WITHTEETH

If you come across a phone with a blinking red light, it means there's a message you can listen to. Also computers, usually laptops, with orange screens you can upload data from that your boss (forget his name) will describe to you. Yep, I've kept my eyes open for all of those. I hope i didn't miss any! I did just find out that i could shoot the ceiling tiles when bodies are up there, so they can then fall down. I wish i knew that before hand.

Most of the movie seems to be based on Mayan culture: http://www.civilization.ca/civil/maya/mmc03eng.html Except, as GreasyDogMeat pointed out, they were all dead and gone when the Europeans showed up. The Aztecs were the ones doing sacrifices when Cortez reached their capital. Estimates varies from 20000 to 250000 humans sacrified per year. Speechless. I've also read that Apocalypto is related to what many Christians believe as Armageddon. In 2012 December 21 there calender ends and It appears that the date (December 21, 2012) coincides with a conjunction of the Winter solstice sun and the crossing point of the galactic equator and the ecliptic. This occurs every 13,000 years. But i suppose there has been many of these dates. Y2K, during WW2, black plague era. Not that I believe in this stuff, but i can see how this could motivate Gibson.

That was pretty cool till he started singing. HAHAHAHA!

F.E.A.R. since I finally have gotten it to run smoothly. I think it was a codec problem that was fixed when i reset mine while trying top Diagnose Oblivion. Runs smooth as butter, and no sound issues. I like the spookiness the game achieves, but I wish there was a bit more story, or side humor. Like how in Doom3 there was random PDAs telling of how coworker gripes with each other, or even better in NOLF2 the Russian documents talking about there working conditions. This small gripe aside, i think this is a great game thus far.

Apocalypto I thought it was a good movie, I was entertained the whole time. I do wonder how much of it was historically accurate, I've heard controversy about it awhile back. What was the extent in which they sacrifices people? I also rented Smokin Aces and Ghost Rider, i heard it was bad, but i use to read the comics so im curious!

oh boy, hyperbole and a slippery slope combined into a one-sentence, two-fallacy thought. btw, europe has already reached a problem with a negative replacement rate, the US is on the way (other than immigration) and once the large developing nations become developed, they will too. the world population won't grow nearly as fast as you indicate. taks

It would take 3 earths to make the entire planet industrialized like the US and Europe already is. With all the resources the consumers use and not recycle etc... in 40 years our population has doubled, in another 40 can you imagine 12 BILLION people here!? That is scarey. Stephen Hawkins said the only way we are to survive is if we habitat other planets too.

Yes, sleep easy, we can now drive our cars everyday, chop down all the trees, and burn all the coal we want. Nothing will happen if we send all this carbon and pollution into our atmosphere.

Dawkins doesn't really point to religious moderates, he really focuses on the fundamentalists. And they are the same way towards him. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round. Some think Micheal Moore is to extreme, but for every extremist, there is another equally extremist opposing him/her.

Preseident Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research

Maybe we are getting a little over analytical with the topic title. Because if you want to get extremely analytical science doesn't have a mouth, and faith doesn't have ears. I read the topic title as Should the general consensus of science devotees talk to the general consensus of people of faith?

Sweet, lets see some dirty swede pics of the blonde!

I'm still trying to figure this out.

I've heard that god started free will by creating the second law of thermodynamics. So..... Do you guys believe in Angels?

I'm hesitant to say Christians have freewill. The book is already written supposedly, if their religion is true then it sounds something more like soft determinism to me. Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change his future mind? -- Karen Owens Run, a philosophy joke, the pain!!!! Ahhhh! . . . My head hurts now.

I'm hesitant to say Christians have freewill. The book is already written supposedly, if their religion is true then it sounds something more like soft determinism to me. Snippet from Wiki:

Nothing was ever here...

Insulting me would mean beating me in a Unreal Tournament 1v1 Deathmatch, Impossible. Enlight_2.0 is my user name, I'm just throwing that out there....

A scientist has as much right to speak about god as much as a preacher has the right to talk about Biology right? Well can one really be an expert about something he made up? I am a fan of The Lord Cantousent! I'm a HUGE fan of The Lord of The Rings. The stories we create, that move us are created by our psyche. Am i stupid and foolish just because I do not believe humans history as tortured and degenerating. So because some people killed a person 2000 years ago, humans are only prone to killing and suffering? This is not a truth of history. Talk to an independent woman, a a child with a free education, a cancer survivor, human progress is real. The Christian viewpoint based from the bible clearly points that humanity is doomed. There is no hope. Tolkien believed that losing hope makes people do bad things. But our story has not already been written! Looking at the world, the human condition has gotten better and its is possible to make it even better if we replace bad ideas, with good ones. Yes we are capable of doing terrible things, but we are also capable or great, kind, beautiful things. Scientists should start to tell the story of progress and hope.

I don't believe people who want to be part of that "other realm" are all wicked at all. I don't want to criticize them, just there reasoning. I want to have an open ended discussion about this, its healthy to share reasons, and it helps maintain human civilization. There are issues such as abortion, , contraceptives. stem cell research, gay marriage, that many religions have a problem with, and morally speaking from a humanistic perspective, they cause more human suffering than help. I believe people are generally good, when we do something we generally have a reason, but is that reason sufficient? With all the contradicting viewpoints, contradicting books from a gods, and ignorance in the world we don't always make the best reasoning i believe. I have hope for humanity, that it can become greater and greater, but to do so, we need to criticize some ideas. We have done so in the past, with slavery, women rights, and communism, i believe we can achieve greater too, especially with the willingness to talk, and have an open ended discussion just like we are right now.

Sounds like an awesome game!!! I want it now!

OK I've been playing Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl and... It seems like a cool game, but i just can't get into it yet. Maybe because I tend to be a perfectionist, and I'm still pretty lost in the game still. I'm failing missions and I'm suppose to get rewards, and then I fail that mission even though I pick up the reward for it already... Like the fight at the garbage area, i failed it even though I received the reward.

I get the feeling the answer to your question may need very basic answer Cantousant. What makes art beautiful? Sure a scientist can look at it and see the brush strokes, the textures, and date it, but can it judge its beauty? No, that takes feelings, and judgment comes from feelings. Everything is a matter of feeling (Hegel would say I believe.) What makes your bible correct, because its says so? Yes, but you have a feeling. Importantly, my feelings are grounded in the empirical realm, not another realm.

Why be moral? Why be healthy? It feels good. There is this natural tendancy in many human beings depending on how they were raised (and genetically i suppose too) of the pleasure to please, and the capacity for empathy. Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!) This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in?

I don't think religion should be part of any science class. Morals themselves should not be part of any science class. science is completely amoral. It does not care in the least about morals and does not recognize their existence. Science is science. The very idea of empirical morality is laughable. Science doesn't have any vested interest in policy. At best, it can predict what will happen and record the happenings after the fact. All policy is moral and none of it is based on science. Science argues after the fact in a policy discussion, not before hand. Morals can can come through experiences of the senses. but just like reading the bible, its hard to pick and choose what is the good and the bad. This is the main reason why people denounce an atheist, because they think we have no moral basis. My moral status may flux over time due to different empirical findings, but to say i don't have a moral basis is at the very least, untrue. Can a person feel pain? Can a person feel pleasure or tranquility? These feelings can be felt empirically through the senses, and partly even through certain brain scans. So, should i do everything that feels pleasurable good? Of course, not. what may feel good to me may hurt another, so i have to take other people into account. So now it becomes the greatest good(pleasure/tranquility) for the greatest amount of people, this is utilitarianism, a form of hedonism, because every good should not persuade, and not every bad should be avoided, we have to look at the the larger picture. And Compassion is possible through our capacity of empathy, and through that we can understand people and try to cause less harm. As for science being amoral... well duh. Science is statistics. and the bible is a clump of stories. But to believe stories over hard statistics is a reasoning fallacy!