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

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ritswd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • ritswd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            it wasn’t proven to be improvable

            If it’s something invisible with no physical manifestation (as the soul is thought to be by the believers), it’s quite literally improvable.