And we could go on infinitely giving examples explaining why we reacted the way we did, and share the definitions of each word as they should be known. Some people will continue not to understand.
-
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
And we could go on infinitely giving examples explaining why we reacted the way we did, and share the definitions of each word as they should be known. Some people will continue not to understand.
soul creator
Member
I'm actually curious if anyone else watched the video I posted. It's interesting that he basically mirrors the point that some atheists have been making, except it's in reference to race.
edit for random pic: looks like we got ourselves a badass over here
cutmeamango
Banned
That's the funniest part of it all, honestly.
Just watched that. That makes him seem pretty hypocritical.
I meant that as in they were the proper definitions, and any other was incorrect.
Thanks for contributing. No really. Thanks.
The choice of analogy is irrelevant as long as the concept expressed in the analogy is the same. I could say "you can either exist or not exist" to explain the concept of binary choice to you using a more abstract example, just as I can say "you can either be pregnant or not pregnant." It doesn't matter, unless you are one of those people who says shit like "bu bu what if the sperm has not yet hit the egg" or something like that then that's your problem.
And also, it was a semantics argument from the start. You were arguing that belief implies a continuum. In order to make that kind of argument, you have to dive into semantics, and since "belief" implies a binary choice, you cannot have a continuum. Not sure what your comment was trying to say.
EDIT: Actually let me propose another analogy.
Flipping a switch is a binary action. The switch is either on, or off. Now, the switch provides light. The faster you flip a switch, the faster you get light.
In this case how fast you get light varies on a continuum because of how fast you are flipping the switch, not because you flipped the switch " a little bit" or "a lot"
Your speed modulates how fast you get light. Your decision to either flip the switch or not modulates whether you actually get light. It is a binary choice modulated by another non-binary choice.
Get out of my brain!
That video roughly sums up my thoughts on the whole religious non religious debacle. I don't enjoy calling myself an atheist anymore, sure in literal terms it does describe what I am - that is "non religious" or "doesn't believe in anything spiritual" as an extension.
The days of classifying oneself as an atheist in the literal sense are long gone though, whether dawkins intended it or not ( I would say he did indeed intend to) , atheists in todays world are better described as anti-theist. They are just as much non believers as they are anti religion anywhere. I'm not anti religion , I just simply don't believe it.
When I was a teenager I subscribed more so to the anti-theist approach but it doesn't get you anywhere in the real world. Unless you like arguing endlessly with people who are religious.
Agnostic is a nice way of saying atheist , you are open to the idea of religion but are unable to toss aside emperical evidence to the contrary. Someone asks you "is there a god?" and you reply " well I don't really give a crap either way, maybe?".
The days of classifying oneself as an atheist in the literal sense are long gone though, whether dawkins intended it or not ( I would say he did indeed intend to) , atheists in todays world are better described as anti-theist. They are just as much non believers as they are anti religion anywhere. I'm not anti religion , I just simply don't believe it.
When I was a teenager I subscribed more so to the anti-theist approach but it doesn't get you anywhere in the real world. Unless you like arguing endlessly with people who are religious.
Agnostic is a nice way of saying atheist , you are open to the idea of religion but are unable to toss aside emperical evidence to the contrary. Someone asks you "is there a god?" and you reply " well I don't really give a crap either way, maybe?".
It's a nice sentiment, but it perpetuates misuse of the word agnostic. It doesn't answer the question of belief, and that's the one most people are interested in.
cutmeamango
Banned
That's one of the reasons why it is funny.
- Would you care to illustrate on what grounds the definitions you hold are the only correct ones?
- And if possible provide support literature (easier) or write a paragraph or two that demonstrates how your definition is conceptually absolute?
- And on an optional note, could you briefly explain how come most known literatures on the subject are incorrect with their terms but still are widely referred to?
I said before, yours (and KHarvey16 and a few others) concepts are valid and I see no problem in holding them, but they are not standard or absolute or 'correct'. But as you hold it as so, maybe you can propose us why "it should be known".
By avoiding the actual word that describes you, you relegate atheists that are not anti-theists to be stereotyped more easily.
By believing the unfair notion yourself that atheist = anti-theist, the people that seek to demean us and stereotype us as such only have their misconceptions confirmed.
Yes, he explains himself very well...and he is spot on.
I'm glad he did so I can just direct people to the video instead of doing it myself from now on.
JJDinomite
Banned
Brilliantly said. I find extremist atheists to be as annoying as extremist religious folk.
Oppo
Member
did you just insult yourself?
soul creator
Member
I would be more convinced of Tyson's position of "I don't believe in god, but I'm not an atheist" if he said it via spoken word!
VillageNinja
Banned
Add sensitive to the list of things atheists should stop being. For a bunch of people who believe in nothing they're awful touchy.
That's a bit odd coming from a guy who's done nothing but act butthurt for the entire thread.
"extremist religious folk" aren't annoying, they're dangerous.
Oppo
Member
just maybe a little tired of the 2000- year status quo.
and, let's be fair, of course the loud cranky atheists are the ones you hear more from... how do you know what they're like as a whole?
Count Dookkake
Member
Even if we accept your premise as being true (lol), the second sentence contains elements that are not in any way contradictory.
VillageNinja
Banned
What is my premise remind me because I don't know that I've stated anything that doesn't totally align with atheists aside from how they tend to carry themselves.
Are you saying you WOULD lie to an axe murderer just to save their victim?
I approach the meaning of the words theist and atheist in the simplest way I possibly can. I think everyone would agree that a theist is a person who believes in a god or gods.
Then we add the prefix "a":
a- or ( before a vowel ) an- 1
— prefix
not; without;
This gives us atheist. An atheist is any person who is not a theist. As in, a "not a [person who believes in a god or gods]/theist" or "a person without [belief in a god or gods]/theism."
Then people somehow get the idea that instead, atheist means "a person who believes it is impossible for a god to exist." Where does this come from? The structure of the word implies it in no way.
The best answer I can think of is societal pressures. The reality of the situation is that there's a lot of hostility between theists and atheists because it's such a fundamental disagreement with a large potential impact on a great number of lives. Some people have a strong aversion to this hostility and wanted nothing more than to distance themselves from either side. Though in reality it is impossible to be neither an atheist nor a theist, they proceeded to attempt to create a way to escape this reality. In walks so-called "Agnosticism," the perfect happy land where you don't have to commit to anything and never have to admit whether or not you believe in a god or gods. This preference of classification becomes popular because people see it as a way to dodge any religious argument and somehow wedges itself between theism and atheism. But wait, this is nonsense! By the established definition, anyone claiming not to be a theist instantly becomes an atheist, whether they like it or not. In fact, agnosticism by definition has no affiliation with belief in a deity at all, and is merely a statement of whether you think something is knowable and can be applied to any number of concepts. That's not going to stop the "Agnostics" from outright denying this, because leaving their constructed safe zone is potential social suicide. It's far easier to say things like "I used to be an atheist, but I realized they were all rude and I want nothing to do with them" than it is to admit that they truly do not believe in a god.
Enter personalities with celebrity status such as Sagan or Tyson. Their desire to avoid upsetting anyone is possibly greater than that of anyone else, because there's no benefit to be found in alienating a part of your audience when your goal is to bring science to everyone. It serves no purpose to attempt to explain that atheism alone doesn't claim absolute knowledge against a god or become equivalent to anti-theism, because then they're just going to upset all of the angry theists who have an issue with atheists because their religion teaches them atheism is morally wrong. The path of least resistance is to join the Agnostic group, regardless of whether it is a legitimate position on belief. Then only the tiniest number out of the potential millions of viewers will be upset because calling yourself agnostic is so common at this point that the majority of the population doesn't even realize that it isn't a legitimate position on belief.
Then you get the masses of people coming into this thread saying things like "totally agree, agnosticism is best, all atheists are annoying" and so forth because of how easily perpetuated the generalizations are when respected members of society adhere to them. By popularizing this false concept of agnosticism, they're effectively changing the definition of atheism primarily for the gain of people who attempt to avoid taking sides or participating in debates or discussions.
Earlier in the thread, someone said Tyson's response is the "let it be" answer. I disagree. The "let it be" answer is actually saying let it be. It's entirely acceptable not to answer a question for the sake of protecting your image. What's not acceptable is joining a group whose solution to the debate is to turn everyone willing to hold a stance into a stereotype characterized as assholes.
I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
soul creator
Member
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar...
Thanks, and I think this is an appropriate response.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
That was pretty unsatisfactory.
But, I get the impression that he's not all that interested in having a public debate about religion. It doesn't seem like his bag.. He just wants to talk about science. More power to him.I think his intent with this whole thing was to say that he has no interest crusading for non-belief.
Pretty weak defense. It's obvious what's going on here.
He fell into the same trap you did, but for slightly different reasons. You might learn something by reading my last post.
This stance only exists _because_ of having knowledge of the concept of deity as we know it. As an atheist you, in one way or another, cast off the deities that are known. Otherwise the term would not exist, just as the term theist would not exist if the idea of gods never had been formed. This is not required of an agnostic (which essentially should be described as more of a term for nothing at all, or lacking acknowledgement of the questions around the concept of deity).
The parable he makes about golfers is therefore not quite sufficient, since a nongolfer would be similar to an atheist from having taking stance to not play golf merely by knowing about the ability to play golf.
Were the person instead oblivious to (or shunning) the concept of golf, he would be more of an agnostic.
People falsely see agnostisiscm as having a stance in the matter.
There is no matter.
Other than that, i totally agree with him.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
If your posts are half as incisive as you believe I'm sure we all have boatloads to learn from them!
Good job reading! I enjoy how it's necessary to insult me before writing your reply.
Neil Degrasse Tyson said:
So yeah, people can still read whatever they want from his posts.
But this part is crystal clear: he a public figure cocerned about his image. Rather than become a figurehead like Dawkins, and get you profesional work dismissed because of your public outcries about religion, he prefers to put on the Agnostic hat, so he can offend the less people possible. By doing so, religious people could possibly read his work and maybe, just maybe, realise our world is already a wonderful and knowable place without God.
No wishy washy agnosticism here. Just an open mind and the current null hypothethis, as I previously stated.
It's kinda like he's throwing atheists under the bus and condoning the incorrect stereotype that all atheists are militant gnostic atheists.
Plus he's arguing that word meanings aren't important while getting hung up on and perpetuating the misperceived meaning of a word.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Oh, I know, I know. Your conspiracy theory on what Tyson and Sagan (or any other proponent of agnosticism) actually really believe is very thought provoking indeed. Clearly anyone who has a fundamental difference of opinion with you is a duplicitous schemer concerned with protecting their reputation, or worse yet just too dumb to understand they fit in your rigid paradigm whether they like it or not!
soul creator
Member
one other wrinkle I've seen mentioned elsewhere that also likely plays a factor is that since he is a relatively rare and prominent public black scientist who wants to help shed the stigma against science in the black community (see the video I referenced earlier), that could also play into his desire to avoid associating with the word "atheism", since we tend to be far more religious than other demographics and there's an even stronger social pressure against the word "atheism" when it comes to black folks. Polls/demographic data and my own personal experiences seem to bear this out, lol.
Kind of reminds me of Obama contorting himself to explain his "evolving" views on gay marriage.
I'm not sure why it has to be a "conspiracy theory". We do this all the time with any public figure, since they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain image, almost by definition. If NDT started telling people "I'm not black, I reject labels. I'm not someone who listens to hip-hop music and has a criminal record", it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory to call him out on using flawed (and damaging) terminology. The irony is, Tyson is the one actually doing the whole "forcing people into rigid paradigms" thing by assuming all atheists are required to be raging activists.
"dude, he doesn't want to identify as listening to hip-hop music and having a criminal record, why are you trying to force him into a box by calling him black!"
Kind of reminds me of Obama contorting himself to explain his "evolving" views on gay marriage.
GrotesqueBeauty said:
I'm not sure why it has to be a "conspiracy theory". We do this all the time with any public figure, since they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain image, almost by definition. If NDT started telling people "I'm not black, I reject labels. I'm not someone who listens to hip-hop music and has a criminal record", it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory to call him out on using flawed (and damaging) terminology. The irony is, Tyson is the one actually doing the whole "forcing people into rigid paradigms" thing by assuming all atheists are required to be raging activists.
"dude, he doesn't want to identify as listening to hip-hop music and having a criminal record, why are you trying to force him into a box by calling him black!"
Count Dookkake
Member
Remind you of your first sentence? Okay.
"Add sensitive to the list of things atheists should stop being."
Does that help?
I think it's time to give up on him. No matter how many times we explain it, he will never accept that agnosticism is not a legitimate stance on religion.
VillageNinja
Banned
You keep proving me right. It's getting annoying.
Count Dookkake
Member
That's nice, but do you understand now?
I mean, I explained something for you, so now you should be able to parse my original response.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Finally we agree on something.
Your ignorance disgusts me.
Take it and run.
No, that is not what he is saying.
He is saying that as an Astrophysicist and science educator, he doesn't have the time or energy to support and be involved in the Atheist activist club.
He even says that if the delusion persists and people refuse to understand the science, that the Atheist can have them.
He brings a higher level of discourse, but does not condemn atheists like the people in this thread. He even says we can disprove the existance of God if we have enough proof of absence!
Right, but it takes reading his response to get that information. What he said in the video applies to RagnarokX's statement.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Thankfully I do not care what you think of me. I'm only motivated by greater societal pressures, after all.
ihearthawthats
Banned
this thread still goin on?
if we take the word "american", that means someone who is simply an american citizen, right? but people attach more meaning to it using it to describe things that characterize america. alongisde that usage of the term, people have also created the term "un-american".
sure tyson may technically be an atheist, but that point is fairly irrelevant to him and his job as a scientist. it is unnecessary to call him that, and the original video may likely just be a rant to ask people to stop calling him that. and for what it's worth, i don't think theres very much reason to be calling him black all the time either. neil degrasse tyson, black atheist scientist... like, really?
can't atheism mean more than simply "lack of a belief in the existence of god"?
if we take the word "american", that means someone who is simply an american citizen, right? but people attach more meaning to it using it to describe things that characterize america. alongisde that usage of the term, people have also created the term "un-american".
in tyson's comment response in the blog linked earlier, he states that he often only says these things in response to other people's questions. in another source, he stated that 'atheists tried to claim him as their own'. if someone persisted in calling you "black" in situations that were pretty irrelevant to the topic, would you also not have a reason to ask that person to stop calling you black?soul creator said:
sure tyson may technically be an atheist, but that point is fairly irrelevant to him and his job as a scientist. it is unnecessary to call him that, and the original video may likely just be a rant to ask people to stop calling him that. and for what it's worth, i don't think theres very much reason to be calling him black all the time either. neil degrasse tyson, black atheist scientist... like, really?
That would be creating a generalization. When you do that, it stops applying to everyone accurately. How is this beneficial?
After the high speed chase and acrobatics that have been performed in this thread to slap Tyson with an atheist badge, THAT's what you think may damage and dilute the term atheism? Really?
- Status