If you do, then what exactly defines a soul in your view?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

And it's common belief of theists that everyone has to believe in something. I don't believe in anything. I believe people, like the scientists that discover stuff, but that's believing someone, not in something. Pretending it's the same is ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I don’t know if that’s what you were implying, but I’m not at all a theist. And as a scientist, I can remind you that the scientific method is to keep researching topics that are inconclusive. To conclude something as non-existent because the research is inconclusive is not the scientific method.

    What you are doing is listening to the science indeed, and drawing faith-based conclusions that something doesn’t exist because it wasn’t proven to exist. Which is fine, a lot of people do that to base all kinds of faiths, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that you’re not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's not inconclusive, it's improvable which basically means "why even bother?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    I don’t disagree with “why even bother”. But again following the scientific method, it wasn’t proven to be improvable. Scientifically speaking, we just don’t know.

    I realize it’s not a very comforting thought, though. And I don’t mind people who believe otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments