle out of the use of the term "faith" when used as if it is a religious only idea. Faith doesn't come from religion. It comes from a heightened sense of trust. One can have faith in other people or even other objects. Faith usually comes from proven evidence of trust as opposed to blind faith, which comes in acceptance regardless of proof or not.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I see your point NightWing2000, but it can still come from religion. I mean I have faith in my beliefs yes, but I also have faith in say my brother, my mom, my fiance. Anyone else, well they have all but lost trust w/me & proved me wrong in thinking they were a good person when they were back stabbing, two faced liars! But I will not put faith in those people b/c they don't deserve it.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Re: Heaven in a Browser
It's another argument that comes down to semantics and definitions - I've seen religious people say (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so forgive me if this comes off as a strawman) they have evidence supporting their faith, they have logical reasons for being faithful, they need to have faith to be religious in the first place and so on.
In fact, I was watching one of The Four Horsemen videos (Dennett, Dawkins and two others I forget the names of - all authors and atheists) and Dawkin's was amazed at a fellow academic, a highly intelligent man who's a Christian, and he said he doesn't need a logical reason to have faith, quoting something like "That's the whole point!".
I do see the word as equal to the word "trust" in that they trust their holy text to be true, they trust it's divine and they trust their leaders are telling them the truth about it. "Blind faith" seems to be the same in regards to the word trust in that it can be unconditional and absolute.
Anyway, regarding the game, comparisons to conservapedia seem very apt - another segregated outlet for the same choir, with nothing to threaten their "bubble" of religious faith.
From the original news:
"...remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues"
I wonder if this is in reference to some chump on WOW who argued with Blizzard about his guild having the word Christian in the title and only allowing Christians to join.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
"In fact, I was watching one of The Four Horsemen videos (Dennett, Dawkins and two others I forget the names of - all authors and atheists) and Dawkin's was amazed at a fellow academic, a highly intelligent man who's a Christian, and he said he doesn't need a logical reason to have faith, quoting something like "That's the whole point!"."
That paragraph right there is why I tend to be so critical of religious people. It makes no sense, to me. We are able to explain why and how we do everything else in life. Why do we eat? Why do we have to work? Why do we pay taxes? Why do we use cars? Every one of these things has an explanation. Why do we believe in what would be considered fairy tales in any other facet of life? Even those who are steadfastly dedicated can't seem to form a logical reason why.
I can't think of any other major behavior in this world, off the top of my head, that doesn't have some logical reasoning behind it. Yet, even the most intelligent human beings are willing to believe in something without any logical reason to do so. It's bizzare, and I can understand exactly how Dawkins feels when he is blown away that such an intelligent, academic person is perfectly happy with saying he doesn't need to know why or how. He just believes in God.
I've always thought that the moment humanity stops demanding and seeking answers to why something is and how something works, we've begun the downfall of our society. Religion actively encourages people not to ask those questions, and the people who believe it are always so willing to follow. This behavior, I think, is irresponsible, at best, and people need to be encouraged to question what they are taught.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Not that I'm disagreeing with all that you said, but to be quite honest, not everything that happens in the world has reason or rhyme. To believe that it does is nothing but pure folly.
To paraphrase a famous author: "There is more to this existence than can be explained by your science or your religion."
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I've recently ordered Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell" in which apparently he writes about why people are religious, hopefully after I read that then I offer more insight to your questions.
Some of those religious people would tell you that they can't believe you live without religion ('Any religion! Just choose and follow one!' - I've never understood that either). This would prompt the usual questions from the non-intellectual theists like "Where do you get your morals from?", "The universe must have had a creator, right?" and so on.
I can't think of any other major behavior in this world, off the top of my head, that doesn't have some logical reasoning behind it.
Yet every society in history has had religion, which has in turn gone on to become a very significant part of their culture. I think there's more to it than illogical thoughts. It's like being sentient results in the human mind to strive for a safety net to shelter it from the concept of its own inevitable demise.
To their credit, religion does provide answers, only to non-believers they're complete falsehoods.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Fear. People fear what happens after death.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Here's Dennett's video I mentioned, in which he accepts an award from Richard Dawkin's and speaks about "Good Reasons for "Believing" in God".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE
Re: Heaven in a Browser
We are able to explain why and how we do everything else in life.
Really? I must have missed that airing of "60 Minutes."
There are any number of Life's aspects, including Life itself, which neither science nor logic can explain. They've only just recently figured out that human genomes even exists, much less what the fuck it is they really do. Why do you go on and on about how everything but religious belief is perfectly explained by science and logic? That ain't true. There are gaps in scientific knowledge big enough to allow clear passage of a sixteen-wheel Kenworth truck. Have you never heard the term "scientific phenomenon" (frequently expressed in the scientific community as "we have no fucking idea why that one does what it does")?
Re: Heaven in a Browser
"...including Life itself..."
That's a bit confusing and broad. What part of "life itself" are you referring to?
Depending on the technological level, we were always able to explain the beginnings of life and its progression through science and logic.
Simple observation alone proved the progression.
At the most basic level:
Two of the same species got together, performed certain actions, and another of the species was created, carried for a time or incubated in an egg (depending on the species), and then was born.
Logically, we knew that, at the main species level, one species could not join with another and create a new individual. We also knew that the joining of two of the same species produced the same species, not a different one.
Logically, it was proven that the individual progressed through various developmental stages. Depending on the species, those stages might look very different from the previous stage, but they always followed the same from individual to individual.
We also knew that logically not every joining was successful to create a new individual.
Science and logic always proved the existance of Life. Depending on the technology level, we could describe it only in basic terms or in very advanced terms. But we could always prove it if one thought logically.
Now, some things took longer to prove. The shape and nature of the Earth for example.
We could see a certain distance. If we traveled, we found there was more past that point. While we reached a point where we couldn't travel because we lacked the means, we could see there was more. When we were able to travel using other methods, we were able to see more. The belief the planet was flat was actually unproven in logical circles. It was superstition and religion that led to that belief. Logic said "there's more there, we just can't travel to it". The only way to prove the Earth was flat if someone traveled to the edge, witnessed it, came back, and showed factual evidence. No one did. And further evidence, as more ways to travel occurred, showed the Earth wasn't flat.
Of course, this took a great deal of time. Far more than watching the evidence of individual life progressing.
Yes, there is a LOT of science that can only be theory (the beginning of the Universe) because we can't actually observe it. And there is a lot of science that cannot be proven because we haven't reached the level of technology yet. And there is a lot that we may never understand, much of which applies to metaphysics (why to bad things happen to good people for example).
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Two of the same species got together, performed certain actions, and another of the species was created, carried for a time or incubated in an egg (depending on the species), and then was born.
My science textbook had an entire chapter dedicated to species which reproduce asexually (i.e., with only one member of the species required). Did your textbook not have that chapter?
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Same situation. At the earliest technological level, we would logically observe that a particular species may show a different functional system than others.
Logic allowed us to isolate the differences in a particular species. We noted that it did not happen to other species but only in those specific species.
Advancing technology allowed us to examine the species further and gain more details in the differences and WHY they were different.
Science and logic, along with advancing technology, allowed us to move from mere hypothesis and theory to direct evidence and proof. Only lack of sufficient technology will prevent a stamp of "Proven" or "Disproven" on any theory or hypothesis.
However, stagnation on any theory or hypothesis despite advancing technology leaves the theory or hypothesis in question.
Advancing technology allowed us to better understand the progression of an individual. The science and logic of the most basic view of that progression did not remain. We advanced the way we understood it.
The beginnings of the Universe under scientific theory continue to be researched and further scientific evidence is presented. Ultimately, however, only the technology to actually WITNESS that event will be the final evidence to prove or disprove ANY theory (scientific or religious).
String Theory has a limited amount of scientific evidence to support it. And, it is pretty much a stagnant theory until one can actually SEE Strings. There is very little further scientific evidence which can be obtained or researched to back up the theory.
And the existance of a Supreme Being amounts to belief. There is no actual research directly supporting such a theory. Belief is all there really is. Strength of the belief is irrelevant to science and logic. It's the same with the Flat Earth claims. You can say YOU saw it. You can say YOU believe it. But that's not evidence. Show me factual evidence. Not peripheral evidence. Not opinion of evidence. But factual evidence that can be measured in some fashion. Pictures would be nice. Actual pictures, not painted interpretation. Til then, it isn't even theory. It is, in fact, blind belief.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Re: Heaven in a Browser
I was referring more along Behvaioral actions, amongst humans.
Aside from mental short circuits, almost every action or thought someone has can be explained logically. Hell, motive is one of the more important aspects of criminal trials. If I track each and every one of my concious actions that I take today, I will be able to tell you, at least at the time I do it, exactly why I'm doing it.
However, belief in religion, which IS a concious choice, doesn't have any logical explanation. That was the difference I was trying to put forth. There is a logical disconnect when you try to explain why you believe in religion. Every time you ask someone why, they respond with some flippant response like "I have my reasons" or "I don't need a reason."
Like I said, aside from people with "Mental Issues", almost every concious choice in life can be explained logically. Yet, Religion can't be.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Then riddle me this: why do humans engage in self-destructive behavior? What's logical about doing something which ultimately destroys you? Explain that to me with your trusty logic.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Self destructive is interpretive. What you preceive as "self destructive" may merely be acts of challenge or a desire for risky acts that push their abilities to the limits to the other.
Did you have some particular act in mind?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Re: Heaven in a Browser
The three most logical responses are
A: They lack the intelligence to properly see that what they are doing is self destructive. This applies to people who get rolled up in scams and who don't understand the ramifications of doing drugs, smoking, or living a dangerous lifestyle.
B: They have some mental issues, and can't properly tell that they are acting irrationally. This applies to people with emotional disorders, like cutters, people who commit suicide (For some, they view it as the MOST logical choice), and people with anger/violence/impulse control issues.
C: They have weighed the pros/cons of the self destructive behavior, and have come to the conclusion that the "risk" of self destruction is worth the benefits gained. This would apply to folks like criminals, especially ones who act out of desperation.
If you take time to think about it, it isn't hard to provide a logical explanation for even the oddest of behaviors.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Are you aware that you're not even engaging in logical reasoning? All you're doing is a lot of hypothesizing. Logic usually takes the form of starting with a premise or condition and, following the established rules of logic, arriving at an inexorable and logical conclusion. You've just done nothing of the sort.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Well, we're not exactly in a scientific environment, are we?
If you can provide me the mountain of scientific data that you gathered on said "Destructive Behavior" I'll attempt to come to a logical conclusion.
Until then, I just provided you the 3 most logical conclusions. Those three conclusions will more than likely be the 3 most common results of said logical investigation.
One can hypothesize and still apply logic to the hypothesese.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
No, you didn't provide me any conclusions based on logic. You took three wild shots in the dark.
Re: Heaven in a Browser
No, I took three logical shots to explain an open ended question you intentionally asked to make me look stupid. Those answers, I'd bet, explain most occurences of "Destructive" behavior. Just because you didn't provide me enough substance to come to a Technically logically sound conclusion, it doesn't take much to come to those conclusions with the application of some critical thinking, reasoning, and logic.
Now, if I would have said "People act destructively because the Spirit of my dead grandmother is restless and needs to be appeased by the slaughter of 1000 virgins." I'd have given you permission to laugh your ass off.
Sometimes the application of Logic and reason need not be the LITERAL interpretation of logic, that being "If p Then q".
Sometimes it just needs to be "What's the best way to explain these things, and, if given time and resources, do I truly believe that these solutions can be proven logically?"
Re: Heaven in a Browser
How long until the griefers come in?
Re: Heaven in a Browser
Lol.. I was just debating the merits of trolling a community like this..
Re: Heaven in a Browser
How long until the communities ready? ;-)
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.