Neil deGrasse Tyson on atheism ("the only 'ist' I am is a scientist")

[Col. Tartleton]

Those definitions are correct, but they're overly narrow and implicitly ignores the subtle meanings these labels can cover.
An agnostic person doesn't have to be of the position that certain knowledge is impossible, but rather can be someone who lacks particular knowledge. An atheist doesn't necessarily have to be against a certain belief, but is rather someone who lacks a certain belief. A deist can also be an atheist ie. someone who believes the universe was created by a superior being and that being no longer exists is a deist and an atheist. A gnostic deist is someone who knows the universe was begun by a higher being.

If we ever meet remind me not to buy you a beer.

[RubiconDecision]

Nope, you got it all wrong. Try biting off less at a time. I'm really not that hard to understand.

I hold that you're morally at fault when criticising others for merely finding your beliefs ridiculous.

And that not being convinced of the unconvincing is not foolish, where being more easily convinced is exactly what gets the fool labelled thus.

*yawn* Boring stuff that isn't relevant.

I don't care one way or the other because it's plainly nonsense to begin with, but it's amusing to point out that Satan is quite clearly the Christian, or Abrahamic if you like, god of evil and the underworld.

What a stupid statement. Here's one with the same structure that isn't stupid:

'Only a fool continually waffles on about stuff unrelated to the subject as if it is related.'

Doesn't this butt-hurt-missionary game you're playing ever get boring for you too? Because that's what it looks like you're trying to waste our time with.

Up until this point, the only thing you have done is be dismissive. That is not a debate. It's not frankly even a discussion. It is only pathetic opinion.

The fact that you don't know basic definitions in philosophy which I might add includes theology and religious studies, speaks volumes about the paucity of your posts. In debate, if one cannot muster an argument, then they have insufficiently generated the bare minimum needed for debate to exist. Not surprising since your posts lack basic understanding in the various kinds of belief systems yet wish to ascribe Dr. Tyson to one. What a laughable and impotent thing to do within a post.

By the way the secular study of religious beliefs is usually called 'religious studies' not 'philosophy'. Hope it helps.

NOPE, see above. Or rather find it yourself in any philosophy encyclopedia.

Interesting point. I'd say it's arguable that the definition of religion must contain reference to revealed knowledge, but I'm not certain it should yet. And I'm not sure that all religious persons cannot be agnostic about the revealed knowledge while acting as if.

Muddled, but at least there is some argument there. None has hidden knowledge of God or gods. All have beliefs or claim lack of evidence to allow belief. Faith is accepting belief without epistemological requirements, something which the atheist, the nontheist, the theist, and the transtheists do. What all have are faith in their visceral response to God or gods existing. Some might claim to definitively "know" Vertias, but knowing and belief are not the same in philosophy.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah try a dictionary definition of religion. It certainly does not have to be so and large tracts of buddhism are not that way.

[RubiconDecision]

Interesting, a person prides themselves on being a master debater, and then uses ad hominem attacks at will. Cute.

Buddhism sects can be theistic, nontheistic, or atheistic. I'm not sure what you're implying. Interestingly enough, there are numerous posts from certain folks presuming that Buddhism is an atheistic system, when in actuality upon looking through an encyclopedia of philosophy one can find theistic, nontheistic, and atheistic elements in sects of Buddhism. Again, a definition by a poster has no intellectual weight without actually looking at scholarly sources pointing out this most fundamental fact.

[Denny Crane!]

What all have are faith in their visceral response to God or gods existing

All have beliefs or claim lack of evidence to allow belief


Faith is accepting belief without epistemological requirements, something which the atheist, the nontheist, the theist, and the transtheists do


???

Each one/all of these can run counter to eastern/non abrahamic religions yet still be religious. Seriously get over it abrahamic god is not the only belief system in the world

There are other religions sorry. Other cultures and thought systems that are not your own. They are perfectly valid and still religious just because they do not conform to your beliefs. Those definitions of a religion still hold true today, still listed and commonly accepted as religion and still treated as such by adherents even if...heaven forbid...not agreeing with you.

Hardly relevant though.

[RubiconDecision]

I have no idea what your poorly formatted quoted text of me takes offense with. Where have I said that some other belief system is not a valid religious system? Others are merely not my belief system. I have not implied a value judgement of which more closely represents Veritas. I have not said that all must accede to my beliefs.

You criticize things then act as if I claimed those things which you criticize. Prove it.

You know, I find it particularly offensive that a person claiming a lack of belief, who need not defend that lack of belief, then in turn criticizes my belief. What's that like to have no intellectual responsibility?

[Taiji]

Up until this point, the only thing you have done is be dismissive. That is not a debate.

Dismissive along with the reasoning, usually. That is a debate, just not on your waffle-happy terms.

It's not frankly even a discussion. It is only pathetic opinion.

There's nothing pitiable about having an opinion, it's all anyone has.

The fact that you don't know basic definitions in philosophy which I might add includes theology and religious studies, speaks volumes about the paucity of your posts.

Both theological studies and religious studies are no more philosophy than business studies.

Philosophy may examine the philosophical implications of certain religious beliefs, but that's because it's philosophy.

Not surprising since your posts lack basic understanding in the various kinds of belief systems yet wish to ascribe Dr. Tyson to one. What a laughable and impotent thing to do within a post.

Tyson's an atheist and if you've actually been paying attention you'll already know why.

NOPE, see above. Or rather find it yourself in any philosophy encyclopedia.

Covered.

Muddled, but at least there is some argument there. None has hidden knowledge of God or gods. All have beliefs or claim lack of evidence to allow belief. Faith is accepting belief without epistemological requirements, something which the atheist, the nontheist, the theist, and the transtheists do. What all have are faith in their visceral response to God or gods existing. Some might claim to definitively "know" Vertias, but knowing and belief are not the same in philosophy.

I know you're not paying attention but I wasn't talking to you there, I was talking to Tartleton - Who disagrees with you to the extent that you are not an agnostic according to his definition, because you're religious.

[RubiconDecision]

Obviously some people have not actually taken a philosophy course, much less many courses, in which diverse theological concepts like the nature of reality, God, the afterlife, the source of good and evil, suffering, reasons for altruism, all the great theologians, the religious significance of the great philosophers, all of the major religions and sects with several of them are discussed, existentialism from a Christian perspect as well as an atheist perspective, mysticism, atheism and agnosticism, the origins of belief, the origins of causality, Prime Movers, the meaning of the soul, the nature of self-identity, Judaism, Islam, pagan beliefs, proofs of God, bioethics and origins of hospitals and a religious perspective, cosmological arguments, etc.

It literally would take me a huge post to discuss how many theological topics there are in philosophy. How could anyone miss this, or think that it's not related to a determination of Dr. Tyson's belief system is beyond me.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Second and last warning to the thread in general, You've had your fun now guys. Since reading through prior to editing. There's a lot of direct remarks being flung back and forth. Continuing down this path will be defying moderators to boot on top of the other ToS violations.

So please everyone check the tone and content of your posts before pushing that button. Some discussion here is relevant and very interesting. Keep it up, but leave out everything else.

[Taiji]

Obviously some people have not actually taken a philosophy course, much less many courses, in which diverse theological concepts like the nature of reality, God, the afterlife, the source of good and evil, suffering, reasons for altruism, all the great theologians, the religious significance of the great philosophers, all of the major religions and sects with several of them are discussed, existentialism from a Christian perspect as well as an atheist perspective, mysticism, atheism and agnosticism, the origins of belief, the origins of causality, Prime Movers, the meaning of the soul, the nature of self-identity, Judaism, Islam, pagan beliefs, proofs of God, bioethics and origins of hospitals and a religious perspective, cosmological arguments, etc.

Yeah, and the most likely reason why is also obvious: Frivolous waste of time.

It literally would take me a huge post to discuss how many theological topics there are in philosophy.

Obviously anyone can make a huge post that adds nothing to the discussion. But I don't believe either of us is qualifed to present a 'complete' list in any case, and since you're human it's likely the number you presented would reflect your education and bias. It's good to understand our limitations.

[RubiconDecision]

Yeah, and the most likely reason why is also obvious: Frivolous waste of time.

Ridicule is not an argument.

Obviously anyone can make a huge post that adds nothing to the discussion. But I don't believe either of us is qualifed to present a 'complete' list in any case, and since you're human it's likely the number you presented would reflect your education and bias. It's good to understand our limitations.

None of which is an appeal to authority. Anyone can and should try to demolish the error of another's argument in philosophy. Such things are not personal, but actually one of the noble aspects of philosophy to eliminate error.

Demolishing the person and not the post though is simply bad form. Appeal to ridicule, a common ploy in atheism, and now sadly praised by some in atheist leadership, is still not debate.

Find me a person without bias. They do not exist. One side or another cannot claim a lack of bias, but cold hard science. Neither the atheist with their faith that God doesn't exist, nor the Christian who insists that God exists. Since there is no evidence, there is only biased faith (belief) that requires no epistemological evidence.

In this Dr. Tyson by being a scientist and agnostic is being totally true. Since the middle ground is seldom respected, for most have biased faith, then some will attempt to relegate him to their biased position. Here it is atheists who are demonstrated that.

[Taiji]

Ridicule is not an argument.

I'll take it that you don't want to comment on the probable waste of time I observed.

None of which is an appeal to authority.

A point not raised in the text you have quoted. Get back on topic, please.

Such things are not personal, but actually one of the noble aspects of philosophy to eliminate error.

And again. Get back on topic, please.

Demolishing the person and not the post though is simply bad form.

And again. Get back on topic, please.

Appeal to ridicule, a common ploy in atheism, and now sadly praised by some in atheist leadership, is still not debate.

And again. Get back on topic, please.

Find me a person without bias. They do not exist. One side or another cannot claim a lack of bias, but cold hard science.

So after all that off-topic stuff we simply agree. Good.

Neither the atheist with their faith that God doesn't exist, nor the Christian who insists that God exists.

It's been made clear that I don't accept that definition of atheist.

Since there is no evidence, there is only biased faith (belief) that requires no epistemological evidence.

Yes, belief in gods apparently requires faith.

In this Dr. Tyson by being a scientist and agnostic is being totally true.

Both points that are not in question by either of us. Get back on topic, please.

Since the middle ground is seldom respected, for most have biased faith, then some will attempt to relegate him to their biased position. Here it is atheists who are demonstrated that.

He's an atheist to everyone who holds that an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

[Gaidin]

Lol. "I don't like what you said so I'm declaring it off topic."

[RubiconDecision]

A nonbeliever and an atheist are two different things. Why is it that some people just don't get that they want nothing to do with the atheist movement, something Dr. Tyson has obviously done here. He's snubbing atheists.

Why would an agnostic or nonbeliever do that? Could it be that there are more important things to do than waste more time with antipathy of God and theists, and nontheist, and transtheists, and Trinitarianism? Maybe Dr. Tyson wants to discuss science instead. Seems that way.

[Himster]

A nonbeliever and an atheist are two different things.

There is a lot of overlap though. Non-theist and atheist are synonyms.

Why is it that some people just don't get that they want nothing to do with the atheist movement, something Dr. Tyson has obviously done here. He's snubbing atheists.

Why would an agnostic or nonbeliever do that? Could it be that there are more important things to do than waste more time with antipathy of God and theists, and nontheist, and transtheists, and Trinitarianism? Maybe Dr. Tyson wants to discuss science instead. Seems that way.

If he said "I'm not black" would that make him not black? No.
Most people don't "want to be" associated with the stereotypical atheists, but an atheist is still an atheist, pretending to not be an atheist when clearly he is: is purely a publicity stunt. If he didn't want to talk about it he shouldn't have brought it up.

[Gaidin]

There is a lot of overlap though. Non-theist and atheist are synonyms.

He didn't say non-theist. I imagine if he wanted to say non-theist he would've. He's usually pretty specific about his wording in this thread. Give him at least that much credit Himster. If you want to ask him what he meant by nonbeliever, do that. But don't just casually insert another word for it.

[RubiconDecision]

One can be a nontheist and be a Jainist or a pantheist. Honestly one could be a Buddhist who is of the atheist variety and be a nontheist. So a nontheist does not equal an atheist. One could even be a Christian and be a nontheist. In philosophy and theology, defiitions have very important meaning, and hence why I spent so much time on this, as people loosely are tossing around terms, that perhaps are unaware of their meaning.

Psychology Today has discussed the nonbeliever versus atheist label as well. Many people don't like that label as it implies antipathy. They are unsure of their beliefs, not to the degree of an agnostic. A lapsed person in a faith tradition may claim "nonbeliever" and I believe in that study, some who had a vague sense of God, practically deists by description, claimed "nonbeliever" as their status.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...arent-atheists
"Thus, if most "non-atheist nonbelievers" were honest (and, by the way, many are) they would concede that their avoidance of the word has little to do with a principled refusal to stand up against a concept; rather, they avoid the atheist label because it carries with it a powerful stigma. Even to many nonbelievers, “atheist” is still a word that is not uttered in mixed company. In fact, some surveys show that, despite the growth of secularity in America in recent years, atheists are nevertheless the most distrusted minority.

We should bear in mind that use of the atheist identity does not necessarily preclude the use of other terms. Personally, I strongly prefer the word “humanist,” but I nevertheless will use “atheist” if a situation calls for it. This might be in response to a direct question – Are you an atheist? – or in circumstances that simply do not allow for an explanation of humanism."

Here's another one:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ly-identifying
"This inconsistency between identity and belief leads to the inescapable conclusion that millions of Americans, despite their disbelief, simply do not feel comfortable openly identifying as nonbelievers. The "atheist" identity is so stigmatized that even most atheists avoid the label.

The numbers can be analyzed and debated, but there is no escaping the clear disconnect between identity and belief. One could argue, for example, that some of the 18.4 percent who do not affirm God-belief are nevertheless believers (since about one-third of them refused to answer the question). But even assuming that all of those who "refused" are believers (highly unlikely), we are still left with over 12 percent who either affirmatively state disbelief or who are agnostic, a number incompatable with the mere 1.6 percent who openly identify as such.

What nonbelievers are increasingly discovering, however, is that their reluctance to openly identify as secular only plays into the hand of the religious right. By not standing openly as nonbelievers, via the identity of atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic, freethinker, or some other identifier that clearly places them outside the umbrella of believers, they are creating the appearance of unanimity on the question of theism: Of course, everyone believes in God, right? "

The fact that some erudite posters also have problems with these definitions points to a widespread confusion about a complex matter of spirituality or a lack thereof. All of which is amusing since then people are labeling Dr. Tyson.

It would be better to look at the semantics of the term. Nontheist doesn't imply antipathy. Atheist implies antipathy. A can mean "not" versus "non". Is one merely not a believer in God, or against a belief in God. Many atheists are against a belief in God, for such belief results in a waste of time and is associated with some rather ugly things in history, largely done long long ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Whereas a nonbeliever simply finds God unimportant or something for someone else. Typically in history, one declaring as an agnostic was often saying, "I'm open to that being a possibility, but it's hardly possible." i.e. no antipathy.

One can be a scientist and a theist, but a good portion are nonbelievers and agnostic. Some are ardent atheists. Since most scientists would probably wish to speak about scientific matters, the other may be a distraction to their occupation.

[Taiji]

A nonbeliever and an atheist are two different things. Why is it that some people just don't get that they want nothing to do with the atheist movement, something Dr. Tyson has obviously done here. He's snubbing atheists.

Of course they are two different things. That's why he's an atheist for not believing in gods, and a non-believer for not having a religion.

Why would an agnostic or nonbeliever do that? Could it be that there are more important things to do than waste more time with antipathy of God and theists, and nontheist, and transtheists, and Trinitarianism? Maybe Dr. Tyson wants to discuss science instead. Seems that way.

If he wants to change the subject then I see no reason why he can't.

The fact remains that this guy admits he does not believe in any gods - Which means precisely that he was at that time rejecting belief in all of the gods he has heard about so far.

[Himster]

One can be a nontheist and be a Jainist or a pantheist. Honestly one could be a Buddhist who is of the atheist variety and be a nontheist. So a nontheist does not equal an atheist. One could even be a Christian and be a nontheist. In philosophy and theology, defiitions have very important meaning, and hence why I spent so much time on this, as people loosely are tossing around terms, that perhaps are unaware of their meaning.

Atheist and non-theist are literally synonyms. A Jain/pantheist/buddhist don't necessarily believe in a deity and therefore can be atheists (AKA non-theists). If you believe in one or more deities you're a theist, everyone else are atheists.

Psychology Today has discussed the nonbeliever versus atheist label as well. Many people don't like that label as it implies antipathy.

....and some people don't like the label "black": tough. If you're black you're black, if you don't believe in a deity you're an atheist.

A lapsed person in a faith tradition may claim "nonbeliever" and I believe in that study, some who had a vague sense of God, practically deists by description, claimed "nonbeliever" as their status.

Yes, this does skew the statistics, of course. There are many people who claim to be non-believers while still believing in some kind of god, it's a misunderstanding of terms. This works in the other direction as well: people who don't believe in any kind of deity and refuse to admit it because of the stigma associated with being an atheist.

Nontheist doesn't imply antipathy. Atheist implies antipathy.

This distinction is purely colloquial, a stereotype misapplied. An atheist is a non-theist. There is absolutely no distinction, there is only a false stereotype associated with atheism while non-theist arbitrarily escapes that stereotype for no rational reason.

A can mean "not" versus "non". Is one merely not a believer in God, or against a belief in God. Many atheists are against a belief in God, for such belief results in a waste of time and is associated with some rather ugly things in history, largely done long long ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Whereas a nonbeliever simply finds God unimportant or something for someone else. Typically in history, one declaring as an agnostic was often saying, "I'm open to that being a possibility, but it's hardly possible." i.e. no antipathy.

A n"on-theist" can also "be against God" in the exact same way. The distinction you're making is just a stereotype about atheists. Not all atheists are against God.

[RubiconDecision]

It's entirely possible that Dr. Tyson holds atheists in contempt, and wants nothing to do with people within that identification.
...
While I deeply respect you and your post, Himster, you're simply bolstering statistics when you insist that all of those people are nontheists or trying to lump in nonbelievers with atheists. Why do that? Explain how that is scientific for data collection, or even reasonable to do in philosophy?

Believe it or not, your post of defining "blackness" is rather anachronistic in an age of multi-racial people. Since some people literally do not claim ethnicity, but nationality regardless of their skin color, I find this rigid insistence in your post rather inexplicable.

It is certainly true that some atheists don't feel anything regarding God or believers, but on any given day, lots and lots of posts of antipathy of God are made on this very forum. One can watch any atheist video and find the same pattern. Ardent passion often leads to antipathy. You can ignore it, but it is there. Shall I put up some choice posts on this subject, or will you concede the point?