Saying that atheists are "certain" is a strawman. Same as all evidence lead us to think that all religions are silly, same evidence show us that the idea of gods is as silly. Same as we know that the religions were created by ancient peoples with no understanding of the world, we know that the beliefs in gods and etc. are caused by certain mechanisms in our brains, and we know many of these mechanisms quite well these days.
knowledge is infinite, this guy acts as if he knows it all! He is ignorant, modern science can only see what can not be seen by the sixth sense, ie beyound the five senses, mind and intellect. Science does not make anything new, it converts from one form to other, ie destroys one thing to create something, but who created the things that we use!
Well DaylightDigital has the same point, but...Possibilianism IS atheism!! Most atheists are not set on the idea that there is no God of any kind or anything like that. I don't respect this movement because I already think this way as an atheist. In other words, this guy is stealing my thunder!
For most of his rational points, I think Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett would more or less be on the same page. Bitch, please!
Eagleman has a lot of good points, but he does not truly understand what most people mean when they say they are "atheists." Most people who proclaim atheism are "teapot agnostics" (Google it) including Dawkins who he bashes. Eagleman is an atheist but doesn't realize it yet, which is ok. Possibilianism may sound better, but it's really atheism in the common sense. I love intellectual humility, its a staple of good science.
Well, science dont have tools to rule out or in ESP, so let it stay like that: just a possibility and leave it alone for now. Thats why i am a possibilian being too and support the possibilianism cause. Good Job! ;)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation (ICR) Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. ICR scientists have written excellent articles on "Vestigial" Structures, Fossils, Genetics, Mutations, "Junk DNA," Natural Selection, Age of The Earth, Emergence of New Species (but not new genes), etc., etc. Just peruse their articles archive.
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Schools should present both sides! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," and "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully answered them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
It's odd that he sets himself up in opposition to Dawkins et al. He only reiterates what they say at the same time as clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting key aspects of their positions. His knowledge of them seems to come from second hand, religious misrepresentations. Sam Harris would eat this guy whole (Harris has invited him to debate).
I always let the audio roll from TED or other lectures while I'm doing something else on my computer. At about 5min mark, I stopped to come over to watch this one to the end. Not passive open-mindedness but engaged pursuit and flexibility to switch between possible narratives. Wow. And we need to accept that we may not yet even have the pieces necessary to find any overarching answers.
Im an atheist to any religious god. Otherwise I admit its a "possibility" a god may exist, though it does seem un-likely; if this was the case its apparent the god does not wish to be known, or perhaps isn't as powerful as religion has manipulated our imagination to be.
I like the idea that the speed of light is constant, just as Einstein said. However, that is only true for locality like our area of space. Anyplace else, the speed of light could vary. We could use somebody admitting this probability.
Saying that atheists are "certain" is a strawman. Same as all evidence lead us to think that all religions are silly, same evidence show us that the idea of gods is as silly. Same as we know that the religions were created by ancient peoples with no understanding of the world, we know that the beliefs in gods and etc. are caused by certain mechanisms in our brains, and we know many of these mechanisms quite well these days.
nomaed 4 weeks ago
knowledge is infinite, this guy acts as if he knows it all! He is ignorant, modern science can only see what can not be seen by the sixth sense, ie beyound the five senses, mind and intellect. Science does not make anything new, it converts from one form to other, ie destroys one thing to create something, but who created the things that we use!
vaijeet 1 month ago
Well DaylightDigital has the same point, but...Possibilianism IS atheism!! Most atheists are not set on the idea that there is no God of any kind or anything like that. I don't respect this movement because I already think this way as an atheist. In other words, this guy is stealing my thunder!
For most of his rational points, I think Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett would more or less be on the same page. Bitch, please!
GiveCourage 2 months ago
Eagleman has a lot of good points, but he does not truly understand what most people mean when they say they are "atheists." Most people who proclaim atheism are "teapot agnostics" (Google it) including Dawkins who he bashes. Eagleman is an atheist but doesn't realize it yet, which is ok. Possibilianism may sound better, but it's really atheism in the common sense. I love intellectual humility, its a staple of good science.
DaylightDigital 3 months ago
Nothing can be 100% ruled out but things will be more likely than others.
cooperbep3 4 months ago
i agree with some people, you can't really 100% rule out ESP no matter how stupid it sounds, its definitely something to look into.
rloft123 5 months ago
Only 3000 views? Too few for the best ideology of all time.
n0ZzeL 5 months ago 5
Well, science dont have tools to rule out or in ESP, so let it stay like that: just a possibility and leave it alone for now. Thats why i am a possibilian being too and support the possibilianism cause. Good Job! ;)
Blueskyh2o 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation (ICR) Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. ICR scientists have written excellent articles on "Vestigial" Structures, Fossils, Genetics, Mutations, "Junk DNA," Natural Selection, Age of The Earth, Emergence of New Species (but not new genes), etc., etc. Just peruse their articles archive.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Schools should present both sides! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," and "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully answered them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's odd that he sets himself up in opposition to Dawkins et al. He only reiterates what they say at the same time as clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting key aspects of their positions. His knowledge of them seems to come from second hand, religious misrepresentations. Sam Harris would eat this guy whole (Harris has invited him to debate).
geojonny84 6 months ago
This talk is utter nonsense.
geojonny84 6 months ago
I always let the audio roll from TED or other lectures while I'm doing something else on my computer. At about 5min mark, I stopped to come over to watch this one to the end. Not passive open-mindedness but engaged pursuit and flexibility to switch between possible narratives. Wow. And we need to accept that we may not yet even have the pieces necessary to find any overarching answers.
trombone7 6 months ago
"Nobody's fighting over the Greek and Roman panoplies?"
*Challenge accepted*
FOR ZEUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSS
hunterofmammoths 7 months ago
Kudos to PopTech for using a license that allows not only sharing but also remixing, they're a step ahead of TED in this.
keenefreelibrary 8 months ago 2
Im an atheist to any religious god. Otherwise I admit its a "possibility" a god may exist, though it does seem un-likely; if this was the case its apparent the god does not wish to be known, or perhaps isn't as powerful as religion has manipulated our imagination to be.
176smn 8 months ago
I like the idea that the speed of light is constant, just as Einstein said. However, that is only true for locality like our area of space. Anyplace else, the speed of light could vary. We could use somebody admitting this probability.
powergirl901 10 months ago
test
jdp5678 10 months ago
@jdp5678 Success.
carvakan 10 months ago 5