speculawyer
Member
Except that atheists don't have a 'belief' in anything.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Agnostic"
- Thread starter Desperado
- Start date
- Status
Except that atheists don't have a 'belief' in anything.
I'm talking strictly personal views on whether God does or does not exists. I absolutely do not believe religion has any place in politics or in our government.
I should also clarify a couple of points. I don't use the word "gnostic" to represent the class of people called the "Gnostics". I use it as the opposite of an "agnostic". I'm fine with hard/soft. They communicate the same thing as gnostic/agnostic for people who want to be really picky on what gnostic and agnostic technically mean.
Also, I'm talking about my personal experience with "Atheists". In my personal experience with people who consider themselves Atheists very many argue that they are really soft/agnostic atheist. But in their action and words they behave as hard/gnostic atheists declaring that there is no god as a matter of fact - they know there is no god. Almost invariably this manifests itself as anti-religion (usually anti-Christian) propaganda spamming. When I have tried to confront these people on this issue every single one tries to distance themselves from hard/gnostic atheism even if their direct actions and statements contradict that assertion.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Sounds to me like non-belief is an integral part of your belief system.
speculawyer
Member
What if I told you that atheists don't use what you see as a belief system at all to determine their stance?
Angry Fork
Member
Most of the planet is theist though which means they're part of some form of organized religion, and since they're the majority they're going to want laws/rules tailored to what they believe. Especially in the US. It's an unfortunate reality which is why an atheist 'movement' is needed when things get worse and supernatural hysteria remains dominant.
Then we would just start
/derail
First Name
Member
Say Person A makes claim X to Person B. Person B has no reason to either believe or disbelieve claim X. If you asked them if they believed claim X was true they would say "no". If you asked them if the thought claim X was false they would say "no" again because they do not have any compelling reason to choose one hypothesis over another.
If claim X is the existence of gods then you might describe this person as agnostic-- but since they lack the belief that claim x (theism) is true they are also without the beliefs of theism. Lacking a belief is not the same thing as holding an opposite belief.
That goes back to what I said about a definition's usefulness. The definition of atheism as "the lack of belief in gods" is one that most self described atheists would agree describes them. Therefore it's the most useful when discussing people's beliefs.
Are you suggesting a lack of belief is a belief? And this position makes sense to you?
I think that's better than a 3 point scale. You gotta leave room for doubt no matter how unlikely something is, without sticking yourself right in the middle.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Certain in what way? That I believe they definitely existed or didn't? I reject the romantic notion of most mythical Gods, but I am open to the possibility that some legends may have had some basis in reality. Generally speaking though I believe more specific claims are subject to greater scrutiny. Gods with a specific defining feature or that follow some sort of narrative are different than an overarching belief in higher intelligence, for example.
It does indeed. Anything beyond passive observation is belief imo.
None. But they constantly publish obnoxious material on Facebook, and invade forums constantly. Maybe it's different because it might be easier to filter, but it's still proselytizing. On the other hand, in my experience, while hard theists resort to other methods (going door to door or stopping you on the street) it seems like the same thing. And again, while hard atheists may be easier to filter, hard theists are a lot friendlier about it. All in all it seems about the same.
I thought it was clear from an earlier post. But generally, for me
gnostic atheist - does not believe in god and knows that this lack of existence is a fact.
agnostic atheist - does not believe in god, but does not know this as a fact.
agnostic theist - believes in god, but does not know this as a fact.
gnostic theist - believes in god, and knows that this existence is a fact.
Again, this may not be totally proper, but I think it's fairly accurate in practice.
onadesertedisland
Member
I think this stems from an evangelical attempt to rationalize atheism as a competing religion. It confuses me as well. I do not understand the inability to relate the lack of belief in Santa with an atheist's lack of belief in god. There is no malice behind it.
Pollux
Member
Link? To the Tyson rebuking Dawkins thing?
Femmeworth
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik What he says in this video is far more constructive than what he says in the OP video.
I get one of his main points in the clip, I think he dislikes the assumptions people make towards you when you assign yourself a label like atheism. I mean I'm guilty of making assumptions whenever I talk to someone who identifies themselves as atheist, agnostic, christian, muslim etc, and it's the same deal for less personal things like professing yourself as a anime fan, sports fan etc, you always leave yourself open for people to make assumptions towards you when you assign yourself a label to yourself in a sense.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
I would repeat in that case those self avowed atheists may in fact be agnostic. I personally considered myself an atheist until I realized I was agnostic.
You make a valid point. However, the supernatural hysteria is less the religion and more the outside powers that be that control the religion. If Christians in the US actually understood and followed their religion better the US would be one of the most progressive and socially just nations on the planet.
Angry Fork
Member
I'm on Dawkins side. I think Neil's position is only if you're trying to get bible belt people to see the light then you have to be sensitive towards their beliefs. But when it comes to rejection of science I can't be sensitive to people like that. I can try but eventually my blood will boil if someone says evolution is a myth created by Satan.
If Christians followed the bible when it came to rule/law our country would be similar to north korea. The societies that are the most progressive on the planet are the most secular.
Agreed, it is very strange!
You cannot be an atheist OR agnostic. A car is not blue or two wheel drive.
You're both! You just have a misunderstanding of how each word is used. You're clearly not a theist, so you're not a theist. Atheist means you're not a theist and nothing more. You also don't know for sure whether or not there is in fact a god, so you're agnostic on that topic.
I'm quite sure this would be the other way around. The Westboro guys are the most honest hardcore Christians I can think of, though their stance on homosexuality is pretty exaggerated.
I just watched his video. How is there any lack of clarity over his intentions? He picks the agnostic tag because it expresses the most ambivalence over the atheism vs. theism debate; his work doesn't require the substantiation of either side. Literally, neither side needs to be addressed at all and both sides are equally insignificant from his perspective. From a scientific perspective, I'm failing to understand how what he expressed wasn't 100% accurate.
Also, people who are ardently trying to "claim" him seems to be not understanding that what he said has less to do with correct taxonomy and more with the fact that he just doesn't want to associate with people like them, like how some guy that just happens to think there is a god with out too much details behind it may not want to associate with seven-day adventists. This thread is probably a pretty good example of why.
Also, people who are ardently trying to "claim" him seems to be not understanding that what he said has less to do with correct taxonomy and more with the fact that he just doesn't want to associate with people like them, like how some guy that just happens to think there is a god with out too much details behind it may not want to associate with seven-day adventists. This thread is probably a pretty good example of why.
onadesertedisland
Member
This thread reads like 1950s congress trying to circle wagons around communists.
Atheists don't believe in god. That's what it means.
If it scares you, it's your problem. Go believe, atheists won't try to convert you.
Atheists don't believe in god. That's what it means.
If it scares you, it's your problem. Go believe, atheists won't try to convert you.
Mudkips said:
That depends.
Creationists for example make assertions which are contradictory to reality. There is direct (and significant) evidence against a large number of their claims and beliefs.
God, as literally described by the Bible, cannot exist.
Of course, if you pick and choose parts of the Bible as being literal or not, then that is a different story.
Those are both beyond wrong, in the way you're using them.
Atheists are invading the forums! Go to Defcon two!
What do you mean by agnostic? Theist or Atheist agnostic?
Do you live your life thinking the existance of God is unknowable, leading you to follow general rules of conduct on the off chance He exists?
Or do you live your life with the assumption it is unknowable, and you rather live your life as if there weren't any god?
I dont believe there is a god?
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
If it makes a difference to you, I "used to consider myself atheist". Yet somehow I think you knew what I was getting at without the semantics. And btw, a car can be blue. That doesn't mean the car is the mystical embodiment of the spectral phenomenon known as blue.
onadesertedisland
Member
Do you actively believe in the non-existence of unicorns? I don't.
dynamitejim
Member
The idea that you wouldn't call yourself an atheist because of the "baggage" from New-Atheists is absolutely fucking laughable. People call themselves Catholics\Evangelicals\Christians\Muslims with a straight face everyday even with all the heinous things officials and higher ups in those religions and communities have done in the past and all the regressive shit they push even today.
And the idea that the 2 or 3 prominent New-Atheists who are actually aggressive have anywhere near the same negative influence in most peoples lives that the hundreds of backwards religious politicians and rulers of the world have is INSANE. What exactly is the great crime of Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, etc. besides ridiculing the stupider aspects of religious dogma?
As for agnostics and the "we'll never know" BS, how much more do we have to know before we can chalk up the concept of god as basically worthless? What great question is left regarding how we got here that doesn't already have some kind of scientific framework being worked on that is much better than saying "God could have done it"? The evidence for evolution being the mechanism for the divergence and diversity of life on Earth is overwhelming. We have models for how biological life could come from inorganic matter. We even have a good idea as to how the Universe itself formed. What tiny nook is god hiding in that keeps you from saying that you're an Atheist? What concept of god has mankind come up with that seems more likely than the information we've gained about the Universe through science?
And the idea that the 2 or 3 prominent New-Atheists who are actually aggressive have anywhere near the same negative influence in most peoples lives that the hundreds of backwards religious politicians and rulers of the world have is INSANE. What exactly is the great crime of Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, etc. besides ridiculing the stupider aspects of religious dogma?
As for agnostics and the "we'll never know" BS, how much more do we have to know before we can chalk up the concept of god as basically worthless? What great question is left regarding how we got here that doesn't already have some kind of scientific framework being worked on that is much better than saying "God could have done it"? The evidence for evolution being the mechanism for the divergence and diversity of life on Earth is overwhelming. We have models for how biological life could come from inorganic matter. We even have a good idea as to how the Universe itself formed. What tiny nook is god hiding in that keeps you from saying that you're an Atheist? What concept of god has mankind come up with that seems more likely than the information we've gained about the Universe through science?
Femmeworth
Banned
Tyson's point was that if you push too hard, people will push back. That can certainly be counterproductive.
Aliens would be a better comparison since we're dealing with the unknown.
It's not that they think the existence of a god is even remotely likely, it's that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" mean and how to use them.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
I try to lead my life without falling back on any particular assumption about God's existence or lack thereof. I try to remain open and let it reveal itself to me on its own terms.
If it makes a difference to you, I "used to consider myself atheist". Yet somehow I think you knew what I was getting at without the semantics. And btw, a car can be blue. That doesn't mean the car is the mystical embodiment of the spectral phenomenon known as blue.
You are using the terms improperly. If someone asks you if you believe in god, replying "I'm an agnostic" does not answer their question. You've told them what you believe you can know, what knowledge you believe we can have or do have. An agnostic believes we cannot know or simply do not know. It does not offer any answer to a question of belief. You can believe in god and be an agnostic. Again, this would be belief without knowledge, or faith.
You lack a belief in a god existing. That is not a belief.
Angry Fork
Member
Atheist: Accepts there is no evidence or convincing argument for the existence of god.
Agnostic: Accepts there is no evidence or convincing argument for the existence of god, but doesn't call himself atheist because he wants to remain friends with his hot christian co-worker.
Agnostic: Accepts there is no evidence or convincing argument for the existence of god, but doesn't call himself atheist because he wants to remain friends with his hot christian co-worker.
You speak only of knowledge and not of belief. They are to be addressed separately. Do you or do you not believe in a god? Are you a theist? Yes or no. Theist or atheist. There is no in between.
soul creator
Member
I 100% agree with Tyson here. It's why I stopped referring to myself as a black male. People jump to conclusions when I use those labels, so instead of educating people about what the labels really mean, and explaining how their stereotypes are wrong, I'll just pretend like the word no longer applies to me, even if it actually describes me exactly.
If I was gay, I would probably do the same thing, because after all, I'm not an over the top effeminate hairdresser, so the word "gay" obviously wouldn't apply to me.
If I was gay, I would probably do the same thing, because after all, I'm not an over the top effeminate hairdresser, so the word "gay" obviously wouldn't apply to me.
Great, so you are an agnostic theist, becuase you entertain the possibility of a higher power existing!
I think that the notion is ridiculous but, hey, if I had 100% positive proof and it wasn't just a personal hallucination or delusion, then I would be open to change my mind.
and when theists come to your house you just say "I'm not interested" and shut your door. My point is that both hard atheists and theists proselytize alike. Which you find more annoying (if you even find them annoying, personally I don't mind talking to theists because I think it's fun to point out their inconsistencies. Also, I generally use it as an excuse to discuss my personal beliefs about Reality. Usually, they end up being the ones who try to get out of the conversation) is personal taste. But anyway, both behaviors are obnoxious - it's just up to personal preference for which one you tolerate more.
And that could quite possibly be the foundation and thrust of his tenets of belief: It indeed does not offer any answer to a question of belief, and neither does said question of belief matter in the grander scheme of things.
It's kinda weird how many people who profess to be rational or free thinkers can't grasp this concept.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. It is an open question.
If that's your criteria, why would I not be an agnostic atheist? Because I would just as quickly entertain the possibility of no higher power as I would the possibility of one. And yet, here I am confident to say I have no fucking clue either way.
SirChained
Banned
Unicorns are known? What evidence do you have that unicorns don't exist?
oneils
Member
You don't need proof for a negative existential claim. Those making an existential claim are the ones who need proof or evidence.
You just nope'd your way right out of the English language. Sorry dude, but the limbo you're in no longer has an exit. Best of luck to you.
See how by answering, you effectively changed the question? I'll let you try again if you want. Are you a theist? Yes or no.
- Status