Bible Thumper gets thumped

[Viper_Fujax]

The problem with that \'earth is not flat\' idea is that the person who came up with the theory that the earth is not flat were \'scientist doods\'. Not some average joe with a belief. Columbus was not the one who came up with the idea that the earth wasn\'t flat...

Science can never prove to be 100% true, even things like gravity that we THINK we know...but Newton\'s law of gravity doesn\'t work when trying to explain something like a black hole.

not to mention that it took the scientific process to prove the earth is round. Can\'t say the same about a soul

The problem with that \'earth is not flat\' idea is that the person who came up with the theory that the earth is not flat were \'scientist doods\'. Not some average joe with a belief. Columbus was not the one who came up with the idea that the earth wasn\'t flat...

Nowhere did I ( nor Soulgrind ) claim that it was a pivotal point about whether the "earth is not flat" theories originated from \'beliefs\' or \'scientific guesses\'.

The point is that in those times, a \'flat earth\' was such a dominant worldview, that one would be at least frowned up for thinking otherwise (read : burned or crucified)
It\'s all about giving eachother room to argument in what they believe. Yes, not believing in an established religion/faith is believing in \'something\' too.  

not to mention that it took the scientific process to prove the earth is round. Can\'t say the same about a soul

...and that\'s exactly why Soul > Science  ( i wouldn\'t say that scientists who created the nuke bomb, are really smarter than me )

[Viper_Fujax]

But the thing about science is that it\'s focused around disproving. Scientists don\'t care about things that are generally accepted, and they even try to find the weakest points in their theories and tells everyone about them (Darwin for example)

With the soul its like..either you believe its there or you dont. You can\'t prove or disprove it

Im not talking about science being right and believingin a soul being wrong. For comprehension purposes, and trying to understand how things work, science>beliefs

[Viper_Fujax]

And the point I was making about ur earth being flat point is this:

Souly did insinuate it by saying "you believe some science dood who says the earth was flat, while ignoring the guy who said the earth was round\' (i adlibed).

The only way this would help your arguement is that if some scientist who went against the grain had proof there was a soul. But you dont have that, so you can\'t make a comparison to a scientific disagreement.

There\'s disagreements all through history that are like the earth is flat/the earth is round. But the difference is its all based on the scientific process. Not whether you believe in something or not since that doesn\'t fit with the scientific process.

[Titan]

Wasn\'t the whole earth is flat controversy based upon religion?

[Viper_Fujax]

no. some religions just happened to run with it, which is kind of ironic when you think of it...kind of like how they also ran with the earth being the center of the universe/solar system

It probably sprouted because they didnt know about gravity, so how can everyone be standing on something circular when you dont know about gravity.

[Titan]

no. Catholics just happened to run with it, which is kind of ironic when you think of it...kind of like how they also ran with the earth being the center of the universe/solar system

But wouldn\'t that mean that Catholicism, as a religion, endorsed the flat earth?

[Viper_Fujax]

sry, i edited it. I grew up catholic so there\'s a hue of bias when i argue against religion, haha. What im saying is that the majority of people believed the earth was flat, and most people are religious so..can see how the two combined

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

the whole point about the earth is flat wasn\'t about proving or disproving. It was simply about the what if factor.   We haven\'t disproved there\'s a soul, we haven\'t proved it either. We at this point in time just don\'t have the means to do either. One day we will. Hopefully in my lifetime.  

Some say we do already have proof, like my example about how energy changes form and never ceases.  These people get called crackpots etc
When the earth was said to be round, people that were "educated" denied it even with facts. This wasn\'t because it could be proven, it was simply because people don\'t like being wrong.

Its funny, a lot of things are discovered by accident. Rejected then later on taken on board as we develop technologies. We just don\'t seem to learn from past mistakes.  I\'m always open to new ideas and things, but to say that we are not in control of our selfs to me is just ludicrous.

[Viper_Fujax]

I totally agree, but if I had to choose between the two, which we were hypothetically doing, I would say there isn\'t enough proof there is a soul. Im not saying that there isn\'t, so if theres some major convincing breakthrough of the possibility of a soul, then Im all for it.

And im not on politie\'s side with the brain, i already said what i wanted to say about that.

This wasn\'t because it could be proven, it was simply because people don\'t like being wrong.
but to say that we are not in control of our selfs to me is just ludicrous.

QFT. Of course, there will always be a bunch of people who evade responsibility because, supposedly their God or prophet will explain & act as buffer to reason something unreasonable. Or there\'s just the ones who know very consciously that their doing bad and they don\'t even care to try to improve any more.

[clips]

Looking back it seems knotter and politie are kinda sayin the same thing but using different anologies/theories..politie states that our bodies are comprised of strict natural processing, and that nature itself follows strict rules which every living creature abides by, (as with his salt example)....likewise knotter states that we were created by something humans cannot even begin to comprehend and that this entity or massive prescence is the embodiment of everything ever created in the universe itself....thus what knotter and politie are both talking about could actually be one and the same...

In more simpler terms....the natural order and strict properties that every living thing abides by and what politie states that we are a product of, is just like what knotter states in that we were produced by this life-force that no human will ever be able to understand....just think of it as one huge factory at the end of the universe with everything coming out of it,...the stars, planets,...etc...every single element that makes up life and matter and the properties that identify them are spewing from this factory,...and it could very well be what politie is saying or what knotter is sayin....thing is and we\'ve said it a million times already,.....we will never know.



*i\'ve stated my opinion on the brain already as well and decline to further comment on that subject*

but if I had to choose between the two, which we were hypothetically doing, I would say there isn\'t enough proof there is a soul. Im not saying that there isn\'t, so if theres some major convincing breakthrough of the possibility of a soul, then Im all for it.
.

finally something I can agree on.
the difference between science and religion (and in this case soulgrind) is that religion believes in something and than searches for things that will affirm this believe, whereas science works the other way around. When it has a theory it will try everything to disprove it, untill it is found to be impossible, only then will it be accepted as fact.
It\'s very human to try and affirm a theory, when in fact this is the wrong approach.

I\'ll give an example:

imagine having in front of you four cards with on one side a letter and on the other a number. This is what you\'ll see:

A   3   D   7

If I tell you that a card that has an A on one side will always have a 3 on the other, which cards would you turn to find out whether this is true? (don\'t say all of course, try to turn as little as possible)

...likewise knotter states that we were created by something humans cannot even begin to comprehend and that this entity or massive prescence is the embodiment of everything ever created in the universe itself....thus what knotter and politie are both talking about could actually be one and the same...

In more simpler terms....the natural order and strict properties that every living thing abides by and what politie states that we are a product of, is just like what knotter states in that we were produced by this life-force that no human will ever be able to understand.

Well, actually... i am sure that the founders of religion were wisemen and they thought & researched about all of it, very long very hard. I am just saying that, within the range of human comprehension, they were able to identify some of the universal laws of this Godly force of Creation ; about what things can do bad and which things can do good in the limited context of earth life.

Imo, they realized that the God is way too abstract for the masses to understand. So they had to make their learnings into something the \'stupid\' masses could understand and thus, live by.

So they applied human context and comprehension to the phenomenon that is God ; they personified it - and imo, THAT is where alot of things went wrong, because - as Politiepet states ; humans are very quick to make (wrong) assumptions about things which are still not 100% scientifically proven ( most people will turn the card which has 3 on it ). Thus they create dogmatic reasons; such as stating that it "MUST be that God created man, to His image".

I believe, the foundation of religion is good, but is has turned into institutes of earthly power, people telling other people how they should live their lives with rigid rules, especially regarding sexuality. God\'s Word almighty, that\'s what they preach. Of course, we all know, that the Word is human language, human comprehension of what means what. They made their interpretations and assumptions about Godly force, into an absolute truth & law. That\'s where they went wrong imo.

Of course, i also do acknowledge that for alot of people, religion brings good and support to their lives. But following something blindly and feeling guilt of sin all the time, isn\'t the way forward imo.

I\'ve always wondered one thing.

Why, as a society we don\'t devote some of our scientific resources to proving that there is a spirit or even "hauntings"? Sure, we have a small group here and there that try to prove or disprove the whole thing, but for the most part, we don\'t devote a decent sum of money to something that, I think is highly important. Instead, the scientific community would rather just say, "no, it doesn\'t exist".  
Just seems odd.