Author Topic: past lives (Read 7980 times)

« **Reply #50 on:** May 13, 2005, 06:54:52 pm »

in my opinion religion is 60% theory 20%fear and 20% ignorance

Ryokenohki · « **Reply #51 on:** May 21, 2005, 03:13:14 am »

Science is, simply put, the study of the world. It is a way that people try to better understand the world around them. It's true that most of science is theoretical, but it's not just someone sitting in a room thinking "hey, this is a really cool idea... THEORY!!!". For something to be considered a theory even, it has to be tested and proven to be beyond just that of a hypothesis. Even if it's not totally proven, it still has some fact in it, whether mathematical or otherwise.

The vast majority of religion is mainly belief with a sprinkling of historical fact. True that most religions have deep roots in mysticism, rumor, manipulation by storytellers, and superstition, but most religions (major religions at least) have at least some truth behind them. There is historical proof that a man named Jesus lived at the time or around the time specified for the prophet/savior/man (depending on your beliefs) Jesus Christ to have taught and lived... the Buddha was a real living person as well. When people believe a religion, it's not them being an idiot. Some people really need something solid to hold on to, especially with the way the world is today. And truly, nobody can tell if a religion is true or not. I am personally a Roman Catholic, though i don't believe everything taught to me... this being that some teachers explained one thing as a truth, while others stated it to be totally ficticious. Regardless, religion can never be proven, because the basis of a religion is belief. If a religion is ever to be truly "proven" then it would cease being a religion and become a science. Hence, what Mariella said. I mean, alchemy was a true science for some time, until it was disproven as mysticism and whatnot. (though wouldn't the ability to transmutate physical objects from one state to another be awesome? u_u sorry, opinion :3 ) Therefore, i think at least, the major difference between science and religion is;

Religion is proven only by belief, and Science is believed only with proof.

buuuut, that's just my thoughts on it.

« **Reply #52 on:** May 21, 2005, 07:20:38 pm »

people who make up fake percentages don't know whats really going on.

Kayf · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2005, 11:29:31 am »

I'm 97.32% sure that I agree at least 45% to with romper. At least .34% of the time. Maybe more...

and most likely 98% of you will not find this amusing...

« **Reply #54 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:42:38 pm »

I don't like it when people think that a scientific discovery disproves God. my beleife is that it doesn't disprove God, but explains how he works. science and religion are compatible, when you think they conflict, you're looking at it the wrong way, truth cannot conflict truth.

Lavender · « **Reply #55 on:** May 24, 2005, 02:36:54 pm »

Science is all therory, just the ones that haven't been proved wrong yet. If there hasn't been proof that it is right does not constitute a proof that it is wrong therefore it is part of science (see modern scientific method). The object of science isn't to find out how something is but how it chould not be. Although the ones with the most proof that they are right tend to be put forward as fact.

Anyway there is some evidence in past life regressions. Regessions are the reteval of memorys from the sub-concious often using hypnotism (which is more scientific than people think). The sub-concious memory stores everything you have seen down to a precice detail, even if you think you have forgotten it (hence why regressions can also be used as evidence in this country as long as it was colected corectly).

Ryokenohki · « **Reply #56 on:** May 27, 2005, 02:32:16 am »

Quote (Lavender @ May 24 2005, 1:36 pm)

Science is all therory, just the ones that haven't been proved wrong yet. If there hasn't been proof that it is right does not constitute a proof that it is wrong therefore it is part of science (see modern scientific method). The object of science isn't to find out how something is but how it chould not be. Although the ones with the most proof that they are right tend to be put forward as fact.

Anyway there is some evidence in past life regressions. Regessions are the reteval of memorys from the sub-concious often using hypnotism (which is more scientific than people think). The sub-concious memory stores everything you have seen down to a precice detail, even if you think you have forgotten it (hence why regressions can also be used as evidence in this country as long as it was colected corectly).

I totally agree with you.
I'm glad that someone knows some real science ':p'

...though i have to admit... it was a little hard to decipher some of your typing u_u sorry...

It's true that all of science is theory. They call things "facts" and "laws" because of how un-disproveable they are, not because they're "proven". Case in point, there are incredible contradictions when you go deeply into theoretical physics and other high sciences, even with laws. I guess that's why most everything in science is considered a theory. There is seriously nothing that can be totally "proven" anyway... as far as I know, anything can be disproven if you dissect it far enough.

As far as your explanation of what science is... it's close; The object of science is simply "to better understand the universe". That's it in a nutshell. The object of the scientific meathod is to find out how something could not be, and thusly "prove it" beyond reasonable disproving, thus making a theory... or later on a law, if it's accepted enough, or something like that ':p'

As far as your talking about past life regressions...
There is some truth in hypnotism... There are other ways that people can find out things within the mind as well... also yes the subconscious does collect everything in detail, unless it's forcibly removed or destroyed due to a special condition...

I'd like to know however, how exactly regressions have been used as evidence? Was this in a legitimate investigation for something? I'm not questioning you, i'm actually just curious... I love this sort of thing, you see ^^;;

+====+
P.S. In my last post i realize that I wrote some things a little oddly for this discussion, so I'll rephrase it.
Original: "For something to be considered a theory even, it has to be tested and proven to be beyond just that of a hypothesis."
Rephrase: "For something to be considered a theory even, it has to be tested and proven [JUST ENOUGH] to be beyond just that of a hypothesis."

...y'know... since nothing can be totally proven. I kinda took that for granted last time ^^; sorry sorry
+====+

and in a rare, double whammy post XP...

Quote

Thylo Posted on May 23 2005, 12:42 pm
I don't like it when people think that a scientific discovery disproves God. my beleife is that it doesn't disprove God, but explains how he works. science and religion are compatible, when you think they conflict, you're looking at it the wrong way, truth cannot conflict truth.

I gotta agree with that too. Science cannot disprove belief... unless the belief is sorta like... say... you think a pen, when stabbed into someone's chest, will make them feel better and live to 2 hundred years old... because i'm sure it won't take too long to disprove that... er... but that's a morbid thought...
Anymawho, I dislike it when religions try to disprove science, and i dislike it when science tries to disprove religion.
It might sound cliché, but...
Why can't we all just... get along?
n_n;;

VersteckterGeist · « **Reply #57 on:** May 29, 2005, 03:48:19 pm »

i believe that i have an animal spirit trapped in a human body..

i believe that all my past lives i must have been an animal and this one i just became human to learn a particular lesson.

.:: shrugs ::.

isn't that the theory behind reincarnation? to learn something? i'm not sure. but i believe that's my purpose. whatever life lesson i have to learn.. thats why i'm here.

but to each his own.

'>