Neil Degrass Tyson is Agnostic

[bladevalant546]

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.

[JesusHChrist]

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?

[Clueless Morgan]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

[Faith No More]

I think we put entirely too much focus on labels.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

[Kitan Etos]

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.

[Bad Writer]

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

[Faith No More]

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.

[rexbeccarox]

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"?