I personally agree with his stance and it kinda my stance aswell now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

There wouldn't be a need for the term "atheist" if people didnt keep claiming that there's some kind of invisible sky daddy.

I think its a pointless difference. Atheists are usually agnostics and agnostics are usually atheists.. It really doesn't matter. Either way most atheists/agnostics don't believe in a god but can't be certain because being 100% certain about anything is stupid.

Same as in CleanShavenJesus' thread with ignosticism. http://atheistforums.org/thread-20677.html

Its all more or less the same and I see it being discussed all the time. Who gives a fuck really?

He's not just an agnostic. He is also an atheist, no matter if he wants to avoid that term or not.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

To hold the premise that a god exists to be true is theism. If one does not hold the premise that a god exist to be true, they are an atheist.

I'll bet a years salary that Neil Degrass Tyson does not hold that the premise that a god exists to be true. And therefore, no matter what he may call himself, he is an atheist.

Nah, this stuff about "lacking a coherent belief in the existence of a God makes you an atheist" is BS. Many people have some religious beliefs, but they aren't very strong, very relevant, or very important to them. So if you ask them if God is real, they'll say, "Hmmmm. . . maybe there's something out there. I'm not really sure, but it wouldn't surprise me." Describing those people as atheist isn't really an accurate statement of their position as THEY see it; it's semantic bullying. The fact is that they are trying to balance ideas of belief and non-belief, and cannot resolve that balance to a single conclusion.

I've heard many definitions, both religious and philosophical, for God. Some of them, like "God is the sum total of all experience in the universe" are strangely definitional but necessarily real. Others, like "God is an old man sitting in the sky," are pretty obviously false. So the question itself isn't coherent.

It's like asking "Do you believe X exists?" and insisting that everyone is an-X-ist because they are unable to form a positive belief in X. That's not how I choose to deal with the semantics-- I choose to say, "The status of my belief is unknown, because I can't process this incoherent question. For some values of X, I might believe, and for some, I might not. Explain exactly what you mean when you say X, and I'll state my belief state."

Still not with me on this? Fine. Do you believe that boobledyboo exists?
Boobledyboo =

I have always viewed agnostics as fence sitters, individuals too wimpy to identify one way or the other.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So if you ask them if God is real, they'll say, "Hmmmm. . . maybe there's something out there. I'm not really sure, but it wouldn't surprise me."

Your question, "is god real?" is not a question concerning BELIEF. You are asking a question concerning KNOWLEDGE.

If someone asked me the same question, other than the end ("it wouldn't surprise me"), I would answer more or less the same. That is why I am agnostic.

If you restated your question so the query was about belief, as in "do you BELIEVE a god exists?" and they responded the same way as above, they are not answering the question.

Quote:Describing those people as atheist isn't really an accurate statement of their position as THEY see it; it's semantic bullying.

True, but not for the reason you give. They haven't given enough information to discern whether they are an atheist or not.

The correct question to discern if they are an atheist would be something like, "do you currently hold the premise that a god exists to be true?". If they answer "yes" they are a theist, any other answer would be atheism. Even if they answer, "I don't know", that would still mean that they currently do not hold the premise that a god exists to be true.

Quote: The fact is that they are trying to balance ideas of belief and non-belief, and cannot resolve that balance to a single conclusion.

There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. Either they currently have an active belief that a god exists, or they don't.

Quote:I've heard many definitions, both religious and philosophical, for God. Some of them, like "God is the sum total of all experience in the universe" are strangely definitional but necessarily real. Others, like "God is an old man sitting in the sky," are pretty obviously false. So the question itself isn't coherent.

Yes, definitions are important to these discussions.

Quote:It's like asking "Do you believe X exists?" and insisting that everyone is an-X-ist because they are unable to form a positive belief in X. That's not how I choose to deal with the semantics-- I choose to say, "The status of my belief is unknown, because I can't process this incoherent question. For some values of X, I might believe, and for some, I might not. Explain exactly what you mean when you say X, and I'll state my belief state."

Yes, X has to be defined.

Once defined, then there are only 2 positions, belief or disbelief.

Quote:Still not with me on this? Fine. Do you believe that boobledyboo exists?
Boobledyboo =

---

Potatoes

---

Until you define boobleydoo, I can not say.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I have always viewed agnostics as fence sitters, individuals too wimpy to identify one way or the other.

Damn, its a good thing I identify as atheist first and agnostic second. Wouldn't want anyone to thing I'm a namby pamby fence sitter.

Given Dr. Tyson's outspoken viewpoints on the invalidity of unfalsifiable assertions, he's an agnostic mostly because I think he doesn't really care much about religion and taking a stance would be a distraction.

I do know that he's rather insistent on being referred to as agnostic. Whatever he chooses to call himself, he'd make an amazing atheist.

Don't care ... Mr N. deGrasse Tyson an amazingly nice astrophysicist