[Dumpishchaism]

Yes, but it's always scientists that are doing the discovering. When science discovers another truth about the universe, it abandons the old truths and accepts the new ones, no matter how painful or slow that process may be. Other methods of discovery have a habit of clinging to old truths despite new evidence. So, your best bet when it comes to truth is to rely on the process that actually updates itself as it moves forward, and that's science.

How can science be true if it keeps changing? The Bible doesn't change.

[fount_pirat]

How can science be true if it keeps changing? The Bible doesn't change.

Newton's fundamental principles of calculus have not changed in 400 years. Does this argument hold for them as well in your mind?

When someone supplies evidence that they are wrong, then they will be modified...same as with the Bible.

Interestingly, there has been some scientific work done on some of the "miracles" of the Bible (such as the parting of the Red Sea for example) and it turns out that there is some scientific "possibility" for this. Does that "prove" it? No, of course not...but it still leaves the question open.

A true intellectual would, IMHO, acknowledge that the question remains open...even if their thoughts tend to disagree with it.

[Romobencience]

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "set off across the stars, all the Universe my destination, and to look back and see the lives of my beloved here on Earth until we are rejoined on some sunny day when all hardship and trials that formed us are past" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "completely cease to exist" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

Hmmm...it seems even this is a matter of perspective...until there is evidence one way or another.

[Dweplyododo]

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "completely cease to exist" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

Hmmm...it seems even this is a matter of perspective...until there is evidence one way or another.

I don't recall claiming to have that knowledge.

[Teligacio]

I don't recall claiming to have that knowledge.

That's all I am trying to say. We simply don't know what happens after death. If someone believes one thing, then who is another to ridicule them?

Now...I would agree that bringing their belief into "question" is an acceptable practice...just as they bringing yours into question is acceptable. Many good things come from constructive debate. However...using words like "fantasy" and expressions like "have the balls to admit" is where I take issue.

Until there is evidence one way or another aren't we all just guessing?

[Virosponna]

Are you sure? People believe some pretty insane, but unfalsifiable things.

Yes, I'm sure. There are probably some extreme examples that you could illustrate that would give me pause to that, but generally...yes, I'm sure.

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Not all things are solved by logic.

Everyday, scientist discover things they once thought impossible. See things there never was any "evidence" for...

To me...it is intellectual cowardice to not ackowlege that your "logical" conclusions are simply based upon the "available" evidence and that there is, of course, the "possibilty" of different conclusions in the future.

You remind me of those who once insisted the world was flat because they had no "evidence" that it was round. Not a knock on you...just an observation of the intellectual "superiority" that is becoming rampant among people today.

We all need to realize that there is still far more "unknown" than "known"

To belittle someone because of their beliefs due to an exhibition of intellectual "superiority" is to show limited intellectual "foresight".

Once a belief is "proven" incorrect, then that is a different story (for example...The flat Earth society is now free game!), but until then the real intellectual will encourage everyone to fully explore their own thoughts and beliefs without being judgemental.

Just one man's opinion.

Where did I say that my opinions (I have bolded it again) aren't open to change if new evidence were to present itself ? Quite the opposite in fact: I don't use induction to justify my existence. I use deduction to come to my worldview. And in that view I don't need an afterlife to explain things while you do. Logically this makes my case much more solid than yours anyway you look at it.

[Frodogzzz]

God sleeps on my couch. I have no evidence of this but I know it to be true.

Unless you can prove me wrong it would be intellectually superior of anyone to criticize me on this belief.

[WaydayNef]

What's to question? It's belief without evidence.

[avaincmolla]

Plato - Yeah, I think you are falling back to the old PC bit about it being impolite to challenge these things.

If a person on a street corner rants and raves to an imaginary being we rightfully consider them a bit touched but if a person tells you strange things based upon nothing more than "faith" we are expected to smile and nod respectfully.

I say BS.

[TiepayWrary]

Plato - Yeah, I think you are falling back to the old PC bit about it being impolite to challenge these things.

If a person on a street corner rants and raves to an imaginary being we rightfully consider them a bit touched but if a person tells you strange things based upon nothing more than "faith" we are expected to smile and nod respectfully.

I say BS.

You have tried to categorize my point into one of simply faith. The point I am trying to make is much broader. It isn't about being PC. It is my belief that when we start becoming intellectually superior that we lose opportunities for intellectual debate and discovery.

People have become so hung up on "defending" their positions ever more and more harshly, that they are losing site of the fact that knowledge and discover come through collaboration and communication. Conflict and intransigence brought on by an attitude of intellectually superior actions leads to less growth of knowledge in my opinion.

When you are arguing an opion not based on fact, how can you justify the aura of intellectual superiority? Far from being BS, I believe it is a weakness of argument displayed by someone who doesn't have evidence. To be fair...this is usually true on both sides of an argument today. Problem is...when people adopt this communication style, it tends to keep degenerating and nothing is solved (Not that you could solve every argument, but a search for common ground surely leads us closer to solution?).

Any how...I am not a big proponent of people being politically correct. I think you should say what you think, I just don't believe that trying not to be PC gives you the unsubstatiated right to criticize in the absence of evidence.

[QzVyZbTg]

I only confirm with my post that you have a hard time understanding / not willing to apply the established logical thinking method which gaves us intellectual advancement in the first place. Nothing intellectually superior about it.

But if you want you can pull my finger.

I guess we will just have to disagree. I believe that I fully understand established logical thinking, but I will say that I can see your point of view...even if I disagree with it.

As far as your finger...I think not.

[aquadayAquaks]

Not all things are solved by logic.

Everyday, scientist discover things they once thought impossible. See things there never was any "evidence" for...

To me...it is intellectual cowardice to not ackowlege that your "logical" conclusions are simply based upon the "available" evidence and that there is, of course, the "possibilty" of different conclusions in the future.

You remind me of those who once insisted the world was flat because they had no "evidence" that it was round. Not a knock on you...just an observation of the intellectual "superiority" that is becoming rampant among people today.

We all need to realize that there is still far more "unknown" than "known"

To belittle someone because of their beliefs due to an exhibition of intellectual "superiority" is to show limited intellectual "foresight".

Once a belief is "proven" incorrect, then that is a different story (for example...The flat Earth society is now free game!), but until then the real intellectual will encourage everyone to fully explore their own thoughts and beliefs without being judgemental.

Just one man's opinion.

Two.

[Loolasant]

IIRC, there is significant historiography that runs to the effect that the modest ~10 to 20% loss of population due to plague did in what was left of Greco-Roman civilisation and ushered in the period formerly known as the Dark Ages in Europe.

It would likely take a bit more now due to better communications, but a relatively small loss could be hugely destructive to the advanced economies of the world.

Europe suffered a greater percentage loss in the black death and I don't think civilization collapsed. Of course they were mostly farmers so the main economic consequence was more land per person.