[BocoDragon]

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?

Quite right.

As an aside.... The most audience-ingratiating answer to "Is there a god" was stated in the mythology of the Buddha. As the story goes, when asked that question, he said nothing at all. It was an attractive, subversive answer to those who were believers, those who were non-believers, and those who toe the line of either side. To this day there are people who think that answer made him an atheist, or a theist, or was some kind of deeper riddle or something to reorient the listener's mind. I think he just wanted to cut through the bullshit so people of all types might listen to his ideas :P

[Kinitari]

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

He also goes on to say that Atheism isn't even really an accurate label - as anyone who does not golf isn't an a-golfist - using his example. Thus, by his own admission, unless he believes in a God, he is an Atheist.

In the video, he does address the "they are different" point, but he does it poorly - just go exactly to the 2:20 part. He defines atheist as this big monolithic thing, and then right after that he says atheism in itself isn't significant.

He just really doesn't want to be called an Atheist, and that's fine! I won't go up to people and say "NDG is an Atheist!" - but if someone wants to talk to me about what to describe NDS as? I would say Agnostic Atheist - because while as much as I appreciate his wishes, I would much rather remain consistent in my own arguments.

Also, how do you reside between belief and disbelief? How do you half-believe something? Also -

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Dictionaries probably try not to get caught up in the philosophy, so they generally have both 'definitions' available.

[Air]

I love the guy. This isn't the first time he's said this, and it is funny to me how hard people go to classify him.

[mannerbot]

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.

Well, obviously people will have different definitions and this is where all of these arbitrary distinctions come from. Here's the dictionary definition of atheist: one who believes that there is no deity. You are right, though, that atheism simply means lack of belief in deities, and doesn't encompass logical thinking or anything else of the sort.

He also goes on to say that Atheism isn't even really an accurate label - as anyone who does not golf isn't an a-golfist - using his example. Thus, by his own admission, unless he believes in a God, he is an Atheist. In the video, he does address the "they are different" point, but he does it poorly - just go exactly to the 2:20 part. He defines atheist as this big monolithic thing, and then right after that he says atheism in itself isn't significant. He just really doesn't want to be called an Atheist, and that's fine! I won't go up to people and say "NDG is an Atheist!" - but if someone wants to talk to me about what to describe NDS as? I would say Agnostic Atheist - because while as much as I appreciate his wishes, I would much rather remain consistent in my own arguments. Also, how do you reside between belief and disbelief? How do you half-believe something?

Yeah, I agree that Neil deGrasse Tyson just doesn't want to be labeled.

[xbhaskarx]

One would imagine anybody who understood the implications of the scientific method would be agnostic.

.

[PhoenixPause]

Good to hear Tyson with a reasonable position on the issue. I'm so tired of aggressive atheists, regardless of me agreeing with them on many basic things. It's not constructive, and many just come off as assholes

[Raistlin]

I don't like it when agnosticism is reduced to "eh, whatevs".

But isn't that how most modern agnostics feel?

Historically there were the agnostic philosophers who took great pains to 'prove' how it's unknown or unknowable, but I think by and large most modern agnostics have decided they don't know since there's no evidence and have moved on. They don't dwell on it.

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.

I suppose that could be argued.

I don't really blame him though; 'new' atheists have created plenty of baggage. That said, in the beginning he states that he hasn't seen any evidence but wouldn't disregard it if came about. Basically a very evidentiary (scientific) point of view. Being an agnostic atheist would imply he's explicitly decided on its existence which is a bit stronger than what he actually stated. Of course maybe he's just doing what you claimed.





I think we need to create a new category in between theist and atheist. The doubting thomiest.

[Zeliard]

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 :P

He clearly says he prefers to not categorize himself at all at the end of the video. Just that if people absolutely had to call him something, it should be agnostic instead of atheist.

[speculawyer]

Good to hear Tyson with a reasonable position on the issue. I'm so tired of aggressive atheists, regardless of me agreeing with them on many basic things. It's not constructive, and many just come off as assholes

YOU are the problem. You are allowing the term 'atheist' to mean 'in your face aggressive atheist'. YOU are stereotyping the atheist.

[cutmeamango]

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.

If you use the same pattern of thought to racism, it suddenly changes the use of it.

And I don't refrain you of proposing the use of a more morphological logic definition, but to call it the correct one or the others incorrect? Don't.

[ascii42]

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.

Then what is the term for the belief that there is no god, if not atheism?

YOU are the problem. You are allowing the term 'atheist' to mean 'in your face aggressive atheist'. YOU are stereotyping the atheist.

He did specifically say "aggressive atheists." If he assumed that all atheists are aggressive, the use of the adjective would be redundant. I feel like I see this sort of thing a lot.

[Basileus777]

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.

You could make a list of many things people of the street have a different definition of than the actual group that labels themselves with that term, that doesn't mean they should change the name.

Good to hear Tyson with a reasonable position on the issue. I'm so tired of aggressive atheists, regardless of me agreeing with them on many basic things. It's not constructive, and many just come off as assholes

So the solution to aggressive atheists is to cede the term to them and use some combination sophistry and cowardice to call yourself an agnostic?

[speculawyer]

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

Merriam-Webster's definition is shit. They can't even be consistent with themselves:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

[Kinitari]

This is exactly what I was saying earlier to Gaborn, we've had multiple people now come into this thread and go and to say that Agnostics are so much more reasonable than Atheists, that Agnostics have some particular trait or value associated with them that puts them in a brighter spot than atheists.

But those traits they describe can very much be traits of Atheism, you can be an Atheist and not go around proselytizing to the religious! You can wear the label Atheist in so many different ways - because at it's core, by Neil DeGrasse's first and most important argument (the irony is incredible right now, with so many people coming in agreeing with him and then directly acting in the opposite way of their supposed convictions) is that these labels do not imply all these values you people assume they do - an Atheist isn't immediately a dick, and an Agnostic isn't immediately reasonable.

[Raistlin]

YOU are the problem. You are allowing the term 'atheist' to mean 'in your face aggressive atheist'. YOU are stereotyping the atheist.

He isn't really the problem, at least not entirely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Most new atheists don't make the distinction themselves, and instead categorize themselves as atheists. Why would someone on the outside automatically understand the nuance, especially when many of the people in question don't make it themselves?

[cutmeamango]

Then what is the term for the belief that there is no god, if not atheism?

Actually, thats true! LOL

ist is the suffix for "that who believes"
theos (deus) is the radical for "god"
a is the preffix for without, no

And here I was ignorantly giving that argument validity, without even looking at it.

[Kai Dracon]

I don't really blame him though; 'new' atheists have created plenty of baggage. That said, in the beginning he states that he hasn't seen any evidence but wouldn't disregard it if came about. Basically a very evidentiary (scientific) point of view. Being an agnostic atheist would imply he's explicitly decided on its existence which is a bit stronger than what he's said. Of course maybe he's just doing what you said.

He seems to consider his language before he speaks, so when he says "the closest term for me would be agnostic" I think that's important. He feels the need to qualify even agnostic to avoid falling into the infinite mirrors of definition and counter-definition.

Really most of what he's talking about is not an attempt to nail down definitions but observe on the problem of labels and why he's uncomfortable/unhappy with atheism as a public movement and in popular perception. The bolded part there seems clearly inferred to me, even if he didn't say it outright.

[Snakeyes]

I love the guy. This isn't the first time he's said this, and it is funny to me how hard people go to classify him.

Pretty much. Why does it matter what he is, especially to atheists?

Besides, how about we all work together to solve real-world issues like these? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvsFW...feature=relmfu

[Xeke]

All I see when I look at this thread is.

[Femmeworth]

He lost me when he started talking about golf, that was really bad. He seems like a smart man, but he should really try to understand the issue before he talks about it.

[msv]

Tyson has been a blowhard from the moment I saw him first at the 'Belief' convention. When he restricts himself to talking about his field, he's good, sometimes only tolerable though (too bombastic and not enough eloquence for my taste). But outside, he's just plain bad. His argument againsts vocal atheism is nothing more than apologetics, and misguided placating, he's not doing anyone any good. Sure his methods might have some success, but he uses that assumed success as an argument against the potential of a frank discourse. That's nonsensical since people work in different ways, and different methods work on different people.

[BocoDragon]

If you use the same pattern of thought to racism, it suddenly changes the use of it. And I don't refrain you of proposing the use of a more morphological logic definition, but to call it the correct one or the others incorrect? Don't.

Your use of bolding feels so serious and confrontational, lol

Elsewhere on this page I already stated that words are invented and based upon convention. That would support your conventional use of the word atheist.

But note my use of "would". If we were going by the meaning of the syntax that I propose ('a' meaning "lacking", 'anti' meaning "against"), anti-theism "would" be the correct term.

[PhoenixPause]

So the solution to aggressive atheists is to cede the term to them and use some combination sophistry and cowardice to call yourself an agnostic?

It's cowardice to say you do not have enough evidence to determine whether there is a god or not? It's the most logical position, I'm not surprised Tyson chose it

[KingK]

I always thought the identifier of "agnostic" was only ever started to be used as a way for atheists to avoid having to call themselves atheists and associating themselves with society's bigoted beliefs about atheists.

[SirChained]

He isn't really the problem, at least not entirely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism Most new atheists don't make the distinction themselves, and instead categorize themselves as atheists. Why would someone on the outside automatically understand the nuance, especially when many of the people in question don't make it themselves?

That's like saying zealous Christians and nonaggressive Christians are both the problem because they all categorize themselves as "Christian" rather than distinguishing themselves. I do find it funny when people only apply this to atheism though, and not other religions.

It's cowardice to say you do not have enough evidence to determine whether there is a god or not? It's the most logical position, I'm not surprised Tyson chose it

I don't have enoug evidence to determine whether unicorns exist or not either.

[cutmeamango]

Your use of bolding feels so serious and confrontational, lol Elsewhere on this page I already stated that words are invented and based upon convention. That would support your conventional use of the word atheist. But note my use of "would". If we were going by the meaning of the syntax that I propose ('a' meaning "lacking", 'anti' meaning "against"), anti-theism "would" be the correct term.

Hahahaha it gets a bit under my skin when people call things "wrong" with an authority that has no absolute stand. :P But I bold it with love and giggles.

And look at my post a few ones above. The morphological argument is bunk honestly.

So essentially: -without -god -position of belief Seems pretty much a description of those lacking belief, as I stated. Not a description of those who positively assert no God

Well, you are changing the morphological weight and meaning of it. :P

[ascii42]

Tyson has been a blowhard from the moment I saw him first at the 'Belief' convention. When he restricts himself to talking about his field, he's good, sometimes only tolerable though (too bombastic and not enough eloquence for my taste). But outside, he's just plain bad. His argument againsts vocal atheism is nothing more than apologetics, and misguided placating, he's not doing anyone any good. Sure his methods might have some success, but he uses that assumed success as an argument against the potential of a frank discourse. That's nonsensical since people work in different ways, and different methods work on different people.

Well, it's a good thing that he says he much prefers being a scientist to talking about this sort of thing.

[Mario]

Why is it seemingly so hard for people to use the terms "strong/gnostic atheist" and "weak/agnostic atheist".

It neatly encapsulates somebody's position on the matter with little ambiguity. There is no need to change the current definitions of atheist and agnostic.

[BocoDragon]

Hahahaha it gets a bit under my skin when people call things "wrong" with an authority that has no absolute stand. :P But I bold it with love and giggles. And look at my post a few ones above. The morphological argument is bunk honestly.

Oh really?

Actually, thats true! LOL ist is the suffix for "that who believes" theos (deus) is the radical for "god" a is the preffix for without, no And here I was ignorantly giving that argument validity, without even looking at it.

So essentially:

-without

-god

-position of belief

Seems pretty much a description of those lacking belief, as I stated. Not a description of those who positively assert no God.

[F#A#Oo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos#! I have to say I'm a bit saddened by his characterization of people who identify as "atheist."

He's right...

[Kinitari]

Actually, thats true! LOL ist is the suffix for "that who believes" theos (deus) is the radical for "god" a is the preffix for without, no And here I was ignorantly giving that argument validity, without even looking at it.

atheism

without theism.

What's your point?

[sangreal]

You could make a list of many things people of the street have a different definition of than the actual group that labels themselves with that term, that doesn't mean they should change the name.

People can call themselves whatever they want (although we are talking about the demand that others apply the label to themselves even if they don't want to). My point was made in the context of the actual meaning of the word, which is only dependent on what people think it means, not what people wish it meant or what its root words are.

Your post actually fits right into his point, which is that there is a group of people that have claimed the word atheist to represent their movement, and he does not consider himself to be among those people.

[msv]

Merriam-Webster's definition is shit. They can't even be consistent with themselves: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Indeed, not to mention the even more crappy definition of agnosticism:

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

It's a philosophical term first and foremost. The focus on 'god' here is completely wrong, since it's a much broader term that pertains to absolute knowledge and truth values, in general. Might as well define theory as a hypothesis, if all you care about is the layman's use of the word.

[Raistlin]

He seems to consider his language before he speaks, so when he says "the closest term for me would be agnostic" I think that's important. He feels the need to qualify even agnostic to avoid falling into the infinite mirrors of definition and counter-definition.

Good point, and more power to him. If taken by there literal definitions, there really isn't any grey area. I suspect a lot of people fall outside the strictest interpretations.

Really most of what he's talking about is not an attempt to nail down definitions but observe on the problem of labels and why he's uncomfortable/unhappy with atheism as a public movement and in popular perception. The bolded part there seems clearly inferred to me, even if he didn't say it outright.

yeah

[Copernicus]

"I don't like people who bring in preconceived notions based on ideas of how someone is."

*makes a bunch of statements based on preconceived notions of atheists*

(I agree with the idea of atheist being a stupid category because its a definition of exclusion)

[Air]

Why is it seemingly so hard for people to use the terms "strong/gnostic atheist" and "weak/agnostic atheist". It neatly encapsulates somebody's position on the matter with little ambiguity. There is no need to change the current definitions of atheist and agnostic.

I think him saying "I don't know" is sufficient. All of the other qualifiers that are used only seem to be put into action when a group of people want him on their side.

Oh but he's implicitly/explicitly this or that, blah blah blah. He's happy where he is, and he is simply talking about his own POV.

[Volimar]

From time to time I find Tyson to be rather smug, but as a happy agnostic, I agree with pretty much everything he's saying here. Also, thanks for introducing me to this channel. Subscribed.

[-COOLIO-]

I really don't get what is the obsession GAF has with this guy.

every body loves him because he's awesome, smart, and well-spoken

[Noirulus]

One would imagine anybody who understood the implications of the scientific method would be agnostic.

There is a possibility that we might find scientific insight into the existence of a god, which would go against Agnosticism.

Agnosticism itself is such a vague classification when used by others and i'm not really sure how these people really feel when they classify themselves as an agnostic. Is it defined as "Eh, we don't have any proof right now, so w/e" or "The existence of god is unknowable"?

That's why I like the term Atheism, which is the lack of belief in god due to no [current] scientific proof.

[ascii42]

People can call themselves whatever they want (although we are talking about the demand that others apply the label to themselves even if they don't want to). My point was made in the context of the actual meaning of the word, which is only dependent on what people think it means, not what people wish it meant or what its root words are.

That's true. Words only mean what people think they mean. If a single person decides it has a meaning that differs from the common definition used by the person/people they are talking to, they are effectively ignoring the concept of communication. They might as well be speaking a different language.

[elrechazado]

Tyson has been a blowhard from the moment I saw him first at the 'Belief' convention. When he restricts himself to talking about his field, he's good, sometimes only tolerable though (too bombastic and not enough eloquence for my taste). But outside, he's just plain bad. His argument againsts vocal atheism is nothing more than apologetics, and misguided placating, he's not doing anyone any good. Sure his methods might have some success, but he uses that assumed success as an argument against the potential of a frank discourse. That's nonsensical since people work in different ways, and different methods work on different people.

I'm not sure how you missed that the entire point of this thread and his statement in the video was that he doesn't like being dragged into things outside his field and be used by "groups" as some kind of symbol of their own beliefs.

[Mario]

I think him saying "I don't know" is sufficient. All of the other qualifiers that are used only seem to be put into action when a group of people want him on their side. Oh but he's implicitly/explicitly this or that, blah blah blah. He's happy where he is, and he is simply talking about his own POV.

I'm talking as much about some people in this thread as I am Tyson.

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Good for you Neil.

[Raistlin]

That's like saying zealous Christians and nonaggressive Christians are both the problem because they all categorize themselves as "Christian" rather than distinguishing themselves. I do find it funny when people only apply this to atheism though, and not other religions.

hmmm ... your point is well taken. I guess I retract my prior comment.

I don't have enoug evidence to determine whether unicorns exist or not either.

That may be a bit of an oversimplification.

I suppose it comes down more to whether or not one would be particularly surprised if it become known or not. And that he didn't answer.

[cutmeamango]

atheism without theism. What's your point?

-Theist
Theos ist
God + that who believes in
That who believes in god.

Doesn't become ->>

Atheist
A theos ist
Without/Absence of + god + that who believes in
->> Without/Absence of that who believes in god.

but

That who believes in absence of god.

[Kai Dracon]

I always thought the identifier of "agnostic" was only ever started to be used as a way for atheists to avoid having to call themselves atheists and associating themselves with society's bigoted beliefs about atheists.

Funny enough, a useful spin on 'agnosticism" I once encountered was "to the agnostic, the unknowable is metaphorical until proven otherwise."

In other words, speaking about God say, 'god' is a metaphor, neither something to prove or disprove, until such time as circumstances arrive which allow 'god' to enter the realm of fact or fiction.

That would actually be closer to how I operate, personally.

I don't go about thinking there's a cosmic entity fascinated by my sex life who has a list of rules I'm supposed to follow. But neither do I feel the need to scrub my language from saying "oh for god's sake" and "jesus christ". I invoke god as a metaphor ("what would god think of this wacky shit!") and Jebus as an analogy ("this is so stupid, Jesus would lose it and start throwing punches.")

But then, many of the most interesting people I've ever met have been fictional, so I'm not prejudiced against metaphorical beings.

[Kinitari]

There is a possibility that we might find scientific insight into the existence of a god, which would go against Agnosticism. Agnosticism itself is such a vague classification when used by others and i'm not really sure how these people really feel when they classify themselves as an agnostic. Is it defined as "Eh, we don't have any proof right now, so w/e" or "The existence of god is unknowable"? That's why I like the term Atheism, which is the lack of belief in god due to no [current] scientific proof.

I want to clarify a little bit here, I think you mean this, but I am trying so hard to nail this down with other people in the thread -

To the bolded, that would specifically be Agnostic Atheism - you can be atheist for a lot of reasons, but if you are Agnostic Atheist, it's because you feel as though the ability to know of the existence of God, currently and/or at any time, is impossible.

[timetokill]

Maybe a God exists, maybe one doesn't. You can't really prove it either way.

Of the people I know, generally if I know they're an atheist it's because they're an asshole about it. The kind of person who is really out to belittle and demean those who believe in a God.

Others of my friends might be atheists, but I wouldn't know because they're not in it for the spiteful thrill of posting "Flying Spaghetti Monster" pics on Reddit.

[Snakeyes]

Why is it seemingly so hard for people to use the terms "strong/gnostic atheist" and "weak/agnostic atheist". It neatly encapsulates somebody's position on the matter with little ambiguity. There is no need to change the current definitions of atheist and agnostic.

Because the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, just don't give enough of a shit about others' religious beliefs to waste their time learning them?

[Femmeworth]

I'm not sure how you missed that the entire point of this thread and his statement in the video was that he doesn't like being dragged into things outside his field and be used by "groups" as some kind of symbol of their own beliefs.

If he had simply said that and only that, the video would have been fine. He should have stopped talking while he was ahead.