I'm fine with someone arguing that, I was referring to those avoiding the atheism label because of the social stigma.It's cowardice to say you do not have enough evidence to determine whether there is a god or not? It's the most logical position, I'm not surprised Tyson chose it
Meanings aren't dependent entirely on root words, but neither do the masses define philosophical positions. People have had (and still do) some repugnant ideas of what certain groups of people are or believe, they don't get to define them.People can call themselves whatever they want (although we are talking about the demand that others apply the label to themselves even if they don't want to). My point was made in the context of the actual meaning of the word, which is only dependent on what people think it means, not what people wish it meant or what its root words are.
-Theist
Theos ist
God + that who believes in
That who believes in god.
Doesn't become ->>
Atheist
A theos ist
Without/Absence of + god + that who believes in
->> Without/Absence of that who believes in god.
but
That who believes in absence of god.
Etymology
From French athéiste (athée + -iste), from Latin atheos, from Ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, godless, without god), from ἀ- (a-, without) + θεός (theos, god)
That's true. Words only mean what people think they mean. If a single person decides it has a meaning that differs from the common definition used by the person/people they are talking to, they are effectively ignoring the concept of communication. They might as well be speaking a different language.
He's right completely.
You can't know, you can't not know.
Did you miss that he made a lot of other nonsensical arguments beside that? As I said, he can be a blowhard, while on the topic of his field, he can keep it somewhat interesting, but outside of that, in cases such as this, he makes terrible arguments.I'm not sure how you missed that the entire point of this thread and his statement in the video was that he doesn't like being dragged into things outside his field and be used by "groups" as some kind of symbol of their own beliefs.
I want to clarify a little bit here, I think you mean this, but I am trying so hard to nail this down with other people in the thread -
To the bolded, that would specifically be Agnostic Atheism - you can be atheist for a lot of reasons, but if you are Agnostic Atheist, it's because you feel as though the ability to know of the existence of God, currently and/or at any time, is impossible.
-Theist
Theos ist
God + that who believes in
That who believes in god.
Doesn't become ->>
Atheist
A theos ist
Without/Absence of + god + that who believes in
->> Without/Absence of that who believes in god.
but
That who believes in absence of god.
That isn't what he's arguing though. NDT (shortened since I'm tired of typing his name) is saying that agnostic has it's roots in "gnosis" or, "knowledge"
according to Merriam-Webster:
By contrast:
What NDT said in the video is ENTIRELY more consistent with agnosticism than with atheism, at least as Merriam-Webster sees it.
true, i also enjoy his larger view of 'not wanting to be in any category at all'. just start a conversation from a fresh vantage point very time
The problem I have with labeling myself as agnostic or just saying "I don't know," is that it seems to imply that I simply haven't given any thought or research into the topic, which isn't really true.
I have spent a lot of time reading about religion, thinking about religion, and discussing religion, and have come to the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god or gods. I lack the belief in a higher power, and that makes me an atheist. Obviously, if presented with compelling evidence which suggested the presence of a God, I would reevaluate my position. But since I have looked into it, and have failed to be convinced about the existence of god, I'm an atheist. It doesn't mean I tell religious people they're stupid, it doesn't mean I act like a jackass, and it doesn't mean I pretend to believe with a certainty that there is no god, it simply means that I lack a belief in a higher power.
English
Wikipedia has an article on:
Atheist
Etymology
From French athéiste (athée + -iste), from Latin atheos, from Ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, godless, without god), from ἀ- (a-, without) + θεός (theos, god)..
Pronunciation
IPA: /ˈeɪθiɪst/
Audio (US)
(file)
Hyphenation: a‧the‧ist
Noun
atheist (plural atheists)
(narrowly) A person who believes that no deities exist (especially, one who has no other religious belief).  
(broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not they believe that no deities exist).
(loosely) A person who has no belief in any deities, including those with no concept of deities.
(loosely, rare) A person who does not believe in a particular deity (or any deity in a particular pantheon), notwithstanding that they may believe in another deity.  
So the issue is, should Agnostic Atheism be separate from the dictionary definition of Atheism (whose definition society has distorted very much) or not?
There are a shit load of atheists around you every day, who aren't preaching, and aren't assholes. But because they aren't , you never register them in your mind as atheists.It just makes the conversation so much better, there's no stopping point nor beginning.
this is a bit off topic from what you've said, but this is my main problem with Atheists.
Atheists have it so strong in their head, in their belief, that there are no gods, whatsoever, they base this off science, or fact, or philosophies or something else. Yet they barrade religious people for blindly following something without question, and some (read, not all) atheists are so in your face and so rude and on point about everything that they like to be just as bigoted, and hateful and angry and "IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG HOW CAN YOU BE SO DUMB" to people that they're just as bad as religious people.
There is no concrete evidence, nor will there probably ever real be (but one can hope) that a god exists, or doesn't exist. Even if all the religious texts in the world were shown to be false with 100% evidence that proves it, you cannot prove there isn't a god.
Nor can religious folks claim there is a god merely off text and faith alone.
When you open your mind to something such as "i'm willing to learn if there is a god, or if there isn't a god, and weigh each others points until something is concrete." you have the best possible way to look at a situation, and not come off as a bigoted, loud, rude uncaring asshole.
There are a shit load of atheists around you every day, who aren't preaching, and aren't assholes. But because they aren't , you never register them in your mind as atheists.
A kind atheist is an invisible identity.
In this thread atheists rally together to collectively defend against being called people who rally together to collectively talk about not believing in something.
There are a load of atheists around you every day, who aren't preaching, and aren't assholes. But because they aren't , you never register them in your mind as atheists.
A kind atheist is an invisible identity.
The same could be said for religious types.
I don't know why I get annoyed when people bring up dictionary definitions in the midst of an "agnostic VS. atheist" discussion. It usually has no real bearing on the discussion, save to validate the arbitrary decision by random people as to what they think a word means. I thought we all agreed on this. Agnostic / gnostic has to do with knowledge, atheism / theism has to do with belief. Essentially, people who try to champion the "agnostic" flag are simply refusing to answer the question "do you believe there's a god?" I personally don't know any atheists that don't acknowledge that they don't know for sure. Thus, agnosticism is a moot point. None of us know. We can have an opinion on the matter though.
In this thread atheists rally together to collectively defend against being called people who rally together to collectively talk about not believing in something.
I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, unicorns, and leprechauns then I guess
Someone should ask him his opinion on those things. Because it's literally the same thing.
Eh. Not really a valid point. We can pretty much understand that Santa Claus(a magical human) does not and can not exist. However there is no way to know if a god exists, even if you don't believe it. I use the term god loosely... could mean lots of different things. It's much different than the idea of a magic human.
I used to identify myself as an atheist, but years ago I started seeing myself as an agnostic because there is just no way to know. Even if you really don't think a god exists, but admit that you do not actually know, you are still agnostic.
Aren't they already though?
Gnosticism deals in knowledge, theism deals in belief.
You are stretching sooooo hard, and everyone on the planet disagrees with you (appeal ad populam!)
I guess you are arguing that the word means "'lack of god' belief", whereas we are saying the word means "lacking the 'god belief'". Stalemate. Oh well
Essentially, people who try to champion the "agnostic" flag are simply refusing to answer the question "do you believe there's a god?"
I don't defend myself, I defend other Atheists who feel the label is appropriate, but do not rally or whatever else you want to ascribe to Atheism.
Specifically, I fully support NDG's original point, and I am fighting for it - you can't make, or rather you shouldn't make superfluous assumptions about someone based off a label associated with them.
If someone is Christian, I can safely assume they are followers of christ - but to, for example, assume that they are homophobic would be superfluous, and unnecessary - exactly the sort of thing a lot of people in this thread are agreeing with, but are not actually considering when they speak.
Because the majority of people, regardless of their beliefs, just don't give enough of a shit about others' religious beliefs to waste their time learning them?
I agree entirely with this.
Did you miss that he made a lot of other nonsensical arguments beside that? As I said, he can be a blowhard, while on the topic of his field, he can keep it somewhat interesting, but outside of that, in cases such as this, he makes terrible arguments.
Same.I really don't get what is the obsession GAF has with this guy.
Yes - that means you are both Agnostic about the liklihood of a Deity and an Atheist - in fact that would make you an Agnostic Atheist.
Also, if Santa is magical, couldn't he magically make himself impossible to detect?
That's not a view, it's merely making a point where there is none to be made. Atheism, atheist, they're words that have a definition. Someone who has communicated to others that (s)he assumes the reasoning that fit that definition, will be referred to as holding that reasoning afterwards with the appropriate word. Not wanting to be 'labeled' as an 'active atheist' is something different than actually being an atheist. A white person might as well say they're not white, because they don't like the label. It's just obnoxious and beside the point.true, i also enjoy his larger view of 'not wanting to be in any category at all'. just start a conversation from a fresh vantage point very time
This seems very pertinent, if people are trying to use a morphological or etymological argument but are confusing the root "theos" as meaning "belief in God" instead of simply "God" or "deity".
More broadly, it seems to me that people try and remove the element of active belief from atheism because of some misconstrued understanding of belief itself - that is, supposedly the cause of atheism is more rational because it lacks belief. But this is self-defeating. Someone with deeper knowledge can correct me on this, but most/all philosophical accounts of knowledge retain belief as an integral part of it. (Even the most basic account holds that knowledge is true, justified belief.) The problem isn't with having belief, the problem is with having unjustified belief.
I'm too busy actually living and trying to be a good human being.
Thank you for quoting the etymology online dictionary to further prove my point (non stretched point that is!).
And wikitionary!, which labels your definition as the "loosely" interpretation hehe.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Athiest: No.
The problem is that a lot of atheists are actually agnostic but don't realize it.
By its definition atheism denies theism.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Athiest: No.
Since changing the meaning to the conflation of both ideas would mean no longer having a way to discuss the ideas separately ... that would be a horrible move.I don't believe in a ... [God, higher being, etc] because there is no proof out there that he exists. - This is what a lot of people who are Atheist define themselves as (which is Agnostic Atheism, it seems)
What i'm asking is that is it a problem of correcting the name of their position (to Agnostic Atheist), or is it okay to change the meaning of Atheism to Agnostic Atheism seeing as how society seems to be moving in that direction yet still calling themselves Atheist?
Reading back, maybe i'm over-complicating this issue.
Of course. But believing that would involve accepting the idea that magic exists in the universe instead of pure physical forces. God would act and exist on a completely different metaphysical level than magic. God would probably be either the universe itself or exist outside the universe, and that's something we can't know in comparison to seriously believing that magic doesn't/does exist within the universe.
So in other words he is an atheist but doesn't want to be called an atheist out of fear of being stereotyped. Cool.
This needs to be on the front page of every single one of these threads.
and fools seldom differ.Great minds think alike.
Basically it's the safe answer, and is disappointing from Tyson. Then again, if I had my own version of Cosmos coming out next year, I would probably be laying the groundwork like this, too. One thing Sagan didn't have to overcome at the time he made Cosmos was an America that was actively hostile toward science and empirical knowledge.
Or, that we can't know if magic exists in the universe, thus we can't know if magical beings exist in the universe, thus we can't know if Santa Clause (a magic being) exists in the universe.
Ie, Santa Clause Agnostic.
This is a very interesting point. I'd like to read more about this actually.