Religion

[ragnarok_blade]

Evolution doesn't go back without direct interference, so it can only go forward.

Actually, in evolution, species don't necessarily become better, they just develop a variation. I don't think that has much to do w/ the context of what you were saying but it's a good thing to note.

[Acriku]

Could you cite some examples?

[gryphon]

You whant examples ;D

No, just kiddin. :)

We are 3 [ mayby 4 ] dymensional beings [ or objects ] and will most possibly not be able to evolve to 8 dimension beings. That's not possible for our current body to exist in that demension.

Religion safes lives; think of the mentally unstable people who need something to hold on to. You can go to a phichiater but turning to religion is also an option.

And even Carl Marx said, "religion is opium of the people".

The romans did this with "breath and plays" [ food and the gladiators ]. More simply, look at sim's for your computer. When you need to kalm your people in a certain area you put a Churth [ how ever you spell it ] in that region. It's the same in "real" life. Having a religion comforts a lot of people. And it that way, it saves lives.

And I don't mean the thing you've stated ar religion. You specifivally mentioned things from Christiam believes. Now that's not the only religion. If you study them you'll find that they have a lot of coherant parts in them. And that's the "true" form of religion.

Because you also have the really horrible way that civilisation has used religious aspect to make verry immoral things right. [ crusades for example, and the holy wars or prosecuyion of poeple who have other believes ] But this can't be interpretated as fact's of that religion, just of the humans mishandling with that.

:)

[gryphon]

In evolution things do evolve and get better. That's the whole idea of evolution. That part that isn't "good" doesn't survive and will [ slowly ] die or adapt to a better thing that will survive.

[ at least when we are talking about the evolution theory or ather theory's based on Darwin's theory. Did you know that "Survival of the fittest" as stated in Origin of species isn't even from Darwin ? On the request of Herbert Spencer Darwin edit thoose words to his work.[ his real words are "The fittest survives" ] But the true meaning of "fittest" has 3 parts. At present day sometimes described as "inclusive fitness". And because fittest means "the expected procreation rate" [ as 1 of the 3 points ] this is a  "tautologic" remark. [ Survival of the fittest ].

While his origional remark was correct. and lot's of people used this misinterpretation in comming years to say Darwin's theory wasn't correct and therefor not possible. ]

[Acriku]

I meant "look" into the 8th dimension. Not be it. And sure religion may be a safe haven, but then again it depends on the person. Same for science, but with science there is most likely another option. There maybe other types of religion, but if one doesn't work, what are the chances others will? And yes, Christianity was AN EXAMPLE. I didn't want to go through all types, so I used an example.

[gryphon]

Ok, understand about thoose examples. :)

And no sutch luck. We can't look into, or see that dimension ourselfs. It's an entirly different level of existing. If we could look in higher dimensions we would be able to "see" gravety, or time itself. And that's not possible.

Think there is areligion for evry unique persone. You alomost always have one.

Almost all the things I mentioned are scientifical things, facts. Not personal interpretations.

Religion can't be proven are disproven. Not by science nore by fait. And then neither can science. It's just that science "happends" to work. Just as believing in God.

[ragnarok_blade]

Sorry, I meant that evolution doesn't necessarily cause a species to become more complex. It does cause adaptations to certain conditions, but over time maybe some products of evolution become useless (maybe the appendix is one of them).

[Acriku]

Some of the adaptations do become useless, yes, but then the body slowly gets rid of it.

[jacobdouds]

The human appendix used to be larger. And now adays, people are been born without wisedom teeth. So evolution is taking its path.

[nemafakei]

Gryphon, just because I have no proof by example (how can I?) it doesn't mean I'm wrong - I have pr. You've basically said what I've been avoiding saying about god - in that since we can't prove him, he doesn't exist. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that given current tendancies (goung towards being able to prove more by science, and a god becoming less feasible), we can deduce that there is probably no god.

I have faith (with an h) in science, because science sets out objectively to find how things work and find the truth. It DOES NOT start with the assumtion that there is a god, and then seek to prove it. Plus, it is more concerned with the truth itself than making people believe in its own theories.

And all this dimensional stuff misunderstands how dimensions work. But anyway...

[gryphon]

I've already exchanged some IM's with Acriku about my interpretation, and I think I can say that we have in some lardge parts the some idea.

The one big difference is [ I think ] that you have [ in a small way ] the "assumption" that science can's prove God. Or that the progress of science in the last millenia's has been going upwards, we can say more things for shure, and understand and explain things more and more evry day. And this way science has sofar never been able to prove the existens of God so you can say for shure [ not compleatly but more and more with every bit of science that we gather ] that we have found no prove of a God. So it's getting more and more unlikly that he realy does exists.

[ is this correct ? ]

[ if so my comment is ]

Science hasn't the right way to find out if God does or doesn't exist. And however good it is in explaining the world that's around us [ I do realy admit science holdes a lot of truths ]. The science we have today isn't evolved enough or capable of giving any assumption of the existance of God. We can say it doesn't exist in our field of science, but not that it doesn't exists.

As you've pointed out, science can give proof that God realy doesn't exists in a couple of years and then we all know that he doesn't. But science can also say God does exists in a couple of years. It can go both ways.

My posts where to point out that either you belive in science or in a religious God, neither can be explained. And science can be explained better and falsified or corrected in real life. Religion doesn't have this way of testing it's real. But you can't judge 2 different sciences [ emperical and religious ] on the same standards. And that standards happen to be the ones of science.

And so proving or disproving religion can't be done strickly by scientiffical rules.

So I think that both ways, live comes down to faith [ with an "h" ;) ]. Although certain forms of faith might be able to brought to us in resonable and plausible forms [ science ].

It's still faith.

:)

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I know Nema, Science fascinates me too. At some Things. (enough about this)

What are you actualy talking about with Dimensions? About other world's, Or the Dimension of the X,Y,Z :)

Anyways Acriku, Im not attacking anybody. Im just stating my own opinion in the thread. I dont know what your problem is against me.

And my Opinion is, I believe 50% in Science and 50% in the Super Natural.

[nemafakei]

While I agree that present science does not yet disprove god, my point was the way it is tending over time indicates that in the future, we will never prove god, furthermore we will disprove it.

Regarding your "disproving religion can't be done strickly by scientiffical rules" point...

We MUST assume something is correct (Else we will never know anything, socratic, I know). Science was designed to be the truth of how things are, based on logical research, and interpretation of data. This means that science bases itself on the facts, ideally the most direct and precise perceptions that we have. Hence, science is more than just based on faith. It is based on, as I said the truth.

[nampigai]

What about things that can't be proven right or wrong?

[nemafakei]

If you mean uncertainty of 50% either way, then these things must be looked at differently... but this is extremely rare (although misdiagnosis is common). If it's 49/51, then that difference can be worked on logically and the truth extricated.

It does make sense, honest!

[nampigai]

Well you can't prove spirits, souls or even god but how do you disprove them?

[nemafakei]

Spiritual phenomena in general are not disproved directly. That's impossible. You need to look at how few people claim to have seen them, of which how many have been proven wrong, and of the others, how many people have bothered to try to prove wrong, or provide alternative, feasible explanations for. (ie they were high on something hallucinogenic at the time)

The consider how it might be possible for such things to exist, not directly noticed by the vast majority of the population...

[nampigai]

"Spiritual phenomena in general are not disproved directly" so what you say is that you can't disprove spirits, how do you disprove god and souls?

[nemafakei]

Not *directly*.

Indirecly, however, an *example* of which I gave in my last post, we can disprove god. Or rather, we will be able to.

[nampigai]

I'm sorry but in my book that doesn't count. if you only prove it indirectly. As I've said before sometimes things don't have to be proven right or wrong if people just believe in it.

I don't say that you are wrong in your believe Nema, it's your belief.

[The_old_worm]

Science cannot prove God exists and nor should it try.

[nemafakei]

So if you know you left a book either at home or at work, and you saw it in work, you know directly that it's there. If you look through your home and realise it's not there, but at work - that's indirect. But that doesn't count in your book. You strange person.

"Science is not about truth, it is about finding the most probable explaination. "

... if it's 99.99999999999999999999% probable, you can safely assume it's the truth.

[Acriku]

Just a thought = Why are there so many religions in this world? God only supposedly chose one, so how are these others here? Because: It is our human nature to have "hope". Hope that death isn't the end. When I think about my life just ending, and nothing else after that, I become desperate, not wanting it to end. Other people have accounted for this, and there are therapy reports, with anonymous names of course. With this desperation, one would want a way to "prolong" their life. Thus, religion is born. Religion satisfies that desperation, and everyone goes home happy. This is my theory, just wondering what your rebuttals are.

[The_old_worm]

So if you know you left a book either at home or at work, and you saw it in work, you know directly that it's there. If you look through your home and realise it's not there, but at work - that's indirect. But that doesn't count in your book. You strange person.

"Science is not about truth, it is about finding the most probable explaination. "

... if it's 99.99999999999999999999% probable, you can safely assume it's the truth.

You can't know for sure where it is until you see it.  What if a co-worker took your book.  then none of what you said is true.  You can only say that the book is probably at work. None of what you said about the book is direct unless you are standing there looking at it, and even that is in question, because what if there is a malfunction in your brain and you are imagining the book.  THERE ARE NO TRUTHS!

[Acriku]

There are definite things out there. Most of them made up by ourselves. Like I am a man, that is the truth. If not, would you be saying I'm a woman? Pffff!