SirChained
Banned
It's kind of hard to hide your superiority.
Neil Tyson: Labels are bad and get in the way of conversation. I prefer not to be labeled.
Valnen: See! Atheism is STUPID!
-
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
It's kind of hard to hide your superiority.
Neil Tyson: Labels are bad and get in the way of conversation. I prefer not to be labeled.
Valnen: See! Atheism is STUPID!
VillageNinja
Banned
It's biggest offense is how much of a waste of goddamn time it is. A stance with absolutely nothing to illuminate or bring clarity to. That it's even considered a movement is depressing.
But the words and meaning do not stem from English nor is the English language a monolith of correct meanings to all words..
You're absolutely right, but for the sake of consistency, I'm going to ignore everything you said.
Allow me to add you add you to my list of people who are stupid and closed minded about how the words you're using work. Say hi to VillageNinja for me, would you?
Patapwn
Member
The concept of a singular creator conciseness "God" is an assertion. Like any assertion it needs to be backed up with verifiable evidence. If no verifiable evidence is presented, the natural state without said assertion is presumed true. I think in western society the concept of a "God" is given great exemption from this logical process. And as such, you have a legion of people claiming things like "well, I'm not sure if there is or isn't a creator conciseness. They both have equal validity and could be either? I don't know... I'm an agnostic"
This isn't a scale that teeters back and forth. It's as black and white as are you a theist, yes or no. The "yes" answer has it's obvious connotations. The "no" answer is a bit shadier. This is where we obtain the "1. well, a god is possible 2. There isn't a god 3. whatever, etc." It needs to be made clear that just because one thinks that a god is possible (I do for example) doesn't mean that you stand 1 foot in Theist Land.
This is ultimately where I find Neil Tyson's view a bit disingenuous. In actively attempting to schism atheism with agnosticism he's giving the assertion of a "God" unfair weight to any other idea that gets run through the scientific method. And given his lengthier answer than the bullet point title of this thread, I don't think he's even aware of that baggage that comes with his answer.
This isn't a scale that teeters back and forth. It's as black and white as are you a theist, yes or no. The "yes" answer has it's obvious connotations. The "no" answer is a bit shadier. This is where we obtain the "1. well, a god is possible 2. There isn't a god 3. whatever, etc." It needs to be made clear that just because one thinks that a god is possible (I do for example) doesn't mean that you stand 1 foot in Theist Land.
This is ultimately where I find Neil Tyson's view a bit disingenuous. In actively attempting to schism atheism with agnosticism he's giving the assertion of a "God" unfair weight to any other idea that gets run through the scientific method. And given his lengthier answer than the bullet point title of this thread, I don't think he's even aware of that baggage that comes with his answer.
Count Dookkake
Member
Preventing the erosion of the science curriculum is one thing worth illuminating. There are others, too.
Angry Fork
Member
Sorry to say Sagan is wrong here. That's not what atheism is. It's not possible to have evidence against something that doesn't exist so there's no evidence against god. God's existence is not the default position. Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it's the believers duty to prove god's existence, not the other way around. If you say something exists you have to prove it. It's not the atheists job to disprove it, and he can't anyway all atheists acknowledge that. There's also the fact that we do know enough now about the universe to say that god is unnecessary. Atheists don't say he absolutely can't exist but god is simply unnecessary for everything to work as they do.
Again agnosticism and atheism is the same thing. Agnostics just don't want to get into debates and pussyfoot around definitions. Neil is definitely in the position of trying to advance science to as many people as possible. If Neil flat out says he's an atheist it's going to turn average theist people away. Neil tries to be as warm, friendly and accommodating as possible to theists so that they're willing to listen to him and open up.
Statements like this annoy me so much. It doesn't make any sense. If you "choose" agnosticism over atheism you haven't thought it through all the way yet. Agnosticism is halfway on the bridge to atheism and you just decide to sit down and stop going for some reason. Agnostics love to pretend they're on the high road against the 'evil, dogmatic' atheists that want to end Christmas and eat fetuses.
Welcome to my world.
You're only proving me right.
VillageNinja
Banned
You can't be serious.
Count Dookkake
Member
"Teach the controversy" equals barf.
SirChained
Banned
Ding ding ding.
VillageNinja
Banned
I guess but science doesn't give a fuck and will progress regardless. Atheism is a non factor.
SirChained
Banned
Whoosh
wat?
There is nothing more illuminating and clarifying than the shedding of superstition.
You're a funny one.
Science has always struggled against irrationality.
Be it religion, pseudo-science or governmental forces, finding and publishing the truth has always been hindered.
NDT is very much against religion in the classroom and in the lab.
Patapwn
Member
VillageNinja
Banned
You're talking about science not atheism. Atheism being the preferred tonic of those with something to prove but no facility other than lol religion.
Angry Fork
Member
Count Dookkake
Member
Are you sure you're the village ninja and not something else?
dude.... WHAT
We understand each other
Assuming you read all my other posts in the thread...
Not saying Sagan is right or wrong, but he identified himself as an agnostic. The point is, these guys identified as such. They could have said whatever, but they didn't, and I don't think it's because they were afraid to. Regardless of the nuance, they made their stance known. People need to get over it and move on.
I'm not sure it's the same thing. To me an "atheist" is someone who says "there is no god". It may specifically say "without god", but in context the preposition implies belief. That's why the terms agnostic/gnostic are good as modifiers because they suggests the intensity of that belief. That's why I personally prefer the categories gnostic-atheist: agnostic-atheist:: agnostic-theist: gnostic-atheist. This isn't entirely proper though which is why a lot of people like to think of Agnostic as a third category. But back to my "non-theism" I don't think it falls into any of these categories because I'm neither expressing a belief nor a level of knowledge. So I guess we do agree that the categories aren't particularly helpful, even if we maybe disagree on the details.
Wrong thanks for playing whats the consolation prize?
Can you prove ghosts dont exist? Fairies? the 70 thousand other gods that people have worshipped at one point or another? Now, either you are 'agnostic' towards them, saying 'well maybe...' Or you are an Atheist in the 'dont be silly' regard. Thats not science. Science cant disprove man supernatural claims. Its Atheism, the lack of belief in gods, super natural, fairies and what nots, that is what I am describing. Some people need science to back them up, some people didnt give up on lightning being the anger of the gods until it was pretty obvious what was causing them, even then many people still think natural disasters have super natural 'roots' 'yeah, its a natural disaster, but god can do those too gay marriage!'.
Science isnt... anything but a tool. It makes no claims other than what it can prove.
Yes, you've found exactly where the issue comes from. I think the status with the agnosticism modifiers present should become the standard of identification. If that happened, this entire issue would not exist. Then people would realize there is no such thing as a magical agnostic-only party that seems to be so popular and doesn't take sides. Instead, people tend to assume the worst, and that's what bothers me.
VillageNinja
Banned
I don't believe in ghosts. Or Thor, for that matter. But it's not because I'm atheist. It's because of ions.
Patapwn
Member
This one's a keeper
Right, they're two entirely separate things, that when combined, give a more complete picture of an individual's sentiment toward the topic. Most people don't seem to get this.
oneils
Member
Philosophers should probably just use a different word. It is confusing as hell if that is how they understand "atheist."
What do they think the meanings of "apolitical" and "amoral" are? Philosophers probably aren't under the impression that someone who is apolitical believes that politics don't exist.
I am sure that their "normative use" or "accepted meaning" for the word apolitical is "without politics." Its confusing and not very consistent.
I guess, but don't you think if they felt the need to state they were one way or the other they would? I feel like this is one of those topics where "let it be" would be better for everybody involved. When it gets to the point where you have people changing his wiki page to suit their interests, I would think that is a little much.
EDIT: I said in an earlier post, I know about the agnostic/atheist gnostic/atheist thing. I was never really bothered by people just claiming to be agnostic though.
SirChained
Banned
So you're an atheist, evolutionist, anti-ghostist. We think very alike. Why can't we be friends =[
VillageNinja
Banned
Because you'll probably bring it up at dinner.
Actually he's right. Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether one is a theist or not. It's just a statement of not being "certain" to some degree. Atheists can be agnostic, most are. Less are gnostic and believe that there is no god as a matter of fact.
criesofthepast
Member
Totally agree with him. Respect +10000000
I don't think at all they would state it as such. They fall into the same trap as most everyone else who doesn't want to offend anyone. They contribute to and perpetuate a factual inconsistency for the sake of their image. Whether or not they care to argue it is not mutually exclusive to whether or not they believe. Saying "let it be," means let it be, not attempting to identify yourself as a member of the special party that doesn't take sides. I have no doubt that he is an atheist. What he should have said is, "I don't feel it's worth arguing about, and it doesn't really matter which I am because my goal is to bring science to everyone, atheist or not."
I'd like to give Sagan and Neil a little bit more credit than that, but whatevs.
SirChained
Banned
My girlfriend is an addict in the AA/CA (cocaine anonymous) and uses God to help her cope with her problems. Knowing this, I sometimes remind her of God to help her get through tough times. She knows I'm an atheist, so I question how effective it is, but I try regardless. What you say now?
I saw it, and my opinion on the matter hasn't changed.
Unless you think knowledge and belief are the same thing, than agnosticism isnt some special in between.
It drives me crazy when people use "science" to justify Atheism. "God" isn't even a scientific question. The problem is that a lot of scientists are the ones who perpetuate this use.
I think that's essentially what "hard" and "soft" is used for. The problem, in my experience, is that "gnostic atheists" or "hard atheists" deny that they fall into this category all day long, but instead insist that they are more neutral agnostic/soft atheists (on the other hand gnostic theists seem to embrace that category). Consequently, on an intellectual level, it seems like soft atheists have decided to abandon the term for the more polite "Agnostic".
VillageNinja
Banned
Too heavy, let's talk about the weather.
What do you mean, give them more credit? As in, believe that what they're saying is the absolute truth and they're not just attempting to protect their image? I think it's a combination of both. He says he doesn't have the time or energy to argue religion, and I believe that completely, but I also don't see him as someone who doesn't understand that you can be an atheist and not absolutely claim that god doesn't exist.
Yes, gnostic atheists will very likely argue that that's "true" atheism, or something like that. Part of the problem, as I see it.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Do you think they're lying about what they think?
Even if we grant your tortured use of language, atheism would literally be without belief in god(as theos means god, ism means belief in and a without). Your setup here wants to make atheism and atheist mean two fundamentally different things. You've been attempting to support the underlying view here for a long time, for what reason I don't know. This is not the process you used to come to that conclusion; it is backfilling.
No, I just think they are in denial about it. It's tragically ironic when someone's religion is "anti-religion" and they proselytize atheism.
- Status