[narf poit chez BOOM]

page 2.

How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

punishment in the afterlife is appropraite and you can't wiggle out of it on a technicality.

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

occasionally, i wonder what reading the original, un-edited Version would reveal.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

in the meantime, i, for one, am not going to worry about wether my left foot is connected to my left leg, because i know it is. why question a basic assumption without competing facts to question it on? i'm not saying it's wrong to look for competing facts, just that anti-theorizing without them isn't something i'm interested in.

Spoon
And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

he. he. he.

Spoon
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

and my responce to them? look down.

Spoon
Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

so, a theory is better than a religeos beleif? what if god told you your religeos beleif? yeah, i know i said that before. but it's appropriate here, to.

Spoon
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.

i would say that an un-aided human does a poor job of explaining why.

Deccan
Not by science per se, but what about philosophical systems informed by science? Or are you going to say that these systems then become religions of a kind? And of course, traditional religion indisputably deals with "moral codes, with choice and consequence", but does it deal with it well?

science is machinery, and people in machinery would most likely be ground up unless the machinery was constructed very carefully. with more care than would be required by a referendum process.

Deccan
That IS my personal answer to that question. I do not believe that there is any ultimate reason for my existence. I exist, as a physical construct, due to a long chain of physical effects, that is itself due to the mechanical inevitability of physical cause-and-effect, devoid of ultimate reason or meaning.

and where back to the difference between people and windmills, which didn't seem to be understood very well the Last time i tried to explain it.

Only problem with this is that it seems to put religion in the same cart as science. Difference being that science actually tells us something tangible, whereas religion is mostly make believe.

any science that tries to insist religeon is make believe is make believe, because science can't say.