• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Neil Degrasse Tyson on atheism and agnosticism

qayak said:
They moved and didn't leave a forwarding address.

Sure you think I am kidding but that is the nature of trying to prove a negative, there is always an explanation for why the evidence can't be found. It maybe absurd, or even improbable but it isn't impossible which is the last grasp of all god botherers.
Click to expand...

Then we could look for evidence they were there or just look for evidence of the miracles they were suposed to have been responsible for.

Its a game we can continue playing, cornering them more and more.

Note also that if they actually play the game they are forced to change their god concepts - Zeus and his entourage no longer live at the Olympus, for example. Eventually it'll become something very different from the original god and beyond a certain point, irrelevant. Even Abrahamic gods can be and were hit by this.
 
When people ask me if i believe in god, i ask them which one. If they say 'the god of the Bible' or 'the Christian god' or any other "named" god, i say no. So basically, i do not beileve that any god man has put forward actually exists. That does not rule out something somewhere existing which may fit a description of a "god", but as no-one has put that unknown being forward as existing, or claimed any evidence of it existing, it can be ignored.

The evidence regarding the natural processes and forces that exist and shaped our universe/world is enough for me to reject the existence of any kind of god.

Also the idea that some kind of "god" set these natural processes going and then didn't/doesn't interfere seems to me the same as no god existing; as there can be no proof or disproof, or any effect in this universe, this can be ignored.
 
I find NDT's whole approach to this to be rather patronising and misleading.
If he didn't want to be identified as an atheist, an agnostic or a non-believer, then just don't answer the question.
Be honest and say that you don't like the consequences of it.

I find that the popular use of the term agnostic is completely useless.
Probably worse than useless, as it creates misconceptions about other stances on the god question.
A lot of atheists, theists, deists and the like don't "know" whether any gods exist and they don't claim to.

The end of that clip is particularly silly. Claiming that he's not an atheist because he's not an activist is just dumb.
He'd be equally inaccurate if he claimed that he wasn't a scientist because some scientists have fought to keep creationism out of classrooms.
Ridiculous stuff, unfortunately. He should know better.
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
Then we could look for evidence they were there or just look for evidence of the miracles they were suposed to have been responsible for.

Its a game we can continue playing, cornering them more and more.

Note also that if they actually play the game they are forced to change their god concepts - Zeus and his entourage no longer live at the Olympus, for example. Eventually it'll become something very different from the original god and beyond a certain point, irrelevant. Even Abrahamic gods can be and were hit by this.
Click to expand...

There are more places to hide than you can look. It's the god of the gaps theory, every time you expose a hiding spot you create two, one on each side. Sure the hiding places are smaller but their are so many more of them.
 
Taxonomies are annoying. I find it slightly concerning that we find it so hard to label what an Atheist is. Maybe we just like to get nitpicky about things.

My position is this: I have no evidence for the existence of God/s, also, most of the times, I don't even know what someone means by "God", so the word itself is already too innacurate to draw a conclusion.

So I don't believe there is a God. Meaning, I don't adhere the word "God" as an explanation for the creation of the Universe, the fact that we humans exist and have consciousness, and other "mysterious" phenomena that trigger paranormal answers.

Also, given mankind's tendency to believe in weird things, to be pattern seeking individuals who also have a tendency to seek a "purpose" in life, I have a strong hunch that there is no God at all, and that it is precisely the kind of made up explanation that us humans would come up with.

But I can't prove there isn't actually, a God. An Omnipotent, Omnipresent creator of everything. So I can't technically assert that there isn't one.

So does that make me an Atheist? Does that make me an Agnostic? You be the judge. But I don't really care.
 
qayak said:
There are more places to hide than you can look. It's the god of the gaps theory, every time you expose a hiding spot you create two, one on each side. Sure the hiding places are smaller but their are so many more of them.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it induces changes in the god concepts and also in the theists/deists.

Current example- the pope, evolution and the bib bang. Here we have an YHWH which is very different from other versions. Its pretty close to some liberal concepts, from several Christians (Catholic or not) which accept evolution, cosmology, geology, biology, etc. Its not the "old" YHWH from the fundies.
 
We need definitions in order to form alliances, not to exclude anyone.

I think the current direction is to try to define "atheist" as characterized by the lack of belief in at least one god (unbeliever), and "agnostic" in terms of availability of knowledge of the supernatural to form such beliefs. Agnostics are generally atheists, though the history of the word atheist still carries the negative baggage of heresy that many are not yet ready to own.

A belief is assent to anything proposed or declared, and its acceptance as fact by reason of the authority from whence it proceeds. Knowledge is a clear perception of a truth or fact derived from these beliefs.

It becomes confusing when we talk about an agnostic believing that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena, and the meanings are further muddled when theists paint unbelievers as believing they know that there is no god.
 
pharphis said:
Awhile ago I came across this interview with NDT where he claims he's not an atheist, but an agnostic. His reason for avoiding the atheist label (while he is an atheist by definition...) appears to stem from wanting to not be grouped with the anti-theists and gnostic atheists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

This didn't sit well with me at all because I think it makes atheists look bad and backs up the common theist position that atheists say "god does not exists (gnostic atheism). I feel like he's trying to weasel into a middle ground and I wonder what the rest of you think the consequences are for this position.

I think it MIGHT make it easier for him to reach more people through his science advocacy, but I also think it spreads the common misconception that atheists claim knowledge on the non-existence of a god.
Click to expand...

Pharphis, do you not leave room for a middle ground? He can self-identify how he likes, yes, without "weaseling" anything.
 
Dissolution said:
I find NDT's whole approach to this to be rather patronising and misleading.
If he didn't want to be identified as an atheist, an agnostic or a non-believer, then just don't answer the question.
Be honest and say that you don't like the consequences of it.

I find that the popular use of the term agnostic is completely useless.
Probably worse than useless, as it creates misconceptions about other stances on the god question.
A lot of atheists, theists, deists and the like don't "know" whether any gods exist and they don't claim to.

The end of that clip is particularly silly. Claiming that he's not an atheist because he's not an activist is just dumb.
He'd be equally inaccurate if he claimed that he wasn't a scientist because some scientists have fought to keep creationism out of classrooms.
Ridiculous stuff, unfortunately. He should know better.
Click to expand...

As a public figure, he's probably become irritated at having others place him into categories for him. It sounds like he's saying in response - just don't put me into these categories, because they don't represent me most accurately.
 
OCaptain said:
As a public figure, he's probably become irritated at having others place him into categories for him. It sounds like he's saying in response - just don't put me into these categories, because they don't represent me most accurately.
Click to expand...

And that would be fine, if he didn't go on to completely strawman one of those categories and parrot completely inane theist arguments.
His suggestion that atheists' conduct as a whole is somehow lacking is insulting, frankly.

This sums up the pointless and worse than useless position of a subset of agnostics, for me.
They're basically atheists that like to be condescending to other atheists and ease the fears of believers.
"Oh, I don't believe, but don't worry, I'm not like those other non-believers, with their nasty, antagonistic attempts to uphold the constitution!"

It's cowardly, disingenuous and damaging.
Read the comments on the video and you'll see what I mean.
 
pharphis said:
Harming atheists is bad because it spreads the misconception that atheists all claim knowledge of god's nonexistence. There are certainly some atheists that might deserve to be scolded or refuted for whatever harm they may be doing but the rest of us do not deserve it
Click to expand...

That's misrepresenting atheists and atheism. I dislike that because I put great stock in accuracy.

But we were talking about harm.

I'll gleefully harm atheism in another way that does not require kicking them in the crotch. I think the majority of atheists make a huge mistake in thinking that the concept of a god is coherent enough for the question of believing it to make the slightest bit of sense.
 
Last edited:
OCaptain said:
Pharphis, do you not leave room for a middle ground? He can self-identify how he likes, yes, without "weaseling" anything.
Click to expand...
There is no middle-ground for the question, and I'm sure he knows this because I think his colleagues would have corrected him by now or he would have bothered to look up some definitions when he realized his wiki page kept changing on him

OCaptain said:
As a public figure, he's probably become irritated at having others place him into categories for him. It sounds like he's saying in response - just don't put me into these categories, because they don't represent me most accurately.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he's saying in the video. The problem is that he's saying he's in a different category altogether (he isn't , by definition) and simultaneously suggesting that all atheists are antitheists.

Besides, if someone is labeling themselves as something they are not they should be corrected. Ofc some words have varying meaning and context is important (such as the word rape) but he's completely off, here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom