RE: Neil Degrass Tyson is Agnostic
September 5, 2013 at 11:54 am
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(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 =
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.
