• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New Scientist article.


Forums New posts
I'm with Doctor Eagleman. Possibilian! I like the sound of it. :) Not gonna label myself but that's a positive and I believe in the positive. :)
 
Possibilian? Oh please.

I fail to understand why so many people have such a difficult time understanding and appreciating what being an "atheist" is actually all about. It is absolutely amazing as most people are an "atheist" in regard to every god except their own, whether that is Yahweh, Allah, or some nebulous amorphous private god of their own imagining.

Being an "atheist" does not in any way preclude the review and acceptance of new evidence for the existence of god or gods, should it arise at some future date. Being an "atheist" simply means you have no belief in the gods human beings have thus far claimed to exist or that you have knowledge of. It is just that simple.

Incredibly, more often than not in my experience a "god" is a nebulous undefined and undefinable (by the believer) force or character the believer insists the atheist is being unreasonable not to believe in or at least to grant the possibility of existence to. Where the atheist is simply saying, "I don't know that." and quite possibly, "How could anyone know that?" How can anyone be expected to "believe" in something that the "believer" cannot define to any degree of satisfaction? It's silly really.
 
Dear God (pardon the pun) :rolleyes: I found an article that I thought was interesting. I shared it on a board where there are folks who discuss "possibilites" and it draws fire! I forget sometime that people be they atheist or religious are kind of afraid and "need" to prove their point. Sheeeesh! I don't "care" what an atheist or a dogamatic religous person or even Doctor Eagleman beleives. I found it an intersting and insightful article by a "scientist" and thought I'd share it. I'll run all thoughts by the Politbuo of "free thought" from now on. :p

Scuse me today. Some "stuff" just came up this afternoon (un-related) to this topic. So, I may be a little touchy this PM. :)
 
tyder001 said:
I shared it on a board where there are folks who discuss "possibilites" and it draws fire!
Click to expand...

Well, do you want an uninhibited discussion that may or may not present viewpoints that you do not share or would you just like everyone to nod their heads and grunt?
 
tyder001 said:
This guy is really interesting. I heard an interview once on N.P.R. and he is sharp. Not, suggesting or looking for a guru but I enjoy a fresh perspective.

Beyond God and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian' - opinion - 27 September 2010 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

Good article tyder!! Indeed a fresh perspective.
:)

I like his (Eagleman) thinking on this:
...Take, for example, this decade's books by the new atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Their books are brilliant and insightful, but sometimes feed a widespread misconception that scientists don't have the capacity to gambol around beyond the available data. Some readers walk away from these books with the impression that scientists think they have the big picture solved - if not in detail, at least in outline.
Click to expand...
Science, like religion, is just a tool. It can be used by whoever has the greatest influence, power or money or all of the above. And like religion, insiders are often too scared to voice contrary opinions to the popular for fear of banishment or being labeled as a "heretic" or simply losing their jobs.
A great many of these scientists work for somebody else. If the "somebody else" doesn't want them to reveal information or technology then we never get to see it.
 
The gist of the article that tyder presented covers a view much wider than any arguments about religion or atheism. The comments that Mr Eagleman included in the article which mention these two aspects of society could have been not included without changing the point he was making. If I had written the article, I would not have included comments about religion or atheism; clearly, anyone who has a strong desire to argue about such things would be bound to jump on those parts of the text. By concentrating on those parts of the text, you could in danger of disregarding the point.
 
NNN said:
The gist of the article that tyder presented covers a view much wider than any arguments about religion or atheism. The comments that Mr Eagleman included in the article which mention these two aspects of society could have been not included without changing the point he was making. If I had written the article, I would not have included comments about religion or atheism; clearly, anyone who has a strong desire to argue about such things would be bound to jump on those parts of the text. By concentrating on those parts of the text, you will probably miss the point.
Click to expand...


Have you read Sum? I have to admit I have not gotten a copy but have heard him on some interviews and he is a very interesting person. While I wouldn't and don't subscribe to his worldview hook, line and sinker I do find it interesting. You are right however. He isn't trying to change the minds of people who are happy in their worldview be it Christianity, Atheism or Agnosticism. He's "exploring" (imo) the boundries of his own inner life while sharing (as much as that's possible) the questions and the journey of his readers inner life and what it means to be "human" or a conscious being. Which is of course an impossible endeavor so he has fun with it. He would make a really good guest for the Paracast.
 
As far as I can see from the thrust of Mr Eagleman's article, there are implications across the whole board of scientific thinking and research. And, very much so, including the paranormal.
 
Back
Top