Forgive me if this has been done before. It's possible this vid has been shared already. However, since I'm new here, I think this represents my position pretty well:

Yes, this has been done many times. Many here would say "done to death". I never mind addressing it, no matter how many times it comes up.

I'm a huge Tyson fan (I just heard he's going to do a new version of 'Cosmos'!), but he is wrong here.

I appreciate his worry concerning the baggage that is attached to the atheist label, but the way to eliminate it is to address it, not ignore it.

By calling himself an agnostic, all he is addressing is his position concerning what is unknown and/or unknowable. He is not addressing his beliefs.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Either one accepts a proposition or premise as true, or they don't. If someone does not hold the premise that a god exists as true, they are an atheist by definition.

Do you really think that Neil deGrasse Tyson holds the premise that a god exists as true?

Since you indicate your religious views as 'agnostic', I will ask you the same question. Do you hold the premise or proposition that a god exists as true?

(May 29, 2013 at 7:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes, this has been done many times. Many here would say "done to death". I never mind addressing it, no matter how many times it comes up.

I'm a huge Tyson fan (I just heard he's going to do a new version of 'Cosmos'!), but he is wrong here.

I appreciate his worry concerning the baggage that is attached to the atheist label, but the way to eliminate it is to address it, not ignore it.

By calling himself an agnostic, all he is addressing is his position concerning what is unknown and/or unknowable. He is not addressing his beliefs.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Either one accepts a proposition or premise as true, or they don't. If someone does not hold the premise that a god exists as true, they are an atheist by definition.

Do you really think that Neil deGrasse Tyson holds the premise that a god exists as true?

Since you indicate your religious views as 'agnostic', I will ask you the same question. Do you hold the premise or proposition that a god exists as true?

I don't know. I don't think people are binary switches, where you say "Look, either you believe it or you don't." There's a third option: still processing. There's also a fourth option: simultaneously holding both positions.

Before you call me crazy, I'd point to the fact that people's brains work in parallel, and decisions are really the output of millions of parallel processes, not all of which need be aligned with each other. I'd also point out that "God" is a highly ambiguous term. If you mean is there an entity so much more intelligent than humans that we couldn't comprehend it, then I'd venture a guess: probably, somewhere, there is. If you mean "Sky Daddy who gets mad when teenagers masturbate," I'd say no, almost certainly not.

I don't accept "lack of an idea" as a substitute for "still processing." If you run an equation through a computer, I don't think it makes sense to take a position on what the outcome will be. You have to wait for it either to give an actual answer or tell you, "Cannot compute-- please refine request."

I don't take issue with the undecided/unknown position. That position is by definition agnostic. It doesn't fit me because while I may not know for certain if there is a god or not I don't believe there is. As such the agnostic atheist label fits me rather well.

(May 29, 2013 at 7:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't know. I don't think people are binary switches, where you say "Look, either you believe it or you don't." There's a third option: still processing. There's also a fourth option: simultaneously holding both positions.

Having read Tyson I don't think he's holding on to both positions. He is pretty clear that he doesn't believe in a god. He just doesn't want to make a big deal of it which seems reasonable to me, especially for a public figure.

I don't know for certain if there is a god somewhere out there picking his nose while kids are sold for food. There might be, might not. Most likely not, but, meh!

I don't believe in Jesus. I don't believe in Thor. I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe in the god of Choco Krispies. I don't believe in... (insert your god's name here).

I am 99% sure there is no god.

I am convinced yours is fake.

IMO if you are "still processing" whether you believe in something or not, you are already passively not believing in it.

Babies are atheists; they don't have the capacity to believe, or the ability to reason to disbelief or belief. So they are in a default position of non-belief. The lack of a belief still makes them atheists.

I also disagree with your statement about being able to believe and disbelieve at the same time. That just flies in the face of logic. The example you gave is not of holding belief and disbelief in the same thing at the same time; they are quite clearly different things.

Comparing computers to beliefs is silly. Computers have no ability to believe, not do they think at all.

(May 29, 2013 at 7:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd also point out that "God" is a highly ambiguous term. If you mean is there an entity so much more intelligent than humans that we couldn't comprehend it, then I'd venture a guess: probably, somewhere, there is. If you mean "Sky Daddy who gets mad when teenagers masturbate," I'd say no, almost certainly not.

If you look at the realm of all possibilities, then God is possible but also, me waking up tomorrow on planet Mars. More relevant is what is probable? Me waking up tomorrow on planet Mars is HIGHLY improbable. Take the existence of God, when one looks at all the evidence and arguments, there isn't any good one to justify a belief in God.

(May 30, 2013 at 4:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: IMO if you are "still processing" whether you believe in something or not, you are already passively not believing in it.

I think this is the case.

A theist is someone that has an active belief (hold the propositions to be true) that a god or gods exist.

If someone does not have the belief that a god or gods exist, whether they phrase it as "I don't know", "I'm still processing", they are still in the psychological state of not having having the belief that a god exists.

(May 30, 2013 at 11:10 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(May 30, 2013 at 4:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: IMO if you are "still processing" whether you believe in something or not, you are already passively not believing in it.

I think this is the case.

A theist is someone that has an active belief (hold the propositions to be true) that a god or gods exist.

If someone does not have the belief that a god or gods exist, whether they phrase it as "I don't know", "I'm still processing", they are still in the psychological state of not having having the belief that a god exists. Nor is talking about the beliefs of babies, who have none.

I don't think that description is really an adequate one, because many things meet the criteria of lacking a belief. For example, by your literal description, my beagle is an atheist. So is his blankie. So is a lifelong confirmed Christian who is currently asleep or in a coma. But I don't think that's really how even you guys would take the word. There's an unspoken assumption: that one has a mechanism which COULD form positive ideas about the existence of God. But now you're up against philosophical issues with free will, determinism, etc. Could anything really be other than it is right now?

To avoid calling beagles atheists, I think it's more sensible to consider questions in both forms: "Do you believe God exists? Do you believe God does not exist?" If you lack BOTH of those beliefs, or if you accept BOTH as plausible candidates for reality, agnostic is a better term.

---

(May 30, 2013 at 4:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: IMO if you are "still processing" whether you believe in something or not, you are already passively not believing in it.

Babies are atheists; they don't have the capacity to believe, or the ability to reason to disbelief or belief. So they are in a default position of non-belief. The lack of a belief still makes them atheists.

I also disagree with your statement about being able to believe and disbelieve at the same time. That just flies in the face of logic. The example you gave is not of holding belief and disbelief in the same thing at the same time; they are quite clearly different things.

Comparing computers to beliefs is silly. Computers have no ability to believe, not do they think at all.

You have a model in your mind of a human being as a singular entity, capable of having only one answer to a yes/no question. However, this is not what people actually are. A name is a label for a billion parallel functions, which not only can, but very often do, work at odds with one another.

re: babies
Baby diapers are ALSO atheists, by your criteria. I do not think those criteria are adequate, because talking about the lack of religious belief of diapers isn't a very useful conversation.