Support NeoGAF

[onadesertedisland]

I've always told my friends that if the pitchfork carrying mob comes knocking at my door looking for the heathen, I'll grab a bible and say he moved. So I definitely get where Tyson is coming from. I just hate that in this 'enlightened' age, those of us without a belief in god have hide from that mob.

 

[HK-47]

That's what I want... I'm not advocating for religion in gov't.. just trying to show that religion itself isn't inherently bad.

The way people interpret and twist religion to suit their needs is bad.

Ideally, we could act free of our personal beliefs, but I'll believe that when I see it.

I dunno. There are many things in the Bible or Koran and other texts that are down right vile. Yet if these things arent really what god meant, why didnt he clarify instead of letting ignorance and misunderstanding misguide people?

 

[Timedog]

He is an agnostic atheist. Which is good, since it's the only logical position to have.

 

[BocoDragon]

This thread is 10 pages of people who've come in and talked about how "annoying" atheists are.

It's the same old song and dance. Let's face it: it sucks when someone argues that what you believe is wrong.

Calling them "annoying" is mostly a self-defense mechanism. Back in the day they used to call them "evil". It's the same thing. Secretly they are somehow bad human beings for having asserted their position, which conflicts with yours.

 

[Kettch]

Feeding into the misconception that atheism requires you to be a angry raging political activist who hates religious people doesn't help, just like feeding into the misconception that being gay requires you to be an effeminate hairdresser who just didn't meet the right woman didn't help the world become more accepting of gays.

The problem isn't so much the added misconceptions that come with atheism, it's that the absolute basic definition is not understood. Outside of elementary school playgrounds, being gay is universally understood as being attracted to those of your own sex. Being atheist is not understood as lacking a belief in god (just look at this thread). When the very core of a label's meaning is not understood, there is simply no reason to continue using it. The war has already been lost.

 

[HK-47]

Also, I think those who openly calls themselves "atheists" is what causes a lot of negatively for me in regards to the term. Most people who do not believe in the existence of God or gods, do not openly state and claim they are "atheists" like it's something special. Neil is just pointing out the negativity of those who do openly and proudly wear the "atheist" label because most of the times they are closed-minded and annoying with the way they preach their beliefs like a religion.

What beliefs? Is there an atheist doctrine I didnt receive in the mail?

 

[onadesertedisland]

Also, I think those who openly calls themselves "atheists" is what causes a lot of negatively for me in regards to the term. Most people who do not believe in the existence of God or gods, do not openly state and claim they are "atheists" like it's something special. Neil is just pointing out the negativity of those who do openly and proudly wear the "atheist" label because most of the times they are closed-minded and annoying with the way they preach their beliefs like a religion.

Boo. I still love you even if you think I'm going to burn for eternity because I don't believe.

 

[kaching]

For people who know little to none about how these terms, the assumption is that it's possible for there to be a middle ground between believing and not believing like GrotesqueBeauty thinks there is. A magical nonexistent safe zone in which nobody is offended or takes sides. This is where Tyson is trying to place himself, because it satisfies everyone and says nothing.

Except for a number of people in this thread who aren't satisfied at all...or any of a number of pesky theists who say his indecision on belief in their God bars him from entrance into whatever heavenly afterlife they endorse.

As for it saying nothing...If you put the question to someone "Do you believe...?", it seems to me that the answers Yes, No or Undecided are all distinct and valid answers. Some of us don't consider Undecided to be a "safe zone" but just the most legitimately accurate way to frame our position on the topic. It's hardly "safe", in any case, because then we apparently get people like speculawyer calling us "pussies" for it.

 

[Hartt951]

I dunno. There are many things in the Bible or Koran and other texts that are down right vile. Yet if these things arent really what god meant, why didnt he clarify instead of letting ignorance and misunderstanding misguide people?

The words were written thousands of years ago, by humans who are imperfect, in languages we don't really understand anymore, and they have been translated so many times we don't really know the original text. Of course what we're gonna have now is gonna be open to interpretation.

Also, there are thousands of religions out there. Just because Christianity/Islam/Judaism have text that might not be the best doesn't mean the other 997 religions are bad too. There's not much bad to be found with Buddhism.

 

[Fusebox]

Many Christians will take verses from Leviticus that are mis-translated or taken out of context to try to say God believes homosexuality is not okay, but they are just ignorant, bigoted, and/or trying to serve their own agenda.

So then what about Timothy, Corinthians and Romans:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=i timothy 1:8-10&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 6: 9-10;&version=NIV;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans 1:26-27;&version=NIV;

How have the Westboro Baptists taken these out of context?

 

[Volimar]

Wow, and the semantic somersaults continue.

Anything you cannot know for certain is a belief. You can believe there is a God or you can believe there is no God. Not believing in God is not an absence of belief, it is a different belief.

I can know the world is round(ish) because that can be measured. You cannot measure the lack of a deity, so although you may be certain that there is no God, you are only certain in your belief that there is no God.

But honestly, it's just words people.

And besides, it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

 

[Basileus777]

Also, I think those who openly calls themselves "atheists" is what causes a lot of negatively for me in regards to the term. Most people who do not believe in the existence of God or gods, do not openly state and claim they are "atheists" like it's something special. Neil is just pointing out the negativity of those who do openly and proudly wear the "atheist" label because most of the times they are closed-minded and annoying with the way they preach their beliefs like a religion.

So atheists would be ok is they stayed silent and used a different term? Negativity towards atheism doesn't stem from vocal atheists, it existed far before any significant number of open atheists even existed.

 

[speculawyer]

What if he doesn't like the label? Does he owe society anything in regards to what he calls his religious belief?

He doesn't owe anyone anything.

But facts are facts. And it is annoying to see someone run away from an accurate label because he doesn't find it to politically best for him. Instead of running away from the label, just accept reality and help change inaccurate public stigma associated with it.


After seeing that video from the gay marine at the RNC debate, are all those GOPers going to think all gay men are swishy hair-dressers? No. If nice guy NDT accepts the term, are people going to think all atheists are angry & argumentative? No.

 

[Davidion]

Agnostic doesn't mean "I don't care". If all he wanted to say is he doesn't care, he should say he doesn't care. That isn't all he wants to say though. Did you actually watch the video? I am not the one who lacks understanding here.

You mean the video where Tyson literally used the word in the context I just described to you and then says "I'd rather not be any category at all"? Yes, yes I did.

I did read the full context. I agree that he's avoiding the term to distance himself from the most vocal/obnoxious members of the group. That's why soul creator's sarcastic remark was so spot on.

I commented because you said it was an embarrassment for a scientist of his stature to be an atheist, which seems to me a value judgment on your part, not just a description of his position. Was I wrong? Also, I thought it was strange to imply that being a scientist would somehow make it more embarrassing to be atheist, when the proportion of scientists who are atheists dwarfs that of the general population.

No, I don't really mean that, being perfectly aware of the percentage of atheists amongst scientific communities. I'm being a little mocking and abrasive tonight here because quite frankly, we're getting to the point where we're skewering Tyson's statement, regardless of the level of his stature, and practically chasing him with a dictionary and trying to bind him. That's exactly why I parodied soul creator's post; a black man has some pride in the fact he's black when he presents himself as such, for a gay man, the same. And yet here we are when a scientist is throwing out every chaff and flare in the book to trying to get away from the very label people here are trying to associate him with, and somehow the response amongst some people is still BUT THIS IS YOU IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE.

Like I said earlier, if it makes people feel comfortable to call him that, go ahead. Atheists accuse theists all the time of stupidity and irrationality because they take a word from a book too literally and seriously to the point where it distorts how they see the world. The jokes write themselves.

 

[HK-47]

The words were written thousands of years ago, by humans who are imperfect, in languages we don't really understand anymore, and they have been translated so many times we don't really know the original text. Of course what we're gonna have now is gonna be open to interpretation.

Also, there are thousands of religions out there. Just because Christianity/Islam/Judaism have text that might not be the best doesn't mean the other 997 religions are bad too. There's not much bad to be found with Buddhism.

And so god hasnt bothered to clarify his/her/its/their will? Also considering those religions all directly conflict with each other, someone has to be right or no one is right. They cant all be right.

 

[KHarvey16]

You mean the video where Tyson literally used the word in the context I just described to you and then says "I'd rather not be any category at all"? Yes, yes I did.

He described his belief, or lack thereof. His description makes him an atheist. He didn't call himself an agnostic because he doesn't care and believes the word agnostic means soneone who doesn't care(which would be wrong, of course), but he uses agnostic because he doesn't like the connotation of atheist. This does not change the fact the lack of belief he describes makes him an atheist.

 

[SentientStone]

So atheists would be ok is they stayed silent and used a different term? Negativity towards atheism doesn't stem from vocal atheists, it existed far before any significant number of open atheists even existed.

I don't know what negativity existed before, I am only speaking of my own views on atheists and that is the vocal ones. I am not saying to keep it to yourself if you are an atheist, but don't rub it in others faces and mock or look down upon those without the same beliefs. Same with Christians or any other religious followers, I admire those who are genuinely good people and do not think less of others. I just dislike those who follow something and then look down at others who do not, or think they are somehow superior to others.

 

[soul creator]

The problem isn't so much the added misconceptions that come with atheism, it's that the absolute basic definition is not understood. Outside of elementary school playgrounds, being gay is universally understood as being attracted to those of your own sex.

But being gay wasn't always "universally understood" that way. Being gay was a mental illness. Being gay meant you were possessed by Satan. Being gay meant that you only like anal sex. Being gay meant that you automatically had AIDS. Being gay meant that you were abused as a kid. Being gay meant that you secretly wanted to be a woman. Being lesbian meant that you just needed a serious deep dicking to cure you. "Gay" had probably just as many misconceptions that you claim are associated with atheism.

The reason why these misconceptions are disappearing is because people have been more open about being (and identifying as) gay, which forces the majority to gradually re-analyze their preconceived viewpoints. It's hard to think of gays as evil satanists, when the nice neighbor that someone gets along with every day casually and confidently mentioned that he was gay, and was comfortable with it. That's what eventually changed minds, not just dropping the term gay, and making up some other nicer term with "less baggage".

Being atheist is not understood as lacking a belief in god (just look at this thread). When the very core of a label's meaning is not understood, there is simply no reason to continue using it. The war has already been lost.

Well yes, the "war" is lost if you don't actually show up

 

[ihearthawthats]

For people who know little to none about how these terms work, the assumption is that it's possible for there to be a middle ground between believing and not believing like GrotesqueBeauty thinks there is. A magical nonexistent safe zone in which nobody is offended or takes sides. This is where Tyson is trying to place himself, because it satisfies everyone and says nothing.

it's not about taking no sides, at least not for me. its about taking whichever side that represents the truth. i'm fully willing to take the side of theist if proven true, which is why i don't particularly care for the 'atheist' part of the term 'agnostic atheist'.

 

[Hartt951]

So then what about Timothy, Corinthians and Romans:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=i timothy 1:8-10&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 6: 9-10;&version=NIV;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans 1:26-27;&version=NIV;

How have the Westboro Baptists taken these out of context?

The text is mis-translated. There was no word that meant homosexuality back when the bible was written. It was never meant to mean homosexual, yet the people who write the bibles have put the word in to push their own anti-gay agenda. One instance with this is the word Malakoi(original greek word in bible). This is how it has been translated over the years:
Wycliffe - 1380 - neische
Wycliffe - 1388 - letchouris ayen kinde
Tyndale - 1526 - weaklinges
Martin Luther - 1534 - weichlinge
Coverdale - 1535 - weaklinges
Matthews - 1537 - weaklinges
Great Bible - 1539 - weaklynges
Swedish Version - 1541 - weaklingar
Geneva Bible - 1560 - wantons
Bishops Bible - 1568 - weaklinges
Valera Spanish - 1602 - effeminados
Rheims-Douay - 1609 - effeminat
King James Version - 1611 - effeminate
Portuguese - 1690 - efeminados
Daniel Mace New Testament - 1729 - the effeminate
Darby - 1884 - those who make women of themselves
Darby French - 1885 - effemines
Young’s Literal - 1898 - effeminate
ASV - 1901 - effeminate
Weymouth - 1903 - any who are guilty of unnatural crime
Louis Segund French - 1910 - effemines
Moffat - 1913 - catamites (boys who have sex with men)
Lamsa Translation - 1933 - men who lie down with males
New American - 1941 - sodomites
Revised Standard - 1952 - sexual perverts
Amplified - 1958 - those who participate in homosexuality
NASB - 1963 - effeminate
New American Bible - 1970 - boy prostitutes
New English - 1970 - guilty of homosexual perversion
NIV - 1973 - male prostitutes
NKJV - 1979 - homosexuals
JW-NWT - 1984 - men kept for unnatural purposes
New Century - 1987 - male prostitutes
Green’s Interlinear - 1986 - abusers
NRSV - 1989 - male prostitutes
Bible In Basic English - 1994 - one who is less than a man
CEV - 1995 - pervert
NLT - 1996 - male prostitute
Complete Jewish Bible - 1998 - active or passive homosexuality
International Standard Version - 2000 - male prostitutes
The Message - 2002 - those who use and abuse each other
World English Bible - 2005 - male prostitutes
God’s Word Translation - 2006 - homosexuals
The NET Bible - 2006 - passive homosexual partners

As you see the idea of homosexuality was not used as a translation until the 1930's and it wasn't until the 50's that homosexual was first used.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I just dislike those who follow something and then look down at others who do not or think they are somehow superior to others.

So do you dislike religion? Religion is inherently an "in-group". Atheists on the other hand are linked only upon their lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more, nothing less. So if an atheist looks down upon you, there is not a group, but rather an asshole doing so.

 

[HK-47]

it's not about taking no sides, at least not for me. its about taking whichever side that represents the truth. i'm fully willing to take the side of theist if proven true, which is why i don't particularly care for the 'atheist' part of the term 'agnostic atheist'.

Well then what do you believe? We only know about your thoughts on knowledge of a deity.

 

[jdogmoney]

I just...wow. This thread.

 

[BocoDragon]

Anything you cannot know for certain is a belief. You can believe there is a God or you can believe there is no God. Not believing in God is not an absence of belief, it is a different belief.

I'll take your point for the sake of argument.

Lacking a God belief is another belief, that may be true.

But don't take that lack of God belief to equal an assertion that there is, for sure, no God.

There IS a distinction there. That's not just an atheist slogan. The thing is that as an atheist, I think it's perfectly possible that there's a god up there, for which I do not currently have any evidence. Believe me when I say that: he could well be up there right now.. I think it's always possible... but I just think he has never given any evidence that I can believe in, as a grown man who requires facts in order to jump on board his worship train.

I certainly do have a form of non-agnostic "belief": that the reason why most people believe in god today, "religious revelations" (Abraham, Mohommad, etc), are as hokum as any other hearsay people pass on to each other without proof: UFOs, big foot, homeopathy, conspiracies, etc. I do have a belief that those revelations are probably bunk, or if they have truth, then the reason why people believe in the traditions are indoctrinations by society. Almost no one weighs the evidence to arrive where they do. They begin their lives mired in these assumptions. Call me bloody skeptical on these events.

But I'm not closed on that point either... as soon as some theist can give me better proof of those religious events... I'm in.

So yes, atheism might be "a belief" in itself... but it's not a denial of the god possibility as commonly understood. It's a denial of religous hearsay. That's my affirmative belief. People don't have nearly enough evidence to worship as they do, or even assume a weak "ennnh maybe" stance.

If there was good evidence... someone could show me! Hasn't happened in my life.

I'm pretty sure all the theists I've ever met don't have that proof either.

 

[mavs]

He doesn't owe anyone anything.

But facts are facts. And it is annoying to see someone run away from an accurate label because he doesn't find it to politically best for him. Instead of running away from the label, just accept reality and help change inaccurate public stigma associated with it.


After seeing that video from the gay marine at the RNC debate, are all those GOPers going to think all gay men are swishy hair-dressers? No. If nice guy NDT accepts the term, are people going to think all atheists are angry & argumentative? No.

But he doesn't think it is accurate? If it weren't for other people publicly advertising him as an atheist on Wikipedia I would be annoyed, but he wasn't the one who brought it up.

If the gay marine refused to call himself gay because he didn't think of himself as a swishy hairdresser, that would be annoying. But I'd be totally okay with it except for the part where it throws other people under the bus. Because even if he can bust that stereotype (he can't) people are going to have other ideas of what being gay is about and stick those to him without asking. If you want to give yourself a label that will make other people see you as you think you are you are never going to win. Easier to just come up with your own labels, even if they don't make sense to anyone else.

 

[Kettch]

But being gay wasn't always "universally understood" that way. Being gay was a mental illness. Being gay meant you were possessed by Satan. Being gay meant that you only like anal sex. Being gay meant that you automatically had AIDS. Being gay meant that you were abused as a kid. Being gay meant that you secretly wanted to be a woman. Being lesbian meant that you just needed a serious deep dicking to cure you. "Gay" had probably just as many misconceptions that you claim are associated with atheism.

The reason why these misconceptions are disappearing is because people have been more open about being (and identifying as) gay, which forces the majority to gradually re-analyze their preconceived viewpoints. It's hard to think of gays as evil satanists, when the nice neighbor that someone gets along with every day casually and confidently mentioned that he was gay, and was comfortable with it. That's what eventually changed minds, not just dropping the term gay, and making up some other nicer term with "less baggage".

Those are all added misconceptions. Like I said before, if the core of being gay were to mean you hate women, why would anyone fight to change it to meaning you're attracted to men? That's the situation atheism is in right now. Very few people understand it to mean a lack of belief in god. The majority think it either means you hate god or you believe there is no god, both of which are completely incorrect.

Well yes, the "war" is lost if you don't actually show up

I think a lot of people are also less interested in fighting for something they don't believe in. There is no sanctity of atheism for me, there is no community of atheism. My lack of belief is literally nothing, and it does not connect me to other atheists in any way. Why fight a war over it?

 

[SentientStone]

What beliefs? Is there an atheist doctrine I didnt receive in the mail?

I am just saying the ideology of identifying oneself as an atheist. There is no specific belief, but the problem is that the whole thing is becoming like a movement or like a religion in that it is stemming attitudes of discontent or even hatred towards those without the same 'atheist' identity

Boo. I still love you even if you think I'm going to burn for eternity because I don't believe.

For the record, I do not believe in any religion because I feel I already have the good parts of them all (the values), and do not need the things that make religions bad (the "my religion is the best" attitude). I don't believe in any entity, but I do find value and beauty in nature and the universe, and can always feel amazing whenever I just take a walk outside because everything is amazing.
I also do not like nationalism and think it is, for the most part, silly. We are humans.

So do you dislike religion? Religion is inherently an "in-group". Atheists on the other hand are linked only upon their lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more, nothing less. So if an atheist looks down upon you, there is not a group, but rather an asshole doing so.

Kind of answered above.
Yes, I do dislike religion because it stems hatred since people take it too seriously... same with atheism for some people. I like the 'doing kind things' part of religions though. Just treat your fellow man and nature with respect and forget the meaningless titles we label ourselves, which just results in silly arguments.

 

[Davidion]

He described his belief, or lack thereof. His description makes him an atheist. He didn't call himself an agnostic because he doesn't care and believes the word agnostic means soneone who doesn't care(which would be wrong, of course), but he uses agnostic because he doesn't like the connotation of atheist. This does not change the fact the lack of belief he describes makes him an atheist.

How did you miss the entire first half of the video where he explains that he associates with agnosticism because it's used to, and I quote from the video: "to refer to someone who doesn't know but is hasn't yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it's there but if it's not won't be forced to have to think something that is otherwise supported"? He literally doesn't want to answer the atheism/theism question because it's completely contingent on something else. How hard do you want someone to downplay the worth of something?

You want to identify him? Feel free. Don't be surprised when only people who think exactly like you bend over backwards over a dictionary entry take you seriously.

 

[orientalNoodle]

Atheists... don't be smugs and dont turn atheism into a movement.

 

[Knox]

Atheist, agnostic, both terms are loaded, and in different ways depending on who you ask. To some people if you're an "atheist" then you might say things like "there definitely is no god", or you go out looking for arguments, or you hate all religious people. To some people if you're an "agnostic" then you're just undecided, or you don't know what to believe, or you're actually an atheist but you don't know what atheist means, or you do know what it means but still think "agnostic" is a nicer way to say it. I find it surprising that NDT says that he doesn't like to be labeled but then claims agnostic, even though it has it's own baggage as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

How did you miss the entire first half of the video where he explains that he associates with agnosticism because it's used to, and I quote from the video: "to refer to someone who doesn't know but is hasn't yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it's there but if it's not won't be forced to have to think something that is otherwise supported"? He literally doesn't want to answer the atheism/theism question because it's completely contingent on something else. How hard do you want someone to downplay the worth of something?

Atheism doesn't require knowledge or a decision. A newborn baby with no concept of god is an atheist because she lacks a belief. It's a binary construct - you believe or you do not. There are only two options. Anyone who lacks an affirmitive belief is an atheist.

To suggest agnosticism sits on some continuum between theism and atheism is wrong. It's an impossibility.

 

[SentientStone]

Atheists... don't be smugs and dont turn atheism into a movement.

Pretty much. ;p

 

[Socreges]

what's "fundamentally" different about God is the social pressure surrounding it (and the current stigma in some societies against those who don't believe in it, hence the whole point of this thread), as opposed to anything unique in the concept itself. Never mind the fact that most proposed gods throughout history are in fact closer to flying spaghetti monsters, than they are to vague, unexplainable forces.

Disagreed about what makes it fundamentally different.

And disagreed about your point regarding stigma. You're conflating agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists which is precisely what Tyson wants to avoid.

Yet his goal is to protect his image. I'm sure he knows very well that he's an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of atheists that aren't assholes. Yet instead, he chooses to claim that he has no affiliation with atheism in any sense, which implies to the uninformed viewer that he is entirely unsure on the situation. His misrepresenting himself is the issue.

I'm sure he does. And I'm sure he sees the utility in describing himself as an "agnostic".

And he doesn't say he has no affliliation with atheism in any sense. He twice acknowledges the overlap in terminology.

Really, he explains everything quite well in the video. Yet it seems that some people (perhaps yourself) are offended by his interest in distancing himself from atheists and are therefore being deliberately obtuse when watching/interpreting his video.

Here is where you're wrong, at least from my experience:

For people who know little to none about how these terms work, the assumption is that it's possible for there to be a middle ground between believing and not believing like GrotesqueBeauty thinks there is. A magical nonexistent safe zone in which nobody is offended or takes sides. This is where Tyson is trying to place himself, because it satisfies everyone and says nothing.

What an unfair interpretation of Tyson's video (and agnostics generally). It's also frustrating because it immediately neuters the conversation and frames agnostics (such as myself) in a cowardly light, which also therefore gives a pat on the back to atheists.

How is this a "magical nonexistent safe zone"? How does it say nothing, when the claim is that there can be no certainty (I know gnostic atheists disagree with this)? How does it satisfy everyone, when gnostic atheists seem so unwilling to accept this opposing viewpoint and many theists would still be disappointed that the person doesn't believe?

 

[Davidion]

Atheism doesn't require knowledge or a decision. A newborn baby with no concept of god is an atheist because she lacks a belief. It's a binary construct - you believe or you do not. There are only two options. Anyone who lacks an affirmitive belief is an atheist.

To suggest agnosticism sits on some continuum between theism and atheism is wrong. It's an impossibility.

Except nobody is suggesting agnosticism sits on the continuum between theism and atheism except people who are trying to label him as an atheist. He's literally used agnosticism to remove himself from the two altogether.

Hey I already said you can call him an atheist all you want; it's all you. Congratulations on defining absolutely nothing other than a word.

 

[Basileus777]

Atheists... don't be smugs and dont turn atheism into a movement.

Now take that sentence and replace the word atheism with a different group and see how it reads.

 

[KHarvey16]

Except nobody is suggesting agnosticism sits on the continuum between theism and atheism except people who are trying to label him as an atheist. He's literally used agnosticism to remove himself from the two altogether.

Hey I already said you can call him an atheist all you want; it's all you. Congratulations on defining absolutely nothing other than a word.

He said he isn't an atheist but is an agnostic. His use of the word is improper - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as they do not describe the same thing. It's like saying I'm not Asian, I'm a lefty. It's incorrect.

 

[BocoDragon]

Atheists... don't be smugs and dont turn atheism into a movement.

It's not a movement.

And if it was, so what?

Why the mind control for atheist ideas?

 

[Davidion]

He said he isn't an atheist but is an agnostic. His use of the word is improper - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as they do not describe the same thing. It's like saying I'm not Asian, I'm a lefty. It's incorrect.

That's great, he used a word incorrectly in a speech. He is now a world renowned scientist, and didn't use a word right.

We're done, folks.

 

[cutmeamango]

He said he isn't an atheist but is an agnostic. His use of the word is improper - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as they do not describe the same thing. It's like saying I'm not Asian, I'm a lefty. It's incorrect.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

Read up. He 'created' the term "agnosticism". Neil even says his name.

 

[soul creator]

Those are all added misconceptions. Like I said before, if the core of being gay were to mean you hate women, why would anyone fight to change it to meaning you're attracted to men?

The point I was making is that for a ton of people, those were part of the "core" definition of being gay. Of course, that version of the "core" definition largely came from religions and other unchallenged social conventions. You know, kind of like the "core" definition of atheism.

That's the situation atheism is in right now.

Yes, because lots of people have been taught these misconceptions. Just like every other minority group in the history of forever.

Very few people understand it to mean a lack of belief in god.

Well, there's a pretty surefire way to get people to understand what it means...

The majority think it either means you hate god or you believe there is no god, both of which are completely incorrect.

So let's correct them.

I think a lot of people are also less interested in fighting for something they don't believe in.

It doesn't have to be "fighting for something". All it is is being straightforward and open when it comes to that specific topic, if someone happens to ask you about it. If other people take issue with that and make a bunch of misconceptions, as you're implying, doesn't that prove the exact point that the "angry" atheists have been making in the first place?

There is no sanctity of atheism for me, there is no community of atheism. My lack of belief is literally nothing, and it does not connect me to other atheists in any way. Why fight a war over it?

Well, I'm not asking you to fight a war. I suppose I'm just asking you to use a word that accurately describes what you are, and if the larger society gives you shit for it, that's a problem with them, not the people who literally share your exact same view on the specific topic of god. You don't have to post on message boards about it, you don't have to donate to secular organizations, and you don't have to go to rallies. But don't look down on the people who do those things, because the very fact that people have insane misconceptions about the word proves that there's a reason for their "war".

(note: I keep putting "war" in quotes, because it's pretty odd that simply standing up for one's self is now considered as "fighting a war")

 

[KHarvey16]

That's great, he used a word incorrectly in a speech. He is now a world renowned scientist, and didn't use a word right.

We're done, folks.

His improper use of the word is sort of the topic of this thread. You're taking this very badly.

 

[Timedog]

This thread is 10 pages of people who've come in and talked about how "annoying" atheists are.

It's the same old song and dance. Let's face it: it sucks when someone argues that what you believe is wrong.

Calling them "annoying" is mostly a self-defense mechanism. Back in the day they used to call them "evil". It's the same thing. Secretly they are somehow bad human beings for having asserted their position, which conflicts with yours.

This post is distilled truth. It applies to most arguments on the internet too.

 

[SentientStone]

It's not a movement.

And if it was, so what?

Why the mind control for atheist ideas?

I am fine for vocal atheists to lash out on religious zealots (let them argue), but there are many religious people who are very nice and genuinely kind. Atheists just do not need make it their life's goal to try and convert everyone back to atheism. If they are hypocrites who just use religion as a way to make themselves feel superior then sure mock them all you want; I had a friend like that and he does this not just with religion (loves to boast) so I do poke fun of him whenever I can (though I try not to deal with him nowadays).

 

[BocoDragon]

I am fine for atheists to lash out on religious zealots, but there are many religious people who are very nice and genuinely kind. Atheists just do not need make it their life's goal to try and convert everyone back to atheism. If they are hypocrites who just use religion as a way to make themselves feel superior then sure mock them all you want; I have a friend like that and he does this not just with religion (loves to boast) so I do poke fun of him whenever I can (though I try not to deal with him nowadays).

When you state it like that, fair enough. If the point of atheism were to be a douchebag to others just to be "right", even where no harm is being done by the religious, then they should cease.

But there should never be anything wrong with standing up as an atheist, or arguing for atheism in the appropriate setting. In that sense, there's nothing wrong with there being a "movement"

 

[sangreal]

Atheism doesn't require knowledge or a decision. A newborn baby with no concept of god is an atheist because she lacks a belief. It's a binary construct - you believe or you do not. There are only two options. Anyone who lacks an affirmitive belief is an atheist.

To suggest agnosticism sits on some continuum between theism and atheism is wrong. It's an impossibility.

It's only impossible if we accept your definition of atheism, which is far from widely accepted (and that is all that matters in language), as every encyclopedia and dictionary will attest. We can start with Brittanica:

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.

or Wikipedia

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[22] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. However, it is generally contrasted with agnosticism

etc

You guys really need to accept that there is no consensus on the definition of the term and stop trying to pretend there is and telling people they're wrong. The prevailing usage (which NDG is using here) is to describe someone who believes there is no god, and harping about the etymology won't change that. It's like whining about Gigabytes versus Gibibytes. You can keep saying what you think the "correct" term is, but it doesn't matter if nobody else cares.

 

[Davidion]

His improper use of the word is sort of the topic of this thread. You're taking this very badly.

Yes, because all these pages of back and forths between various people are all about linguistics and not about, say, the actual ideas and differences behind what the words insinuate, or being completely oblivious to them as the case may be.

You'd be surprised at how good I'm "taking" this.

 

[NullPointer]

He is an agnostic atheist. Which is good, since it's the only logical position to have.

Indeed.

And for those upset at an "atheist movement" or "anti-theism", its a natural reaction to overreach by religious conservatives intruding into people's lives and actively opposing man's efforts to understand the world through empiricism. Get rid of the intrusion and FUD and you wouldn't have the movement, as there would be no more need for one.

Some atheists think that its high time to undo some of the damage done by religion, and those are your Hawkins and Hitchens and like-minded persons. They may come across as harsh, but they feel they HAVE to in today's climate. Their techniques are ridicule and explanation. Others, like Tyson seek out a more empathetic approach.

I respect all of their techniques and approaches, as I similarly respect those who are believers in a higher power who don't wield their beliefs as a bludgeon to coerce others to fall in line, or to try and take us kicking and screaming back to some golden age that never existed.

 

[Kettch]

Well, I'm not asking you to fight a war. I suppose I'm just asking you to use a word that accurately describes what you are, and if the larger society gives you shit for it, that's a problem with them, not the people who literally share your exact same view on the specific topic of god. You don't have to post on message boards about it, you don't have to donate to secular organizations, and you don't have to go to rallies.

The thing is, there's another way to accurately describe what I am in very clear English that everyone understands. "Not religious". It means basically the exact same thing as atheist without relying on people being smart/knowledgeable enough to know what the prefix or theist mean.

By using atheist it isn't simply a problem for the larger society, it's a problem for me when people misunderstand it. And I don't know who is going to misunderstand it, so I'll always have to explain that it simply means I'm not religious and nothing else. It's a pointless exercise for a word that I don't care about.

 

[IrishNinja]

Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:

this is exactly the kind've garbage Tyson's video was talking about.
it's possible for my views to be a bit more nuanced than the arbitrary values used here to force a false dichotomy.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's only impossible if we accept your definition of atheism, which is far from widely accepted (and that is all that matters in language), as every encyclopedia and dictionary will attest. We can start with Brittanica:



or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


or Wikipedia


etc

You guys really need to accept that there is no consensus on the definition of the term and stop trying to pretend there is and telling people they're wrong. The prevailing usage (which NDG is using here) is to describe someone who believes there is no god, and harping about the etymology won't change that. It's like whining about Gigabytes versus Gibibytes.

You simply chose excerpts that support your assertion. Read the whole Wikipedia entry, it covers this rather extensively. The purpose of a dictionary isn't to define words but to report their use. Theism means belief in god and a means without. Theism and atheism form a binary pair. It's exceedingly simple.