Neil Degrasse Tyson

[IATIA]

It's not my definition. William Rowe is a philosopher and that's his definition.  I quoted it because he's saying that people who disbelieve there's a God are no more rational than people who believe there is a God.

Well, that is a stupid quote. Obviously one side is rational and theists are irrational, proven by their postings, so atheists must be rational because they are right.

[Confused Ape]

Perhaps this discussion has wandered away from the real point.  Atheism and Agnosticism can overlap but there's this on the current NDT Wikipedia page.  I've bolded the relevant bit.

Neil deGrasse Tyeson - Spirituality

So what people are really after is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I had to find a word that came closest, I would say agnostic ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all.

Is it right to insist that he label himself as an atheist when he'd rather not be put into any category?  It comes across that he's only classified himself as something because a number of people insisted on giving him a label he didn't want.

And it's a nice point of view (well, not really, but I'm not here to argue philosophy, personally I think it's a bullshit POV), but massively sidetracking from any kind of point and is totally irrelevant. A definition that directly implies claims like this is somewhat of a dodgy definition IMO.

A quick google search reveals that atheism does overlap with philosophy.  Here are an article from the Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy - Atheism

Section 2 - The Epistemology of Atheism - is making me go cross eyed.    This indicates that a simple, dictionary definition doesn't satisfy everyone so they've got to make things hideously complicated.

Again, his idea is not a definition. It's just his idea. All these people seem to have differing ideas of what agnosticism is and by your own admission here, don't view themselves as what actual definitions would describe them as. Well I'm sorry, the individual person doesn't get to pick and choose what words mean and dictate to everyone else that this is what it should mean specifically for them. Definitions exist for a reason.

Even a definition of a word is just an idea which majority opinion accepts as being true. Majority opinion can change, though, so a word can end up with a different meaning.

Maybe it depends on which philosophers people have been reading, though.  All I know is what Ramachandran said but I have no idea where he'd place himself on Richard Dawkins's Spectrum of Theistic Probabillity when it comes to some Hindu deities. He could be a 4, 5 or 6.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2 De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3 Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4 Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5 Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

And I come back to the whole point here: saying it's rude that NDT is labelled as an atheist on his wiki page, when by all accounts he is one, is pretty stupid IMHO.

When NDT discovered that he'd been classed as an atheist in a Wikipedia article about him he asked for this to be changed to agnostic.  A week later he went back and discovered that it had been changed again to say he's an atheist. I just think it was a bit rude to go against his wishes in the matter.  The current Wikipedia article now has various quotes from him on the subject of spirituality with the only real declaration being his own - "if I had to find a word that came closest, I would say agnostic ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."

It's not these people who get to dictate what the definition of a word should be though.

Here is an article from The Atheist Scholar website - Atheist Activism

The 21st Century has seen the rise of the New Atheism, which has had an energizing and beneficial effect on the atheist community, not only on morale, but on the numbers of new members to swell our numbers and influence.

The New Atheists believe that scientific discovery has advanced so greatly, that it is now time to not only champion atheism, but to critique religion. They do not feel that religion should be accommodated, but rather criticized for its mistakes, bigotry and immoral history down through the ages.  New Atheism’s proponents believe that religious fanaticism, cruelty and superstition should be vigorously questioned, contradicted and quelled.  The New Atheists maintain that a naturalistic world outlook is sufficient to explain the origins of the universe and species, and with the dawning of neuroscience, human consciousness itself.  They do not believe that any supernatural entity or agency is necessary to human understanding or experience of life. They hold that religion’s supernatural claims are neither salient nor robust, and that those claims are not sacrosanct, but testable by science.

If you're going by a straightforward definition of atheism, the term 'New Atheism' is nonsense. It's also suggests some kind of ideology even though the straightforward definition indicates that it's impossible for atheism to be an ideology. The term has entered the English language now, though. Language isn't static because it changes all the time and that includes word definitions. Take the word 'gay' for example.  When I was young it just meant lighthearted and carefree or brightly coloured; showy. If you look at the Oxford Online Dictionary definition, these old definitions are now classed as dated and the primary definition is "(Of a person, especially a man) homosexual." (I came across an old children's book where Robin Hood was described as the gay outlaw. This conjured up a very interesting mental picture because of the new, primary definition of the word.)

The term New Atheism hasn't made it to the Oxford Dictionary yet but it's likely to if the New Atheist movement doesn't fizzle out in the near future. It's even possible that the idea of atheism being a movement will eventually become the primary definition of the word with the current primary definition being relegated as dated.

Maybe we need a new definition for people who would have been happy to declare themselves atheists before the New Atheist movement came along.  Having said that I couldn't say if that would apply to NDT.

Here's a video which raises questions about the human brain.

Literally, nothing to do with anything.

I found that it raised some interesting questions.  Was he an atheist with an unconscious belief in God before the operation or did his right hemisphere only start believing in God after his corpus callosum was severed?  If the latter, why?

How would you, personally, classify this man? Is he an atheist because of what his left hemisphere said or is he a believer because of what his right hemisphere said? On the other hand, do you think that the question of atheist or believer only applies to people whose brains are in one piece?

[Napoléon]

How would you, personally, classify this man?

An agnostic atheist. End of. He might not like what's written on his wiki page, but it's not untrue, and no matter how many times you want to overcomplicate the matter, it's pretty clear cut and really quite simple. So, sorry if this is rude, but I'm bowing out here, because I honestly don't see how you can keep going on and making this more than it really is. Anyone with half a brain can see what a simple definition for a word is and most of those people can also identify someone who meets the definition of said word.

[Confused Ape]

How would you, personally, classify this man?

An agnostic atheist. End of. He might not like what's written on his wiki page, but it's not untrue, and no matter how many times you want to overcomplicate the matter, it's pretty clear cut and really quite simple. So, sorry if this is rude, but I'm bowing out here, because I honestly don't see how you can keep going on and making this more than it really is. Anyone with half a brain can see what a simple definition for a word is and most of those people can also identify someone who meets the definition of said word.

I was asking you how you'd personally classify the man with a split brain here. I only brought him into it because of something you said in Post #39 of this topic.

Likewise it's not possible to both believe and disbelieve at the same time.

I'll never know how you'd classify this man now because you're bowing out of this topic.

[Napoléon]

I'll never know how you'd classify this man now because you're bowing out of this topic.

Because you're just so massively sidetracking from any kind of point I actually made to begin with.

[pocaracas]

The problem with television is that, like any other job, one must 'play the game'.  It is not in one's best interest to alienate the majority of the viewers.  Sponsors frown on that.  It may taste like shit, but it keeps the belly full.  

This ^^

Why so much whining?
The man has a job and a position to maintain.

Also, some people are not aware of the distinction between agnostic and atheist... I was scarcely aware of it before I read the god delusion.
In my mind, there was a 3 level deal:
- theist - believer
- agnostic - have no reason to believe, but won't say there's no such thing as a god
- atheist - there's no such thing as a god

Then I got educated.

[Confused Ape]

I believe that he is a great scientist and is really smart, however his attitudes towards atheism are very cowardly. For example at around the 25 second mark he calls atheism a philosophy and claims that with it comes baggage.

I've been thinking about that again after looking at The Atheist Scholar website.  From the Introduction

The time of atheism has come of age.  Atheists desire not only activism and community with others of like mind, but knowledge of our history, our value and philosophical systems, and our life stance, based on science and rationality.

An atheist might wish to learn more about the philosophy, history and various aspects of the atheist life stance she/he has embraced.

The atheist who plans to be an activist needs a grasp of atheist history, law, philosophy, sociology and more.

From NDT's wikipedia page

Tyson has spoken about philosophy on numerous occasions. In March 2014, during an episode of the Nerdist Podcast, he stated that philosophy is "useless" and that a philosophy major "can really mess you up",[64] which was met with disapproval.[65][66][67][68] Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci later criticized him for "dismiss[ing] philosophy as a useless enterprise".[69]

So, I don't think he's being cowardly.  He just doesn't want people assuming that he goes along with any of the Atheistic Philosophies because he regards philosophy as a waste of time.  He'd rather people ask him what he really thinks instead of deciding in advance that he's going to present the views of Naturalism, Humanism, Objectivism, Logical Positivism, Skepticism, Existentialism or Postmodernism.

Back to the The Atheist Scholar introduction.

The Atheist Scholar believes it is important to know from where atheism came, what atheists thought in the past and what they believe now, and who we are.

Why is it important for everyone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of deities to know all this?

[Alex K]

"The time of atheism has come of age"? That's not even English. What kind of scholar are we dealing with here?

[Confused Ape]

"The time of atheism has come of age"? That's not even English. What kind of scholar are we dealing with here?

From the About Us page.

Mary C. Taylor is the principal author and researcher of The Atheist Scholar.

Mary is a Phi Beta Kappa and Magna cum Laudegraduate (Wayne State University- 1973.)  After a brief stint as a Teaching Assistant at Wayne State teaching English Grammar and Composition .....

and

James R. Taylor

Jim was an Assistant Principal in the Detroit Public School System for 30 years, and has a Master's Degree from Wayne State University in Education, specializing in Reading.

You'd think they'd be able to come up with proper English between them.

[Shuffle]

Define a movement.

I'm not the one saying one exists.  You did.  You define it.

You don't believe that a single atheist movement exists or ever did exist? Really?

Why so much whining?
The man has a job and a position to maintain.

Also, some people are not aware of the distinction between agnostic and atheist... I was scarcely aware of it before I read the god delusion.
In my mind, there was a 3 level deal:
- theist - believer
- agnostic - have no reason to believe, but won't say there's no such thing as a god
- atheist - there's no such thing as a god

Then I got educated.

But the thing is, he has been educated. He went on a talkshow, not long after the video was put up, and was explained all the definitions. But he stuck to his position. He said that the dictionary definitions are not the definitions we listen to anymore, and it is more of the negative connotations we do listen to.