(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.

I so happen to like the fence okay...its like being bibelief best of both worlds.....

Thanks for the responses, I just wanted to see you alls take on this stance. I for one think he still an awesome astrophysicist. I think he is right however, like myself I do not like getting labels because of all the other philosophical baggage people will throw on you. Realistically, once you identify with a ists or ism people will assume the whole ism is you instead of attempting to identify what tenants of the ist or ism you are.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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.

The true test my good man, is, do you eat quiche?

(September 5, 2013 at 2:54 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Don't care ... Mr N. deGrasse Tyson an amazingly nice astrophysicist

I agree, he's awesome despite what he believes, but I do admit that if I were to see him outlining the argument from ignorance in the way I've seen him do it and then find out he's also a theist my respect for him would take a nose dive even if my liking of his personality didn't.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

If arguing semantics is bullying, how is it not bullying when people who identify as agnostics try to get atheists to change their definition of the word 'atheist' so as to not include them? Most atheists are agnostics who are comfortable with term atheist also applying to them. If you don't want to call yourself an atheist, don't. But you don't want to stop there. You want us to adopt a meaning of 'atheist' that would require most atheists to stop identifying as such if they agreed with it. But it's not bullying when you do it, eh?

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The fact is that they are trying to balance ideas of belief and non-belief, and cannot resolve that balance to a single conclusion.

Maybe they should coin a word that actually means 'trying to balance ideas of belief and non-belief' and identify as that. Agnostic means 'doesn't know', atheist means 'doesn't believe'. If you don't want to think of yourself or call yourself an atheist, don't. No one is forcing you to argue about what the words mean.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

If that is what some really believes, it doesn't make them a theist anymore than naming their cat 'God' does. I think people who use those definitons either have attributed additional, unspoken qualities for God, or are just searching for a way to avoid identifying as atheist.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Others, like "God is an old man sitting in the sky," are pretty obviously false. So the question itself isn't coherent.

Obviously unlikely, but if God exists, who are we to say what form he, she, it, or they take?

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

They are, at least until the know what is meant by 'X' existing. Not being able to form a positive belief in something includes not believing in it.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

The way I choose to deal with it is to recognize that if I don't have a postive belief in something, I don't believe it.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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."

And I'll state that I won't consider believing in 'X' until I know what it is.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still not with me on this? Fine. Do you believe that boobledyboo exists?
Boobledyboo =

---

Potatoes

---

I didn't believe boobledyboo exists until I found out boobledyboo=potatoes. I wasn't in a Schroedinger's Cat half-state of both believing and not believing boobledyboo exists.

---

(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.

I'd be willing to view it as the position of a God or gods existing being about 50/50.

Gnostic Theist: God exists.
Agnostic Theist: God probably exists.
Agnostic Agnostic: God has a roughly equal chance of existing or not existing.
Agnostic Atheist: God probably doesn't exist.
Gnostic Theist: God doesn't exist.

I think there SHOULD be a niche for someone to just say they're agnostic, and if we shift to probability estimates, we can do that. I know it's not semantically precise, but it IS practical.

---

(September 5, 2013 at 9:08 am)bladevalant546 Wrote:

(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.

I so happen to like the fence okay...its like being bibelief best of both worlds.....

Thanks for the responses, I just wanted to see you alls take on this stance. I for one think he still an awesome astrophysicist. I think he is right however, like myself I do not like getting labels because of all the other philosophical baggage people will throw on you. Realistically, once you identify with a ists or ism people will assume the whole ism is you instead of attempting to identify what tenants of the ist or ism you are.

I think the shitstorm that would follow is reason enough for him not to call himself an atheist.

Not believing in gods and not calling yourself an atheist because of the what people will assume about you is your right. It's when agnostics bring their own assumptons to the table and try to make the word atheist mean more than 'someone who doesn't believe any gods exist' that I have an argument with agnostics...but from my point of view, they're the ones starting it when they do that.

I think we put entirely too much focus on labels.

I mean it sounds like he's an Atheist who doesn't want to lose out on book sales and speaking appearances so takes a softer label. That whole discussion is more about the way other people perceive him rather than his actual beliefs. Besides there is so much cross over between the two. I'm comfortable with either label myself but at the end of the day I don't believe in God (and neither does Dr. Tyson) so Atheist works best.

(September 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I think we put entirely too much focus on labels.

I like labels. Without them, I would not be able to refer to you as you, for even that word is a label to identify you. One simply cannot describe anything without using a label. Go ahead and try.

He, she, tall, short, it, they, black, white are all labels needed for identification. Labels that people consider stereotypical and useless are also needed, for the simple purpose of further identifying the individual on a higher level.

There is nothing wrong with labels. Even the negative, stereotypical epitaphs are necessary.

Asshole is a great label. (Reserved for those qualified enough to receive it)

(September 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I like labels. Without them, I would not be able to refer to you as you, for even that word is a label to identify you. One simply cannot describe anything without using a label. Go ahead and try.

He, she, tall, short, it, they, black, white are all labels needed for identification. Labels that people consider stereotypical and useless are also needed, for the simple purpose of further identifying the individual on a higher level.

There is nothing wrong with labels. Even the negative, stereotypical epitaphs are necessary.

I'm not denying the usefulness of labels, but I think we go overboard with them.

(September 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Nah, this stuff about "lacking a coherent belief in the existence of a God makes you an atheist" is BS.

Wait... what? That is the definition of "atheist".

Whether one likes the word or not, if he or she lacks a belief in deities, he or she is an atheist.

On a side note: what's the difference between a "label" and a "definition"?