Support NeoGAF

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Gaborn said:
I think people become too invested in labels. It's like people that have a desire to label sexuality or gender in a binary (or even trinary) way. People identify in ways that are not always commensurate with the precise meaning of language and they do so in a way that is often commonly understood even though it is not technically correct. That is, it is "correct" in the sense of common usage, it is just not correct in the literal meaning of words. It's like someone saying "But I don't fear gays, so I'm not a homophobe!" (Using that example because of course you absolutely are NOT that) Simply allow people to label themselves and stop trying to box people into a particular niche.

The issue is when you give people too much leeway, it leads to misunderstanding. It's important to nail down these sorts of things when you go into debates, and it's important to establish a framework we can all work in at the same time. Working with many different frameworks and trying to interact is cumbersome.

How often to self-described agnostics go into threads where Atheism/Religion is an issue and say "I'm not an Atheist, I am agnostic - I don't pretend to know whether or not there is a God, so I don't give God any value unless evidence is presented to me that sways me".

They lord this position over Atheists, as though this is fundamentally different than what Atheists believe - when in fact, more often than not, this is the exact same thing atheists believe. Removing this barrier of division is important to me, on an ethical level and on a cathartic level - it's really a nice feeling seeing people realize that this wall they create is unnecessary.

Also, so many people just don't want to be atheists because of the baggage that comes with it, and I can appreciate that - but as soon as you start making value claims about atheism, then all bets are off.

mannerbot said:
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities in general, not lack of belief in a specific god (no religious preference?). As such, an atheist may acknowledge that it is impossible to be absolutely certain that there is no god, but thinks it very improbable and lives on the assumption that there is not one.

Did I say something different? That sounds snarky, but I am curious if I came off wrong.

Cynosure · Apr 30, 2012

Theism is the belief of God(s), atheism is the belief that there isn't God(s), and agnosticism is neither or in between the two beliefs.

But then you have atheists hijacking agnosticism and complicating simple terminology.

Gnostic-atheist, gnostic-theist...nonsense.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
There is no incorrect.

The word atheism was coined to define those who had rejected a god

That's like saying "asexual" animals are those who have rejected sexual reproduction. No, the word simply means they lack sexual reproduction.

Atheism means a lack of belief in god.

It is not the affirmative belief that there is no god.

SoulPlaya · Apr 30, 2012

Lionel Mandrake said:
See, I don't. I find reading about science kind of daunting. I'm an average guy, who is interested in science, but is not passionate for it. My stance is probably much more common than yours is. So, for me and others like me, Tyson's great.

Yeah, I think my issue is not Tyson himself, but people tend to give him a lot more credit than he deserves. I just wish people would give others a chance too.

Blair · Apr 30, 2012

The atheism subreddit loves this man. Hopefully they shut down that shit pile over this revelation.

weekend_warrior · Apr 30, 2012

100% agree. Everything Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaks is truth.

RevDM · Apr 30, 2012

This guy is so damn intelligent.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
There is no incorrect.

The word atheism was coined to define those who had rejected a god, its accepted meaning in philosophy (which many authors are basis and exemples for the modern atheists) is the active rejection of the idea of a god, and that is pretty much why agnostic term was coined. There is a separation between agnosticism and atheism as there is a separation between atheism and ignorance on the subject.
But if you feel that this new definition is better, feel free to use it, but to say the normative philosophical use (and initial definition) as wrong or incorrect, is ignorant.

Are you honestly trying to create a defacto philosophical framework simply because it was the 'first' one? More so, are you trying to say that you can for sure say that more philosophical big hitters adhere to your definition than to mine? How can you come to that conclusion?

My definition, on it's core merit - stands true, if you want to debate that - feel free. But don't try throw any appeals ad populum my way.

Gentleman Jack · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
Yeah, I think my issue is not Tyson himself, but people tend to give him a lot more credit than he deserves. I just wish people would give others a chance too.

Did people give Carl Sagan or Bill Nye too much credit? Charismatic scientists with an enthusiasm for enlightening the public are easy to love. It's not undue and the scientific community could do well for some more rockstars.

Swig_ · Apr 30, 2012

I basically have the same stance as him. The only part that I would add is that while I think that it is arrogant for theists to assume that there is a god or gods without any evidence whatsoever, I also believe in the converse. I think it is arrogant for someone to say that they know for sure that there is not a god or gods. Sure, logic leads to to one avenue being more probable than the other, but I don't know that for sure so I'm not going to assume that I know.

antonz · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
At least, I hope his religious views (or lack thereof) isn't why the Internet seems to love him. From this video, it doesn't seem like the guy cares about the subject (for or against it).

Nah he is just a very bright mind and advocate for Space study etc.

Zeliard · Apr 30, 2012

Salvor.Hardin said:
But more importantly, he uses his friends' activist atheism to build a point after he clearly points out that using an -ism, especially one which is as meaningless as the lack of belief in something, to box people for the benefit of their own pre-conceived notions is a rather unintelligent thing to do.

That's his point - that by labeling yourself, you are leading others to categorize you in a certain fashion. He isn't saying that coming to a certain notion about someone who's labeled themselves is a silly thing to do, but that labeling yourself in the first place is what naturally causes that to happen, so he is hesitant to do it about himself.

SoulPlaya · Apr 30, 2012

I love how people are still trying to claim him as an Atheist, despite him rejecting that title, lol.

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
Yeah, I think my issue is not Tyson himself, but people tend to give him a lot more credit than he deserves. I just wish people would give others a chance too.

Tyson doesn't get the press because he's necessarily the best scientist though. Most of the 'others' if given a chance wouldn't be as good as him at what he does.

He's basically this gen's Carl Sagan.

RevDM · Apr 30, 2012

Non-Golfers-Alliance is now a thing.

Nogols Unite!

Mgoblue201 · Apr 30, 2012

BocoDragon said:
That's like saying "asexual" animals are those who have rejected sexual reproduction. No, the word simply means they lack sexual reproduction.

Atheism means a lack of belief in god.

It is not the affirmative belief that there is no god.

If I am understanding his stance correctly, rejecting god is not the same as having an affirmative belief that there is no god. In fact, I can reject god and believe nothing in its absence. It seems to me that the difference between your language and his language is that your language is passive, whereas his language is active. In other words, do you actually have to consciously reject the idea of god to be an atheist, or are you just automatically an atheist if you don't believe in god? At least that is my interpretation of the argument.

Kai Dracon · Apr 30, 2012

Another thing, one may be offended at his characterization of self-labeled atheists, but... Tyson is not a stupid or ignorant man, nor given to hyperbole (except in humor). If you're annoyed that he defines atheists as these kinds of annoying crusaders, maybe it's worth considering how many atheists actually make atheism their crusade.

Whether people like it or not, there are quite a few public, vocal atheists who come across with the attitude of "come on now we've just GOT to do something about this religion thing, it's time to clean house". And you don't always have to read between the lines to identify that attitude.

By contrast, Tyson seems to advocate starting at the bottom and focusing on teaching people how to think and examine the natural world and turning them loose.

In my experience with a lot of people (and a lot of vocal, sometimes strident atheists), that's not good enough for some. For some, it's all-out war against "the wrong ideas". Not just the "wrong ideas" that may actually affect everyone, but anyone, anywhere, ever entertaining a thought that isn't grounded in a particular definition of logical positivism.

And here's something to bear in mind; Tyson is a professional who deals with quite a lot of rationalists, atheists, and scientists on a daily basis. Not just the average "I like Richard Dawkins!" college student on message boards. More than once, I have heard of exasperation with people in those circles who are just plain pricks about their grasp of rationality, and do think they're better than other people because of a label they conflate with the definition of science itself.

Edit: folks are also stumbling over the difference between agnostic and atheist in the formal sense, but the problem there is that the atheist label seems to be fast becoming shorthand for "I actively deny god, gods, the supernatural, anything not currently within the realm of accepted science, and advocate that any belief systems that incorporates these elements, even if metaphorically, is inherently bad and likely damaging."

And that's not just from critics trying to paint atheists in a negative light. That kind of usage comes from a fair number of people who wear the label with pride.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Cynosure said:
Theism is the belief of God(s), atheism is the belief that there isn't God(s), and agnosticism is neither or in between the two beliefs.

But then you have atheists hijacking agnosticism and complicating simple terminology.

Gnostic-atheist, gnostic-theist...nonsense.

Agnosticism isn't necessary a belief on God - saying that you are agnostic isn't being specific about anything, you can be agnostic about anything - not just god, it is just most popularly assigned to religion.

Thus defining what you are agnostic about is a clarification, not a complication.

A/gnosticism - whether or not something can be known
A/theism - whether or not a belief in God is held
Agnostic Atheism - no belief in God is held, and that is specifically because you feel it cannot be known.

Mgoblue201 said:
If I am understanding his stance correctly, rejecting god is not the same as having an affirmative belief that there is no god. In fact, I can reject god and believe nothing in its absence. It seems to me that the difference between your language and his language is that your language is passive, whereas his language is active. In other words, do you actually have to consciously reject the idea of god to be an atheist, or are you just automatically an atheist if you don't believe in god? At least that is my interpretation of the argument.

That normally is his argument, and going by pure definition - I would say there is no requirement for atheism, you can be an atheist for any reason - the same way with theism - when you say someone is a theist, you don't automatically think he decided on that path because he rejected the alternative (atheism).

Further, trying to create that divide with such an insignificant margin screams of someone trying desperately not to fall into the atheist pool. Do you really want your ONE significant distinction between atheism and agnosticism to be so flimsy?

SoulPlaya · Apr 30, 2012

Gentleman Jack said:
Did people give Carl Sagan or Bill Nye too much credit? Charismatic scientists with an enthusiasm for enlightening the public are easy to love. It's not undue and the scientific community could do well for some more rockstars.

I'm not knocking him, I just wish people would start with him, and expand themselves and realize there are plenty of great guys in the Physics community like him.

Gaborn · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
The issue is when you give people too much leeway, it leads to misunderstanding. It's important to nail down these sorts of things when you go into debates, and it's important to establish a framework we can all work in at the same time. Working with many different frameworks and trying to interact is cumbersome.

How often to self-described agnostics go into threads where Atheism/Religion is an issue and say "I'm not an Atheist, I am agnostic - I don't pretend to know whether or not there is a God, so I don't give God any value unless evidence is presented to me that sways me".

They lord this position over Atheists, as though this is fundamentally different than what Atheists believe - when in fact, more often than not, this is the exact same thing atheists believe. Removing this barrier of division is important to me, on an ethical level and on a cathartic level - it's really a nice feeling seeing people realize that this wall they create is unnecessary.

But we aren't talking about a debate like that. The man is discussing his personal religious views, he's not trying to argue with you or anyone else, and I think it's unfair to say he's NOT nailing down his views very articulately. I completely understood where he was coming from. You are only inserting your personal desire that he identify as an atheist, there is no possible difference that it could make that Neil DeGrasse Tyson prefers to be called an agnostic because he does not know whether there is a God or not.

Also, so many people just don't want to be atheists because of the baggage that comes with it, and I can appreciate that - but as soon as you start making value claims about atheism, then all bets are off.

He wasn't making a value claim in a broader context, he was talking about how he self identified. If Pat Robertson said that Mormons are not Christians because they don't follow and accept just the Bible as the true word of God should he have the right to refuse to allow a Mormon to identify as a Christian? No one should have the right to tell Neil DeGrasse Tyson or anyone else how they personally define their beliefs in their own mind, and that's what you're doing. You are saying that because you don't like his definition of agnostic he must use your definition of atheist.

Future · Apr 30, 2012

Spoken more eloquently than I could ever put it. His thoughts mirror my own exactly. I don't really believe in god, but not willing to go through any length of time to defend that viewpoint because I could be wrong. I don't think any negative thoughts for those that are hardcore religious or atheists, and only get annoyed by those that try to push a particular belief onto me.

I'd also fear being called an atheist because unfortunately that term does carry baggage. I doubt I fit the description that most would put on a self proclaimed atheist, even though I don't necessarily believe in god.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
I love how people are still trying to claim him as an Atheist, despite him rejecting that title, lol.

I dunno... if someone said "I'm not a racist", you could still have that debate over whether they are racist, right?

So he doesn't self-identify as an atheist... That's ok. But I think that's not in line with the definition of the word. I think he lacks an affirmative belief that there is a god, and that makes him an atheist, regardless of whether or not he thinks so.

Ultimately these words are invented things, so it really doesn't matter, but if we're having the debate: under my understanding of the word atheist, he likely is one.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Apr 30, 2012

Agree with him on all terms completely. Every religion or non-religion has activists, whether its on the streets or on the web. Agnostics are the only ones I've seen who are open to ideas and don't post theirs that freely and radically as others, and I admire them for that.

Korey · Apr 30, 2012

I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, unicorns, and leprechauns then I guess

Someone should ask him his opinion on those things. Because it's literally the same thing.

Unregistered007 · Apr 30, 2012

I respect his thoughts and he explains very well.

A few weeks ago I had a one sided conversation with an atheist.

He presented himself as the new pioneer of the world and almost started yelling at me for being a Muslim and believing in something.

Sophia · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
I love how people are still trying to claim him as an Atheist, despite him rejecting that title, lol.

He doesn't seem to discuss it much, but from various videos his viewpoint seem to jump all around Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, and Agnosticism. The only outright consistent variable in his viewpoint is that he rejects most modern religions in favor of critical thinking.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

Mgoblue201 said:
If I am understanding his stance correctly, rejecting god is not the same as having an affirmative belief that there is no god. In fact, I can reject god and believe nothing in its absence. It seems to me that the difference between your language and his language is that your language is passive, whereas his language is active. In other words, do you actually have to consciously reject the idea of god to be an atheist, or are you just automatically an atheist if you don't believe in god? At least that is my interpretation of the argument.

That sounds about right.

If you think the definition of atheist is: "Someone who affirmatively believes that there is no god", then Tyson is not an atheist. And incidentally, neither am I.

If you think the definition of atheist is: "Someone who lacks an affirmative belief that there is a god", then Tyson is an atheist whether he beleves so or not (or publically states so). And so am I.

SoulPlaya · Apr 30, 2012

Marrshu said:
He doesn't seem to discuss it much, but from various videos his viewpoint seem to jump all around Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, and Agnosticism. The only outright consistent variable in his viewpoint is that he rejects most modern religions in favor of critical thinking.

If he's jumping around, then all that means is what he's been saying, he just doesn't seem to care. If that's the case, I don't think it's fair for Atheists to claim him, especially when he is actively rejecting that claim.

Future · Apr 30, 2012

Korey said:
I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, unicorns, and leprechauns then I guess

Someone should ask him his opinion on those things. Because it's literally the same thing.

Not even close to the same thing. Those are known and proven fabrications. There is no way to prove or disprove a higher power, and being agnostic means you acknowledge this and take no side.

ElectricBlue187 · Apr 30, 2012

Korey said:
I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, unicorns, and leprechauns then I guess

Someone should ask him his opinion on those things. Because it's literally the same thing.

would you say you were aleprechaunist?

cutmeamango · Apr 30, 2012

BocoDragon said:
That's like saying "asexual" animals are those who have rejected sexual reproduction. No, the word simply means they lack sexual reproduction.

Atheism means a lack of belief in god.

It is not the affirmative belief that there is no god.

You'd have to use that mophological definition argument with the greeks and question why didn't they used a more suited prefix if they meant to say "that who denied god". Or with all the others that followed that use of the word.

Kinitari said:
Are you honestly trying to create a defacto philosophical framework simply because it was the 'first' one? More so, are you trying to say that you can for sure say that more philosophical big hitters adhere to your definition than to mine? How can you come to that conclusion?

My definition, on it's core merit - stands true, if you want to debate that - feel free. But don't try throw any appeals ad populum my way.

Are you nuts? You were the one pointing incorrectos.
But I can say more philosophical big hitters adhere to the usual philosophical definition, yes. Specially since the first outspoken atheism thinkers worked by that definition.

And I said:
"But if you feel that this new definition is better, feel free to use it".

Sophia · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
If he's jumping around, then all that means is what he's been saying, he just doesn't seem to care. If that's the case, I don't think it's fair for Atheists to claim him, especially when he is actively rejecting that claim.

Right. He'd rather get people thinking about it in the first place than argue the specifics. I can understand why; Some people go to the extreme, religious or not.

mannerbot · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
Did I say something different? That sounds snarky, but I am curious if I came off wrong.

IMO yes. To me an agnostic sees the existence of gods as unknowable. Atheism, on the other hand, is more a Russell's teapot thing -- that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. While an atheist doesn't claim special knowledge the way a religious fundamentalist does, the complete lack of evidence for a deity of any kind and the discovery of plausible natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations for what were once considered divine mysteries/miracles makes it very improbable that there are deities of any kind. To an atheist, the reason that it's impossible to disprove the existence of god isn't because divine knowledge is by its nature unknowable, as an agnostic theist would believe; instead, it's because the burden of proof lies on people who assert that there is a God, or gods. You can no more disprove the existence of gods than you can disprove the existence of a tiny undetectable teapot revolving around the sun between Earth and Mars, or the existence of an invisible undetectable dragon living in someone's garage. Not because there's any real chance that these things exist, but because their existence is asserted without any proof.

GrotesqueBeauty · Apr 30, 2012

Gentleman Jack said:
Did people give Carl Sagan or Bill Nye too much credit? Charismatic scientists with an enthusiasm for enlightening the public are easy to love. It's not undue and the scientific community could do well for some more rockstars.

I don't know about Bill Nye, but yes, I think there's a wide swath of people who give Carl Sagan too much credit in the same way many give too much weight to what Neil DeGrasse Tyson says. That's not a knock on the messenger though. I think Sagan was a very bright and insightful guy. Tyson is has some interesting things to say as well. I just don't like when these guys are treated as if they were oracles.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Gaborn said:
But we aren't talking about a debate like that. The man is discussing his personal religious views, he's not trying to argue with you or anyone else, and I think it's unfair to say he's NOT nailing down his views very articulately. I completely understood where he was coming from. You are only inserting your personal desire that he identify as an atheist, there is no possible difference that it could make that Neil DeGrasse Tyson prefers to be called an agnostic because he does not know whether there is a God or not.

He wasn't making a value claim in a broader context, he was talking about how he self identified. If Pat Robertson said that Mormons are not Christians because they don't follow and accept just the Bible as the true word of God should he have the right to refuse to allow a Mormon to identify as a Christian? No one should have the right to tell Neil DeGrasse Tyson or anyone else how they personally define their beliefs in their own mind, and that's what you're doing. You are saying that because you don't like his definition of agnostic he must use your definition of atheist.

It has nothing to do with trying to make Neil Degrasse uncomfortable, and has everything to do with trying to communicate clearly with those around me. If someone asks Neil DeGrasse why atheism and agnosticism is different, and he says "agnosticism is different than atheism because the atheists I know are loud" - then this is a poor argument. I don't even really understand what he is trying to say other than "I don't want to be called an Atheist". If he said "Atheism and Agnosticism is essentially defined as the same thing, but I prefer to be called an Agnostic because it comes with different/better baggage" - I would have no issue with that claim, I would understand him entirely.

Right now Neil DeGrasse is on the public stage proclaiming some things about what he prefers to be labelled as, and normally I would never give him guff for that and let him feel comfortable - but this just further gives ammunition to those Agnostics who want to create that divide between Atheism and themselves, and I would rather quash that before it becomes something I continuously have to debate.

teruterubozu · Apr 30, 2012

"we have a badass over here" gif can be a little smarmy at times.

Gaborn · Apr 30, 2012

Korey said:
I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, unicorns, and leprechauns then I guess

Someone should ask him his opinion on those things. Because it's literally the same thing.

Although I find it hard to believe anyone would bother getting upset arguing with someone who believed in these things.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
You'd have to use that mophological definition argument with the greeks and question why didn't they used a more suited prefix if they meant to say "that who denied god". Or with all the others that followed that use of the word.

I'm sure that even back then, the argument was as over simplified by many observers as it is today. "The camp that lacks belief is the same as the camp that argues against belief"

But built right into the construction of the words is the meaning:

theist: "someone who has the belief "there is a god'".

a-theist: "someone who lacks the belief 'there is a god'".

The correct word to describe "someone who argues against the belief 'there is a god" would be anti-theist.

Mumei · Apr 30, 2012

Raistlin said:
If you listen to the beginning though, he describes how he feels about god ... and it does show the difference.

I don't think it does. His position is no different than mine, really. He sounds like an agnostic atheist; he just chooses to identify as agnostic because he wants to avoid conflict and baggage associated with the label of atheism.

Korey · Apr 30, 2012

Future said:
Not even close to the same thing. Those are known and proven fabrications. There is no way to prove or disprove a higher power, and being agnostic means you acknowledge this and take no side.

Prove unicorns are a fabrication. Also I heard through the grapevine that Harry Potter is loosely based on a real wizard named Larry Dotter, prove Larry Dotter isn't real.

You can't, you say? I guess you're agnostic then!

KingK · Apr 30, 2012

Alfarif said:
And to people saying atheist and agnostic are the same thing, they aren't. An atheist actively believes that there is no higher power in any shape, way, or form, while an agnostic won't assign a yes or a no to it nor a name to it because we understand that, at least right this second, we have no way of knowing whether there is or isn't.

That is factually false. An atheist lacks any belief in a higher power. That is not the same as asserting that there is definitely no higher power.

Not all atheists are jackasses, and I don't think it's fair that people have to label themselves as agnostic rather than atheist just to avoid being assumed to be a jackass.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

mannerbot said:
IMO yes. To me an agnostic sees the existence of gods as unknowable. Atheism, on the other hand, is more a Russell's teapot thing -- that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. While an atheist doesn't claim special knowledge the way a religious fundamentalist does, the complete lack of evidence for a deity of any kind and the discovery of plausible natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations for what were once considered divine mysteries/miracles makes it very improbable that there are deities of any kind. To an atheist, the reason that it's impossible to disprove the existence of god isn't because divine knowledge is by its nature unknowable, as an agnostic theist would believe; instead, it's because the burden of proof lies on people who assert that there is a God, or gods. You can no more disprove the existence of gods than you can disprove the existence of a tiny undetectable teapot revolving around the sun between Earth and Mars, or the existence of an invisible undetectable dragon living in someone's garage. Not because there's any real chance that these things exist, but because their existence is asserted without any proof.

The russel teapot example is an Agnostic atheist - Atheism alone doesn't necessarily carry any baggage. It just means whatever thing that we are calling atheist does not have a belief in God. This, by DeGrasse's own definition is entirely accurate. You can, for example, be an Atheist and believe in homeopathy or magic - being an Atheist doesn't mean that you value evidence, it just means you don't actively believe in the existence of a God - it's that simple.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

Mumei said:
I don't think it does. His position is no different than mine, really. He sounds like an agnostic atheist; he just chooses to identify as agnostic because he wants to avoid conflict and baggage associated with the label of atheism.

The interesting thing is that clearly, based on this thread, "agnosticism" has its own baggage.

The position he's leaning toward, but slightly misses the mark by ultimately choosing "agnosticism", is by not labelling yourself as anything at all

But it's all just marketing/sophistry, at this point

SirChained · Apr 30, 2012

SoulPlaya said:
If he's jumping around, then all that means is what he's been saying, he just doesn't seem to care. If that's the case, I don't think it's fair for Atheists to claim him, especially when he is actively rejecting that claim.

The lack of a belief in a deity is atheism to many people.

Hobbestetrician · Apr 30, 2012

I'm confused, isn't he grouping all atheists under the '-ism' they identify with and all the preconceived notions that suffix brings with it just like he was rallying against at the beginning, thereby disallowing an open conversation with them that he claims to want?

Edit: looks like this was addressed on the previous page, still think its weird.

speculawyer · Apr 30, 2012

He's just being a pussy trying to get the biggest audience possible for himself.

Gaborn · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
It has nothing to do with trying to make Neil Degrasse uncomfortable, and has everything to do with trying to communicate clearly with those around me. If someone asks Neil DeGrasse why atheism and agnosticism is different, and he says "agnosticism is different than atheism because the atheists I know are loud" - then this is a poor argument. I don't even really understand what he is trying to say other than "I don't want to be called an Atheist". If he said "Atheism and Agnosticism is essentially defined as the same thing, but I prefer to be called an Agnostic because it comes with different/better baggage" - I would have no issue with that claim, I would understand him entirely.

Right now Neil DeGrasse is on the public stage proclaiming some things about what he prefers to be labelled as, and normally I would never give him guff for that and let him feel comfortable - but this just further gives ammunition to those Agnostics who want to create that divide between Atheism and themselves, and I would rather quash that before it becomes something I continuously have to debate.

That isn't what he's arguing though. NDT (shortened since I'm tired of typing his name) is saying that agnostic has it's roots in "gnosis" or, "knowledge"

according to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

By contrast:

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

What NDT said in the video is ENTIRELY more consistent with agnosticism than with atheism, at least as Merriam-Webster sees it.

Noirulus · Apr 30, 2012

BocoDragon said:
I'm sure that even back then, the argument was as over simplified by many observers as it is today. "The camp that lacks belief is the same as the camp that argues against belief"

But built right into the construction of the words is the meaning:

theist: "someone who has the belief "there is a god'".

a-theist: "someone who lacks the belief 'there is a god'".

The correct word to describe "someone who argues against the belief 'there is a god" would be anti-theist.

I agree with this definition. The "not believing" part doesn't mean i'm actively fighting against the belief that there is a god, just that there is no sufficient proof for me to believe in the existence of a higher being.

sangreal · Apr 30, 2012

Debating about the origins of the word, or the root words that make up the word seems pretty pointless. The meaning of words change over time, and the only definition that matters is what the person you're talking to will take a word to mean. Awful should mean 'full of awe' but who cares? Today, people associate the term atheist with an organized atheism movement that he does not consider himself to be a part of

Anyways, I'm pretty sure if you picked any number of random people and asked the difference between agnostic and atheist that the majority of people capable of answering would suggest atheists actively deny the existence of a god.

thesoapster · Apr 30, 2012

I have pretty similar viewpoints to him. I try to keep peace with believers and try not to get into it too much. That said, I am best described as an agnostic atheist.

Support NeoGAF

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Agnostic"

Black Canada Mafia

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

more money than God

Banned

Banned

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Member

Member

Member

Member

more money than God

Post Count: 9999

Banned

Won't stop picking the right nation

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony

Black Canada Mafia

more money than God

Member

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

more money than God

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Member

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Member

Member

Black Canada Mafia

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads