Ruling out the illogical ideaologies of traditional religions and also ruling out the certainty of atheism, in favour of there being no significant difference between the amount of information we have of how the universe began and no information at all... Discuss!
Why do you prefer evangelistic anti-religionism? Surely you must choose rationalized probability over anything else. Tell me more please...
Yes I am sure I understand what atheism is. However I am not sure that there are variations, it has a definition of course. You mention or infact you list the criteria for 'your atheism'. I think what you have listed is more of a definition of scientific method or practice but to vage at that, which is all very well and good but this isn't atheism. Atheism is quite simply the absence of a god or creator, which is certain, regardless of how you look at it, this is also not falsifiable as of course we have no idea how the universe came to be. Therefore like the statement says it should be ruled out due to it's certainty.
I see your point about having a 'to do' list due to the lack of evidence etc... And yes I agree we have a very large list of things to do, and of course we need to tick a lot of those boxes before we can concider how the universe began. This is in contrast to atheism (no god/creator) and leaves only possibilities. Concidering the amount of stuff on that list i.e the amount of information we haven't got, we must concider that to philosophies (yes this is in the philosophy catergory) as to how the universe came to be, we have to go with; anything and all is possible, hence possibilianism.
Whether you find it an uninteresting or recursive question to answer is irrelavent here as the question is whether atheism or possibilianism is the most logical philosophy to undertake, and like I have mentioned possibilianism rules out atheism (real atheism of course, not your personal version). You say you "believe" atheism means this - (your criteria), but belief is implying what? Why did you use the word belief? I don't want to insult you, but I think you should look up the words 'atheism' and 'believe' in a dictionary...
Oh and yes I know all about theists side stepping, they have no other option if they want to continue to be theists.
This doesn't add anything to your argument. A is a result of B, but neither of these definitions are anywhere near your definition. These are a concideration of scientific fact being actual fact or not. A difference between the weight of evidence. You are way off the mark here mate, and maybe if you had looked up 'believe' in the dictionary you would have spelt it right. Sorry that was a low blow, but seriously you're not adding anything to what you have already said by stating these to very similar definitions, as oppossed to your very longwinded and very different one.
Come on what kind of answer is that? I prefer it because I prefer it... Ok so you say evangelistic anti-religionism is a practical tool in the pursuit of anti-religonism, I'm not convinced as to how practical this tool is. Will you give me an example where it has been used as such? Also if it's not an abstract concept like possibilianism why are you comparing it to possibilianism i.e using it instead of. Why did you mention it at all? My discussion topic is possibilianism.
You are of course right about my wording, I shouldn't tell you what you must do. I wrote this part under the assumption that you are a rational man who uses probability to come to his conlusions, and I used "surely you must use rationalized probability over anything else" as an assumption of common ground that we could build on, not as a command, I thought you would have realised this.
You're right I don't want to sound like an intellectual bully, but I do want to know athiestic opinions on possibilianism. I would like to know yours. I would like to know this as i presume that athiests use logic and reasoning to understand the world around them, which begs the question; why aren't athiests possibilianists?
The modern term atheist encompasses what you are defining as "possibilian." Basically, it is the scientific idea you can't prove a negative. It's the same concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't prove there isn't some bowl of noodles in the sky controlling everything on earth, so it is possible it IS there.
Ask most skeptics - James Randi, Michael Shermer, Steve Novella, et al, and they will tell you that they cannot for certain say that god does not exist. What they can say there is no evidence for god and that there is no test for god's existence, thus we must say that there is no god. Thereby, that make them an atheist. We cannot say god doesn't exist, because we cannot test for god not existing.
Here's the bigger point - we won't know until we get there - either we die and we are dirt or we die and we go to some magical place. We have no way to know. There has been no way to test this scientifically. Everything we know about "out of body" experiences can be explained by science. There is nothing magical about them.
I won't begrudge Eagleman the term by which he calls himself, but I don't really see anything remarkable or distinct in Possibilianism, so I don't really have a reason to use the term myself.
I wouldn't qualify as a Possibilian anyway. If someone says that a phenomenon is possible, I expect them to be able to provide some sort of model by which that phenomenon can occur, or evidence for its existence. It doesn't entirely matter if that model is imperfect or incomplete as long as there is positive evidence for pursuing it. I think it's meaningless to label anything as 'possible' on the basis that it cannot be, or has not been proven not possible.
It's a bit like saying that a person should be considered in my office until it is proven that they are not in my office. By that standard, I should consider there to be potentially somewhere in excess of six billion people in my office, hypothetically speaking, because I'm not able to disprove each of their individual presences. We don't operate that way, however. It's grossly impractical.
When we're talking about things that range too far beyond human ken, I'm okay with saying 'I don't know" when that's the honest truth. That's not to say that I am unwilling to think beyond that barrier; I just wouldn't mischaracterize such thinking as entertaining legitimate possibilities when, in reality, it's purely speculation.
That is exactly the point of possibilianism. We cannot be absolutly certain of anything which is why atheism (certainty that there is no creator of any kind) is redundant. We are obviously not talking about a man with a beard floating in the clouds... But the idea that we (our universe) was created by something other than natural processes is of course possible, you make this point clear yourself. Atheisim rules this out with certainty, the word itself at its basic of meanings simply states; without a creator. Therefore the term, the idealogy of atheism is bettered by possibilianism. We know so little that all is possible...