Neil Degrasse Tyson

[Longhorn]

Calm down. Its ok. We are all fine. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. Geez, I didn't expect so much flak over this. All I was asking was for your opinion on the statements he made, and then I stated my opinions.

My panties are perfectly fine, thanks ಠ_ಠ

But seriously, I'm only objecting to calling atheism a movement and the use of the word we. Lack of belief is hardly an ideology, or a social club.

As for the topic, I think it is 'cowardly', though that's maybe too strong a word. Some people don't like the stigma that comes with declaring atheism, and I can understand that, what with all the loonies over there. But NDT does show a great deal of ignorance about atheism, and that's a pity.

[Exian]

I'll take whatever association with NDT I can get. Love that guy.

[Alex K]

But NDT is a scientist first and foremost and personally I only pay attention to what he says in the field he has actual expertise in.

On a side note, I've never thought of NDT as being associated with the 'atheist' movement. More with the pro-science and skeptical thinking crowd, but not necessarily atheism.

I'd say he is a science communicator first and foremost, and that is his priority (I don't know how much actual research he does nowadays, I'd guess not a lot), and he has obviously decided that wearing the atheism label would be a hindrance for that work (if he even agrees with it), and that is perfectly understandable.

He reaches people others with more overt atheistic attitudes do not reach as easily. He can talk to the partly very religious black community and use his ties there to bring science literacy to places where a Dawkins-like science communicator would not reach.

[robvalue]

He obviously is an atheist, by our lingo. He's probably well aware of the stigma and is pragmatically avoiding the label. I find it hard to believe he'd really be dumb enough not to understand it all. But I'm just guessing.

[Dystopia]

Actually Neil is someone I identify with a lot more than Dawkins or Hitchens.

So he comes onto a forum, how exactly does that make him part of a movement? How do you reach the conclusion he does this for 'nothing' if not being part of a movement?

What defines a movement? is being part of a Church being part of a movement? What about creating a foundation for science and skepticism, writing mass books on atheism and giving lectures about atheism?

[Dystopia]

Calm down. Its ok. We are all fine. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. Geez, I didn't expect so much flak over this. All I was asking was for your opinion on the statements he made, and then I stated my opinions.

My panties are perfectly fine, thanks ಠ_ಠ

But seriously, I'm only objecting to calling atheism a movement and the use of the word we. Lack of belief is hardly an ideology, or a social club.

As for the topic, I think it is 'cowardly', though that's maybe too strong a word. Some people don't like the stigma that comes with declaring atheism, and I can understand that, what with all the loonies over there. But NDT does show a great deal of ignorance about atheism, and that's a pity.

There is a movement whether you like it or not, it's just that most of us are not part of it. If not, how do you explain the number of lectures, books and prominent famous atheists people listen to?

Christianity is simply the belief in the divinity of Jesus - There is nothing else as a requirement, so how is that at least a concise movement?

[Dystopia]

Commenting the OP:

I think people need to take some lessons on comprehending basic communication because most are missing what he is saying:

Firstly, he once said "I'm not convinced" to the question "Do you think there is a god?" so he's an atheist.

What he is saying and that's where we should pay attention, is that any movement, philosophy or label has baggage attached to it - That's true for religion, it's true for atheism and anything else - The fact atheism is just a lack of belief in gods is irrelevant because it has baggage attached to it like any other position of belief. People associate atheism with people like Dawkins and books like The God Delusion like they associate Islam with ISIS and Christianity with the Pope. It's part of our need to categorize people. NDT said previously that he doesn't like the word atheist because there isn't a similar word for people who don't play golf (agolfist) so there's not even a need to use it and call himself that (basically there shouldn't be a word to describe those who don't believe). I think he is being wise and I would behave somewhat similarly though I would be more open about being atheist. he called himself agnostic but that is merely his position on knowledge and nothing else, he is most likely atheist as he doesn't believe in any god that we know of. if you want to consider atheism simply a position of belief it is still something that has baggage and stereotypes like any other position in society. It isn't just one or two ideas that are prone to stereotypes, all of them are. If you expect that books like The God Delusion can be massively sold without creating stereotypes in society then you need to reconsider your stance.

Neil is wisely stepping away from stereotypes that don't benefit him and taking a more "liberal" position that I mostly agree with - Like he said before, if something is just a lack of belief in god, why create institutions about it, write books, give lectures and create twitter accounts to constantly tell people what you think is true?

[Faith No More]

I'm perfectly fine with Neil's position. He's clearly an atheist by the terms we go by around here, but I think his not identifying as atheist is more of a political move. Like it or not, in America, the word atheist does come with baggage, and like Alex said, by identifying as agnostic, he can reach people more easily my not having to jump over certain hurdles that he would have to as and out and out atheist.

He's heavily inspired by Carl Sagan(who also refused to identify as atheist), so he sees his role as an ambassador of science. That role is easier to fill by identifying as an agnostic.

[Dystopia]

I'm perfectly fine with Neil's position.  He's clearly an atheist by the terms we go by around here, but I think his not identifying as atheist is more of a political move.  Like it or not, in America, the word atheist does come with baggage, and like Alex said, by identifying as agnostic, he can reach people more easily my not having to jump over certain hurdles that he would have to as and out and out atheist.  

He's heavily inspired by Carl Sagan(who also refused to identify as atheist), so he sees his role as an ambassador of science.  That role is easier to fill by identifying as an agnostic.

It's not just the baggage of being immoral and evil but the baggage of being associated with "angry" atheists who bring headlines saying religion needs a cure,etc - Neil said that he really can't judge people for not having enough knowledge and therefore being ignorant if it's not their fault - He said it is disrespectful to mock people if they are ignorant due to outside circumstances. I think he is mostly focused on teaching science, astronomy and getting people to think and takes a mode moderate stance compared to other atheists like Dawkins, and that's why it sounds weird but many atheists would take a similar position. Most of all, he does seem to be little fond of organized atheism like Dawkins and his followers because he thinks the word shouldn't even be used in the first place kinda like agolfism doesn't exist, he just doesn't want to be associated with something he is not which is itself a very reasonable position.

[Confused Ape]

I believe that he is a great scientist and is really smart, however his attitudes towards atheism are very cowardly. In the video below he makes many cringe worthy statements. For example at around the 25 second mark he calls atheism a philosophy and claims that with it comes baggage. He also is extremely ignorant when it comes to the terms atheism and agnosticism.

I didn't think he was ignorant about the term, agnosticism.  He doesn't know if there is any kind of Supreme Being because of lack of evidence but he'll accept evidence if it ever turns up.

I think a lot of his comments about atheism were inspired by New Atheism where atheists who subscribe to the aims are pushing for social and political reforms. Some atheists have tried to turn atheism into an ideology etc.

I think it is time that we completely disassociate him from the atheism movement, because that is what he wants us to do. 

And so we should disassociate him from it because he's an agnostic.  It was very rude of people to insist he's an atheist when he's an agnostic.