|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 19, 2019 20:16:42 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 19, 2019 20:22:27 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul. There is no soul so there is nothing to detect. Grow up and get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 19, 2019 20:24:18 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul. There is no soul so there is nothing to detect. Grow up and get over it. Shut up, you pompus know-nothing jackass. Who died and made you God?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 19, 2019 20:26:21 GMT
There is no soul so there is nothing to detect. Grow up and get over it. Shut up, you pompus know-nothing jackass. Who died and made you God? You are the one inventing imaginary machines to detect things that no one serious thinks exist in the first place. If you want to see real know-nothing pomposity, look in a mirror and behold.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 19, 2019 20:30:16 GMT
Shut up, you pompus know-nothing jackass. Who died and made you God? You are the one inventing imaginary machines to detect things that no one serious thinks exist in the first place. If you want to see real know-nothing pomposity, look in a mirror and behold. Is it or is it not true that things that were not believed in the past weren't believed to exist until the right instruments to see them were invented? Bacteria was not believed to exist until the microscope was invented. Distant stars were not believed to exist until powerful telescopes were invented. Certain gases and light spectrums and other things were not believed until the instrumentation to detect them were invented.
Is that not true? Yes, it is true. So STFU, moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 20, 2019 10:45:30 GMT
Is it or is it not true that things that were not believed in the past weren't believed to exist until the right instruments to see them were invented?
Sure. And for an instrument to detect something, it has to emit particles of some kind. So what kind of particles would a soul emit? What particles is a soul made of? You don't even bother thinking about these things, do you?
Distant stars could always be seen with the naked eye, fuckwit.
Bullshit. Give an example of a prominent scientist denying the existence of a gas or light spectrum that was later discovered to be exist. You can't, because you just pull this stuff out of your ignorant ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 20, 2019 10:57:49 GMT
The OP does not have a clue.
The instrument for soul detection has been invented a long time ago.
It's called a turntable.
And thanks to people like Ray Charles or Aretha Franklin, we know what it is.
On another thread, the OP has said that humans are souls.
So the OP said in this thread that devices to perform CT scans or X-rays don't exist.
I guess the OP doesn't deserve responses, except ridiculous ones. Which is what I'm doing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 20, 2019 12:29:18 GMT
That's like saying "The tool to detect leprechauns hasn't been invented yet".
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 20, 2019 12:45:08 GMT
Is it or is it not true that things that were not believed in the past weren't believed to exist until the right instruments to see them were invented?
Sure. And for an instrument to detect something, it has to emit particles of some kind. So what kind of particles would a soul emit? What particles is a soul made of? You don't even bother thinking about these things, do you?
Distant stars could always be seen with the naked eye, fuckwit.
Bullshit. Give an example of a prominent scientist denying the existence of a gas or light spectrum that was later discovered to be exist. You can't, because you just pull this stuff out of your ignorant ass.
It should be obvious even to a retard like you that I was referring to the stars that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. And your other question convinces me that you are not in the science field. Not even a scientist would be stupid enough to ask that question.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 20, 2019 12:52:18 GMT
It should be obvious even to a retard like you that I was referring to the stars that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. Okay, fuckwit: find a prominent scientist declaring that the only stars that exist are those that can be seen with the naked eye. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. No, I'm not in the science field, idiot. I've never said I was. I just happen to know more about science than you do. That's not an accomplishment of any kind, of course--the average 13 year old knows more about science than you do. So asking you what kinds of particles a soul-detector would detect is a bad question? Okay, why? If it isn't detecting particles, what is it detecting? Mass? See how your ignorance just digs a deeper and deeper hole every time you post?
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 20, 2019 13:06:58 GMT
It should be obvious even to a retard like you that I was referring to the stars that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. Okay, fuckwit: find a prominent scientist declaring that the only stars that exist are those that can be seen with the naked eye. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. No, I'm not in the science field, idiot. I've never said I was. I just happen to know more about science than you do. That's not an accomplishment of any kind, of course--the average 13 year old knows more about science than you do. So asking you what kinds of particles a soul-detector would detect is a bad question? Okay, why? If it isn't detecting particles, what is it detecting? Mass? See how your ignorance just digs a deeper and deeper hole every time you post? What part of the subject line didn't you understand? The tool to detect those particles hasn't been invented yet. They barely discovered the Higgs Boson particle, stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 20, 2019 13:49:21 GMT
I'll wait for the evidence then
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 20, 2019 14:01:34 GMT
Okay, fuckwit: find a prominent scientist declaring that the only stars that exist are those that can be seen with the naked eye. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. No, I'm not in the science field, idiot. I've never said I was. I just happen to know more about science than you do. That's not an accomplishment of any kind, of course--the average 13 year old knows more about science than you do. So asking you what kinds of particles a soul-detector would detect is a bad question? Okay, why? If it isn't detecting particles, what is it detecting? Mass? See how your ignorance just digs a deeper and deeper hole every time you post? What part of the subject line didn't you understand? The tool to detect those particles hasn't been invented yet. They barely discovered the Higgs Boson particle, stupid. I think you're misunderstanding the "grander scheme" of what he was asking. How are we supposed to make a device to "detect" souls if we don't even know what they're made of? You're two examples you gave really aren't comparable, because even back then we pretty much knew planets and germs were essentially just matter, which are still bound to laws of light, so we made special tools to amplify that light and see them. If you can't even give so much as a clue as to what souls are made of, then how are we supposed to even really "look" for them to begin with?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 20, 2019 14:03:29 GMT
What part of the subject line didn't you understand? The tool to detect those particles hasn't been invented yet. They barely discovered the Higgs Boson particle, stupid. You really shouldn't post about this stuff because you just lose. There were solid theoretical and experimentally based reasons to build huge, expensive tools to find the Higgs Boson particle, fuckwit. We also knew ahead of time what the evidence would look like. None of this applies to the soul. We've solidly dispensed with the idea of a soul, no one serious even thinks about it anymore, and we've moved on. People can't even give the soul an actual job to perform, since we can see the brain doing everything the soul was supposed to do. It is a literally useless concept. Grow and get used to it: you are on the losing side of every science based issue there is.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 20, 2019 15:37:25 GMT
...Fair enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 17:30:05 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul. And as with all those examples, once we can detect the soul it will be rational to believe that it exists. But not until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 20, 2019 17:43:28 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul. And as with all those examples, once we can detect the soul it will be rational to believe that it exists. But not until then. The funny thing is before bacteria studies became more advanced, a lot of people thought disease were caused by demons/possesions/sueprnatural forices/etc. Basically people that thought like Heeey.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 20, 2019 17:46:38 GMT
From another thread. [Here's a more accurate metaphor: The soul and body are one the way a toaster and electricity are one when you're making toast. Once the bread is toasted, the toaster turns off and the electricity goes back where it came from. It doesn't cease to exist. So that's your theory about the soul? Fine. Now, can this theory explain phenomena and make predictions about human behaviour, mindsets and feelings better and more accurately than the currently favoured theory, that whatever "soul" or personality a person has is just a product of processes in the brain, central nervous system and other physical parts of the body of a person? Because if your theory doesn't offer better and more accurate explanations, then building a tool to detect a soul would be as futile as building a tool to discover phlogiston or the aether. |
|
|
|
Post by Shays rebelling on May 20, 2019 17:58:00 GMT
People couldn't see distant planets, bacteria, and many other things until the proper tools and instruments were invented. So it is with the soul. The instrument to detect rotten souls has been invented. Its accuracy is about 99.35%..... 
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on May 20, 2019 18:01:46 GMT
That's like saying "The tool to detect leprechauns hasn't been invented yet". Just hold a pot of gold under a rainbow. And then kill the little bastard.
|
|
