Possibilianism

[Perknose]

I really find it hard to believe you're being serious here...in either case, knock yourself out

Translation: I got nothing, but will make one last idiot and non-substantive ad hominem and then tacitly admit defeat. :biggrin:

 

[slayer202]

someone toss me a thesaurus and a textbook on grammar, I'd like to make up a bunch of bullshit and polish it up so it looks like I'm saying something intelligent without actually making any sense

:sneaky:

 

[Perknose]

Well you are using terms like logical and scientific and applying them to the believe and or disbelief of religion. But religions are inherently illogical, they contain, miracles and magic that require no explanation or logic. So how do you reconcile the two.

Neuroscientist David Eagleman and I are using logic and the scientific method to examine all logically inconclusive beliefs and disbeliefs about religion, and to refrain from excluding any belief or disbelief form the logically unblinking eye.

It is the only fully rational approach.

Just LOOK how it smokes out the hidden emotional atheists who are so emotionally wedded to what they pretend to themselves is a dispassionate view that they get ridiculously upset (you see this here, don't you?) at anything that even questions their deeply and emotionally held belief in disbelief.

They are indistinguishable from religious true believers. A genuine atheist, one who would truly hold to their self-professed definition of atheism as, and here I quote sandorski, "a lack of Belief, not 100% certainty that there are no gods" would have ZERO problem with Possibilianism!

And yet, LOOK how they jump up and down and resort to countless lame personal attacks against me.

Think about it. What does that tell you? :hmm:

 

[skyking]

The Unitarians I know have already taken this position😉

 

[SilentRavens]

I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.

Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?

 

[Malak]

I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.

Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?

I think the point is to distinguish people that are willing to believe from people that really don't care. Ultimately labels only serve to encourage shorthand communication, which we can see the dangers of in this thread.

 

[sandorski]

I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.

Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?

Faith isn't necessary for the Scientific Process. There is Acceptance of Tested Theory, but that's not Faith. There is going out on a limb with a Hypothesis, but that's an Intellectually derived Idea with intent to Test for veracity, not Faith.

 

[Perknose]

The Unitarians I know have already taken this position😉

Bingo! What's the problem?

It's amusing and endlessly revealing how so many of the self-professed "atheists" here are having such an outsized and markedly emotional reaction to Possibilianism!

It's exactly as though they feel that some heretic is daring to doubt or question what seems like a dogmatically held belief of theirs, just like the religious true believers they so despise. :biggrin:

Possibilianism is 100% congruent with atheism as they purport to define it, and yet they feel threatened and angered by it!

So revealing! 😎

 

[SilentRavens]

Faith isn't necessary for the Scientific Process. There is Acceptance of Tested Theory, but that's not Faith. There is going out on a limb with a Hypothesis, but that's an Intellectually derived Idea with intent to Test for veracity, not Faith.

I wasn't aware that "Acceptance of Tested Theory" was a proper name. 😉

In any case, I think words failed here. I would never argue that religious faith has a place in science, my use of 'faith' is short hand for your longer winded rebuttal above.

The dictionary definition of "faith" doesn't help me out here, since it's technically defined as something spiritual. I just find it shorter to say that "I have enough faith in an idea to bother testing", instead of "The preponderence of evidence seems to indicate a general rule that I should develop a test for." 😛

 

[sandorski]

I wasn't aware that "Acceptance of Tested Theory" was a proper name. 😉

In any case, I think words failed here. I would never argue that religious faith has a place science, in short my use of 'faith' is short hand for your longer winded rebuttal above.

The dictionary definition of "faith" doesn't help me out here, since it's technically definied as something spiritual. I just find it shorter to say that "I have enough faith in an idea to bother testing", instead of "The preponderence of evidence seems to indicate a general rule that I should develop a test for." 😛

My Shift key likes being pressed. 😀😀

 

[Perknose]

I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.

Beware of your seeming certainty. Have you never heard of the wisdom of "thinking outside the box"? It has been reduced to a cliche by business drones, but it contains powerful wisdom.

I'll let Big Al 'splain:

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Albert Einstein

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Big Al to the E

Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?

Don't get hung up on a question of simultaneity, he's more talking about not restricting your intellectual SCOPE with your a priori prejudices, which is what true believers and ideological drones do.

You can easily spot them because they get royally upset when you question their beliefs, and soon resort to emotional attacks and denials.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two seemingly opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." —F Scott Fitzgerald

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
Al to the E.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Al Onestone

 

[SilentRavens]

Beware of your seeming certainty. Have you never heard of the wisdom of "thinking outside the box"? It has been reduced to a cliche by business drones, but it contains powerful wisdom.

Incidentally I have, but I thought we were discussing ideas in the absence of any evidence? Certainly novel ideas are important and can be difficult to accept, Einstein incorrectly doubted the emergence of quantum theory when it first appeared. Qauntum theory, however, had evidence to support it. With already accepted facts*, I'm willing to accept new ideas so long as they are equally well supported.

But again I thought we were originally discussing competing ideas with no support.

Don't get hung up on a question of simultaneity, he's more talking about not restricting your intellectual SCOPE with your a priori prejudices, which is what true believers and ideological drones do.

You can easily spot them because they get royally upset when you question their beliefs, and soon resort to emotional attacks and denials.

I actually agree more than I disgree with possibilianism, maybe just if the name didn't sound so silly. 😛 I'm open to different ideas in arenas where there aren't already established facts, and alternative explanations when we're not sure. Is that it? Or am I missing the point here? Even when we're very sure should we be entertaining new ideas? I'm sure you could come up with examples indicating that we should, like Einstein overturning Newton's previously well established laws of gravity. On the other hand, in the interest of efficiency we have to stop somewhere or else we'll never make any progress.

*scientific fact that is rather than common sense fact
<several ninja edits>

 

[Perknose]

I'm open to different ideas in arenas where there aren't already established facts, and alternative explanations when we're not sure. Is that it?

That's pretty much it, as I understand it.

Sound easy and obvious, but the caveat is that it does take a commitment to more actively challenging one's hidden and/or unacknowledged beliefs and prejudices (and disbeliefs) than most of us generally do.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm open to the idea there are things beyond our comprehension and I dimiss religion as an arrogant attempt to pretend that we do. That's what I consider Atheism.

 

[grrl]

I don't find his idea that radical. It seems to me he's simply giving a name to the open-minded middle ground between organized religious dogma and absolute atheism. Even so, it's worth reminding people of the importance of remaining open and curious.

 

[pcgeek11]

Excellent article! I do agree with his thoughts on this. We cannot prove squat one way or the other. I have never discounted the possibility of a supreme being ( entity ) and creationism. We cannot defy evolution which needs to be accounted for also. This leads me to lean towards creation via evolution.

 

[slayer202]

perk, sorry man, but you're a clown. the reason you think I'm getting so worked up about this bullshit isn't because I disagree with it, it's because like I've said 10 times and you fail to accept it, atheism doesn't exclude the kind of possibilities you want to leave the door open to. I just think this possibilianism is fucking retarded, because it is. We may one day learn that oprah was the ruler of the world and she sock puppet'd us all without our knowledge. This position is truly stupid and a waste of time. When we learn knew things, we accept them. Until then, why do we have to make up some new ridiculousness to say "anything is possible." it's lame and opposed to what you wish it was, it's unintellectual

also, AGAIN, if we discover some unthinkable seemingly supernatural thing/being, AGAIN, that no intelligent atheist denies 100&#37;, there will be scientific explanations and it won't be some god in the sky. with that, I'm done, because this is one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while

until next time

p.s.
I'm really an alien. Believe it

 

[Arcadio]

I agree with the OP: we can't pretend to know everything.....

The Angry Atheists remind me of 18th century scientists and their "complete and detailed" understanding of the laws of nature....

 

[slayer202]

can we find one famous atheist who claims we know everything or excludes the possibility of finding out something seemingly crazy? keep hammering that lie though. if anyone believes that, clearly they aren't too smart. I doubt there are many people even on crazy ass ATOT that believe that though

 

[alkemyst]

I have thought this way a long time.

Problems you have are the religious are blind to their ways and those that don't believe blind to their ways.

BOTH sides claim science is also at their roots. The problem is most really don't understand the science behind it and will simply believe because it's claimed to be proven.

 

[lxskllr]

rofl. if you edited out the names of yours and malak's posts, I wouldnt be able to tell them apart. that is NOT a good thing

Malak's a bright guy. I don't agree with everything he says, but I like his take on Christianity. If more Christians were like him, I wouldn't have nearly as much problem with them as I do.

As far as the OP goes... I prefer apatheism. None of this is really worth considering outside of mental masturbation. Philosophy can be tiresome anyway, but sometimes a truth can be found, or at least some kind of inner peace for your efforts. There's little to be gained from contemplating religion. Science will reveal truth in due time, OR some being will come down, and tell it like it is. Until that happens, it's all just fruitless guessing.

Btw,, I haven't listened to the speech yet. I don't want to disturb my Sunday morning ritual of listening to WVUD's newage show. The gods would certainly be displeased :^D

 

[slayer202]

I was looking for some richard dawkins text and found this. seems right up your alley perk
http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3936

 

[Malak]

Science will reveal truth in due time, OR some being will come down, and tell it like it is. Until that happens, it's all just fruitless guessing.

Science isn't in the business of revealing God, and someone did come down to tell it like it is. He got murdered for it. The world is not willing to accept it.

 

[dank69]

Alternatively one could entertain the question of why one seeks to dismiss anything in the first place.

I'm not looking to dismiss theories, am still plenty entertained by the pursuit of learning about new ones that I've never heard before.

The downselection process, wherein I begin culling and dismissing theories, is phase two and its scheduled to be my top priority once I'm dead 😉

I'm immensly confident the answer will have then become self-evident post-haste!
...

Perhaps 'dismiss' was not the right word. What I mean is that I wouldn't want to waste time entertaining them.

I haven't read the OP's link yet, but I can understand why a neuroscientist might begin to think this way. The science is in such a state of infancy that I'm sure he feels like a chimpanzee trying to figure out how an internal combustion engine works by poking it with a stick. It would be easy for someone to make the mistake of concluding that because there is so much we don't understand yet that *anything* is possible. Sure, many things are possible that we might think are impossible at this point in time, but does that really mean that everything is possible?

 

[dank69]

Science isn't in the business of revealing God, and someone did come down to tell it like it is. He got murdered for it. The world is not willing to accept it.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Until he comes down and convinces me, I will not waste my time with it. If he does indeed exist and wants to punish me for not believing someone else's stories, he can go ahead and do it. And I will laugh in his face the entire time.