Uh huh. All of it stems from his improper use or understanding of the terms atheism and agnosticism.
-
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
Uh huh. All of it stems from his improper use or understanding of the terms atheism and agnosticism.
Come on. Persecution complex. This thread is about plenty else.
And the atheists that I find annoying (some that I agree with in principle 100%) are annoying not because they "assert their position", as you say, but because they are absolutist, obsessive, obnoxious, etc. Not necessarily all at once!
"There are many atheists who say that all agnostics are atheists. Well. OK."
Understand his overall point. Or bury yourself in semantic irrelevance. Your choice.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I agree with this. That's how I identify if someone presses the question.
The only problem is, a common response is.... "oh.. so you're spiritual..!"
That's all I need, because my point is that there is no consensus. I'm not trying to prove that any particular usage of the term is correct.
So what? That means nothing. If I say you look awful, it's not a compliment and if I say you're incredible it isn't because I think you're a liar. That isn't how language works. You were correct when you said:
Usage determines the definition, not etymology.
He said he wasn't an atheist, or at least that he disagreed with the label being applied to himself. He is wrong.
NullPointer
Member
To be fair, EVERYBODY uses generalizations, all of the time, otherwise communication would be unwieldly. Sure these categories aren't 100% inclusive, but that isn't a requirement for them to be useful. Categories like these should be used to start a conversation rather than pre-emptively finish one, and I think was was Tyson's point.
Oh, I'm not arguing the merits, just the semantics. I don't give a shit what people believe, just be honest with yourselves about it.
Yeah except for the fact that his usage is completely in line with very popular definitions of the words, which dictate or change the actual meaning of the words.
But hey, whatever makes you feel better.
Time for a little more of the former, and a little less of the latter.
Semantic irrelevance, it is! Cheers!
SentientStone
Member
Yes, absolutely nothing wrong with standing up for your identity in a respectful way if you truly identify yourself in a certain way. I guess my only problem is with doing it excessively, especially in a boasting way, which just sets up yourself into seeing others, who do not share the same identity, negatively. With that said, I am starting to think I should not identify myself as being 'agnostic' now either, since that term greatly varies in definition too it seems like on a person to person basis. Again, I can only say I do not believe in any entity or entities, but do not rule out the possibility that there is 'something' because doing so would be kind of like taking a leap of faith since it is impossible for us to know everything. I mean, we could all be just living in a toy box right now of some giant ass kid creature, and the universe is inside a snow globe.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
No no.. I'm not feeling persecuted. Far from it. I'm not interested in "teams", only ideas.
Look over this thread and a LOT of the drive-by posts are like "Neil is right, thanks for putting those smug atheist douchebags in their place".. and that's something that needed to be commented on.
They're hardly douchebags, not even typically, so much as people who stepped on the toes of believers, and needed to be put in a box as somehow "wrong" or "bad" for asserting what they do.
It's just human nature. "Here's how you're closed minded, stupid, wrong, uncool, evil, strident, pig headed (etc etc) for saying that mean thing which doesn't agree with my assumed worldview".
It's merely the reverse of "religion and religious people are the cause of all the world's problems" which is similarly untrue.
Fair enough.
But I will say that some of us were arguing the semantics just to argue the semantics. Good way to kill an afternoon!
I disagree. The construction of the word is clear. Atheism and theism are a binary pair and depend entirely on the meaning of the base theism. If theism means belief in god atheism must mean without belief in god.
cutmeamango
Banned
But then it would be (a different reading on) morphology.
Etymology entails usage.
Have you read the text that I linked you? The one of the guy who came with the term "agnosticism"?
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
You dare question the all knowing infographic?
This is little more than the lalalalalalala I'm not listening defense using bigger words.
Pollux
Member
Can we agree that Dawkins is a douchebag?
My mistake, but I think my point was clear. If we cannot agree on what determines the 'proper' usage of a word, this discussion will go nowhere.
IrishNinja
Member
to be fair, i waited till page 6, when i felt braver
this is pretty central to Tyson's thesis statement, though: an inherent need to force a binary decision gives the feeling that one is more important with teams and sophistry than actual discussion on the concept of god.
cutmeamango
Banned
Oh I understood it. I hold the same position.
As I said before, I think his reading and definition of words are valid for discussion if presented that he will be using those definitions, but they are by no stretch the only correct definition, and even more so they are not the primary definition or of common philosophical usage.And that's what I babbled a few pages back, please peeps, don't say that already known as 'correct' definitions are incorrect just because you chose a different one!
speculawyer
Member
He is definitely outspoken and some people can feel he is abrasive. But I certainly would not call him a douchebag. He's definitely a pitbull for his view but does he ever advocate jailing people? Using violence? Criminalizing opposing views? Absolutely not.
People tell him he is going to burn in hell. Fine. They can do that. But when he says their god is a fictional bully then he's the asshole? Well that is not fair. That is just his view.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
You know we can't
95% of what he says about religion is just philosophy/science arguments, which would not be controversial at all if we were talking about other topics.
That 5%, where he confidently "has a go" at his opponents? The part you are clearly referring to? Well people who agree with his position like that.
I don't see what's wrong with saying something like "your spade is a fucking spade" unless you disagree with it.I guess all pundits might be seen as douchebags, from the opposing end?
I have no problem with Dawkins, seeing how much he has to put up with.
Dawkins reads hate mail
Interviews a creationist
It's people like Dawkins that are leading to all the fly-by posts saying Atheists are douchebags. There are a lot of people throughout the world who take religion very seriously, but most are really nice people who do not care whether or not you believe in their religion or not. Sure there are the radicals, but most are pretty decent human beings. Then guys like Dawkins come along who writes a book in which he basically says that anyone who believes in a god is delusional. Then you have Bill Maher making a film mocking religion and calling it ridiculous. Frankly, I hate a lot of religious people. I want to straight up punch anyone who uses religion to claim thats its okay to be anti-gay, but regardless there is no need to come out bluntly making fun of religious people and calling them crazy. Like Neil said, there are a lot of people who wear "Atheist" as a badge of honor and are on their own crusade when frankly, it isn't needed. Like he mentioned we don't need a word for people who don't like golf, and we don't need to write books and have a movement about anti-golf.
That's where I feel most of the tention comes from, and it is unfair. The vast majority of atheists are good people and are not on any crusade and have no problem if people believe in god or not, but unfortunately a few bad eggs have spoiled the whole atheist image. It's not something new, it's happened with every class of people through the history of society, and hopefully just one day all these artificial differences can be set down and we can all work together for a better society for all.
NullPointer
Member
If somebody is trying to sell you a line of bullshit, calling it out as bullshit isn't "being a douchebag". Its being direct and unambiguous.
I'd also like to add that a belief in a God isn't nearly the same as a belief in a particular religion's dogma. And its this dogma that Hawkins and other attacks because it affects more than just the lives of believers.
Pollux
Member
Well the religious people who are advocating jailing people, using violence, etc. are douchebags as well. A douchebag is a douchebag whether he believes in God or not.
You know we can't
95% of what he says about religion is just philosophy/science arguments, which would not be controversial at all if we were talking about other topics.
That 5%, where he confidently "has a go" at his opponents? The part you are clearly referring to? Well people who agree with his position like that.
I guess all pundits might be seen as douchebags, from the opposing end?
As I said before, douchebags are douchebags, even if they're
I like you.
cutmeamango
Banned
Dawkins is just spotlight hungry. When people cheer him up he gets all red and pumped up and loses it for the crowd.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
As I said before, douchebags are douchebags, even if they'reon my side
Maybe if the criteria to appreciate someone is for everyone on the planet to like them or whatever.
I don't disagree with the way you describe things. It contains truth. But do you think politics is free of such mudslinging? Sports teams? Smartphone choice?
speculawyer
Member
OK . . . then that Merriam-Webster dictionary listing got it wrong.
I think we can all agree that Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken "Atheists" out there. But by his own words in "The God Delusion", he does NOT claim that no god exists. He doesn't believe in a god and he has a strong suspicion that there is no god, but even the most famous atheist in the world will not say "I believe no god exists."
So if the most famous "atheist" doesn't fit the definition, clearly their definition is wrong.
Pollux
Member
Liking has nothing to do with it, but civility is something that I find to be rather lacking these days. On both sides.
orientalNoodle
Banned
It is called science. People with rational thinking will naturally become atheists. Don't have to "convert" shit.
soul creator
Member
"Not religious" doesn't actually answer the question "what is your stance on the existence of gods". It may or may not get someone off your back for the time being (though that seems to be your ultimate goal, judging from the way you treat the topic), but it doesn't actually answer the question
Buddhists can be considered religious, without believing in gods. And deists and the "I believe in a creator that guides me but not organized religion!" folks would also be "not religious" while still believing in gods.
other snarky answer: This guy is "not religious" also
Switch the bolded to "it just means I don't believe in the existence of a god, and nothing else", and that's all that would be needed for explaining "atheism" to other people. And I bet that it would take far less effort and "caring" than the posts you've spent time typing out tonight
edit: if you happen to live in some area where your life is actually threatened in some way from mentioning atheism, none of this applies. But if it's just "I might possibly have to clarify the term afterward!", that seems like it does more harm than good. After all, it's not like saying a different term actually solves the underlying issue someone might have with you. It's just kicking the can down the road for another time.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Hardly. Science, to many people on this planet, is the reveal of things that God created but we didn't know about yet
Besides, it's not about "converting" people. It's about stating the way you think the world works, and being allowed to say how you think it works.
Well he's a pundit. I think in real life, atheists and theists are plenty kind to each other. But in debates, some people sling mud.
speculawyer
Member
And that is EXACTLY why people want NDT to admit he is an atheist. If the only people to 'come out' as atheists are the brash outspoken politically active ones then that is the FALSE image that gets perpetuated. That is like thinking all gay people are ACT-UP activists if those are the only gay people you've ever heard of.
I just felt like you were ignoring a lot of the behaviour from other people (ie, the opposite end of the people you were downing).
Anyway, I otherwise completely agree.
An afternoon? Empires have risen and fallen alongside some of KHarvey's multi-quote arguments.BocoDragon said:
As much as any outspoke religious leader is a douchebag. Or outspoken people are about other controversial topics.
Pollux
Member
I said that...
IrishNinja
Member
i admittedly did not read the god delusion, but - is this true? i thought Dawkins took a hard atheist stance on there being no gods. anecdotally, the fans i know of him all do.
Hardly. Science, to many people on this planet, is the reveal of things that God created but we didn't know about yet
Besides, it's not about "converting" people. It's about stating the way you think the world works, and being allowed to say how you think it works.
Well he's a pundit. I think in real life, atheists and theists are plenty kind to each other. But in debates, some people sling mud.
Right. Unless I'm trying to convert people to critical thinking or skepticism. Those form a much larger part of my worldview than atheism, which is merely a subset of those.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Well I did say the thread was "nothing but" that and of course it wasn't. I myself participated in good debates earlier in the thread. So point taken.
Not at all. There is mudslinging in everything, but people just tend to be a lot more passionate about religion than politics/sports/phones. I'll never understand why so many wars have had to be fought over religion, but like I said, there isn't anything that people are more passionate about.I don't disagree with the way you describe things. It contains truth. But do you think politics is free of such mudslinging? Sports teams? Smartphone choice?
Ideally we could just move past it all, and work together on the things we do know and can prove and not the things that we can't prove, but alas we are humans and it will probably be this way until we no longer exist.
orientalNoodle
Banned
I wouldn't say he is a douchebag. But his method is flawed tho.
I agree with this. That's how I identify if someone presses the question.
The only problem is, a common response is.... "oh.. so you're spiritual..!"
That can still be a problem, but I've found it to be a lot more rare.
The big problem is with how innocuous the a- prefix is. When someone hears that you are something, they instantly group you together with others who claim they are the same thing and proceed to project certain values onto you.
However, when someone hears that you are not something, such as "Not a believer", their reaction is to simply separate you from the believers, rather than to connect you with the non-believers. I find this much more acceptable.
Pollux
Member
Critical thinking and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, despite what fundamentalists and evangelicals would have you believe.
Correct. I don't care what he's saying, it's the way he's saying it and the way he almost dehumanizes those who do believe.
And so people with controversial and outspoken views are douchebags? Cause thats the only way I could see how Dawkins is one.
NullPointer
Member
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
He definitely states that he is not 100% sure. He leaves room for doubt.
Do they? Or is that an assumption?
I imagine that nearly every self-proclaimed atheist has allowed that they don't know what's behind the curtain, and if God appeared before them, they'd change their mind... But the general belief is that no one knows what's behind the curtain, despite what religious traditions claim.
And skepticism?
- Status