New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life

[bladefd]

Live stream to introduce the show and answer fan questions (Starts Sunday March 9):

http://new.livestream.com/fox/cosmosliveevent


On Tuesday evening, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and the producers of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" will answer your questions during a live question and answer session to be broadcast from the Greek Theater in Los Angeles, and you can watch it live, right here.

The live broadcast begins at 6 p.m. PST.

"Cosmos: A SpacetimeOdyssey" premieres at 9 p.m. Sunday on Fox and the National Geographic Channel. It it is an update of Carl Sagan's seminal 1980 PBS series "Cosmos: A Personal Journey."

Sagan's "Cosmos" was an attempt to explain as much as we know about "all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." Armed with a "spaceship of the imagination" he took viewers to the edge of the universe, showed us what it might look like to travel at near the speed of light and helped us conceptualize what a journey to the stars might look like.

This time around Tyson, the charismatic head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, is charged with leading us through the world of scientific discovery.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-new-cosmos-series-q-and-a-20140304,0,1672753.story#ixzz2v3OJSWzZ


It is hosted by the great Neil deGrasse Tyson. More on him here.. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319992

[embersyc]

Original Cosmos was the greatest show ever made.

Neil deGrasse Tyson got some huge shoes to fill, but he's the best man for the job.

[MightyWhitey]

Now this is a show I can't wait to watch. Neil Degreasse Tyson is a genius. This is a person young black youth should look up to. Not someone like Easy E. NDT is intelligent, well spoken, has properly fitted clothing, and seems quite approachable and even likeable. He was raised in NYC with a 2 parent home. He himself is married with children. This should be inspiration to you young black folk out there who look up to the wrong people in life.

[gts]

This is a show I'm looking forward to watching... Loved the original... must have seen it "Billions" of time

sry had to

[Cowboy Thunder]

My DVR is ready

[bladefd]

*BUMP*

It starts tonight. I can't wait to see the first episode tonight on FX/NationalGeographic/Fox (don't get put off by this - it's the material that matters!). I just hope it is as good as I expected it to be.. I don't want the great Carl Sagan to roll in his grave

[ROCSteady]

Now this is a show I can't wait to watch. Neil Degreasse Tyson is a genius. This is a person young black youth should look up to. Not someone like Easy E. NDT is intelligent, well spoken, has properly fitted clothing, and seems quite approachable and even likeable. He was raised in NYC with a 2 parent home. He himself is married with children. This should be inspiration to you young black folk out there who look up to the wrong people in life.



:oldlol:










:roll:

How out of touch is this dude?

[Swaggin916]

I am excited for it. Love shows like this and through the wormhole... it's as fascinating as it gets.

[Akrazotile]

Tyson is Based for sure :bowdown:


But how much more is there to explain to people whove already watched The Universe and other relatively recent space docu programs. Hasnt exactly been an effusion of major discoveries in the last 5 years. Not even all that many minor ones to my knowledge.

[Jailblazers7]

Tyson is Based for sure :bowdown:


But how much more is there to explain to people whove already watched The Universe and other relatively recent space docu programs. Hasnt exactly been an effusion of major discoveries in the last 5 years. Not even all that many minor ones to my knowledge.

Isn't the point to reach new viewers and not people who have seen all of this kind of stuff before?

[embersyc]

How out of touch is this dude?

You mean black people don't look up someone who died of aids almost 20 years ago?

Poor whitey's world is shattered.

[Akrazotile]

Isn't the point to reach new viewers and not people who have seen all of this kind of stuff before?


I guess but you could just rerun the programs that have already covered it and arent even 10 yrs old.

If there isnt much new info I dont know what the point of a new series is. This isnt a sitcom, its science.

I mean obviously I dont really care if they do or not, just saying I dont quite get the motivation.

[gts]

*BUMP*

It starts tonight. I can't wait to see the first episode tonight on FX/NationalGeographic/Fox (don't get put off by this - it's the material that matters!). I just hope it is as good as I expected it to be.. I don't want the great Carl Sagan to roll in his grave
thanks for the reminder, looking forward to this

[kNIOKAS]

Now this is a show I can't wait to watch. Neil Degreasse Tyson is a genius. This is a person young black youth should look up to. Not someone like Easy E. NDT is intelligent, well spoken, has properly fitted clothing, and seems quite approachable and even likeable. He was raised in NYC with a 2 parent home. He himself is married with children. This should be inspiration to you young black folk out there who look up to the wrong people in life.
:lol

[dude77]

Now this is a show I can't wait to watch. Neil Degreasse Tyson is a genius. This is a person young black youth should look up to. Not someone like Easy E. NDT is intelligent, well spoken, has properly fitted clothing, and seems quite approachable and even likeable. He was raised in NYC with a 2 parent home. He himself is married with children. This should be inspiration to you young black folk out there who look up to the wrong people in life.

:oldlol:

[Jailblazers7]

I guess but you could just rerun the programs that have already covered it and arent even 10 yrs old.

If there isnt much new info I dont know what the point of a new series is. This isnt a sitcom, its science.

I mean obviously I dont really care if they do or not, just saying I dont quite get the motivation.

Yeah but NDT can be promoted as a new voice for science, improve production value on the show, include features to interact with social media platforms, etc. I definitely think this version will be more effective at reaching a younger audience than a simple rerun would be.

[bladefd]

Tyson is Based for sure :bowdown:


But how much more is there to explain to people whove already watched The Universe and other relatively recent space docu programs. Hasnt exactly been an effusion of major discoveries in the last 5 years. Not even all that many minor ones to my knowledge.

Tyson is a great speaker and a person that will inspire you with enthusiasm even if you already know the stuff. What makes Tyson great is that he can reach both those that may be completely ignorant to the basics of science and also those that may already be a physicist.

I'm looking forward to what sort of cool graphics they will be using to point out various scientific knowledge and the style he will use to get that knowledge across. I know I won't be learning completely new things, but knowing Tyson, I will still be awed and amazed.

[Jailblazers7]

Yeah, I think it's important to sell a sense of awe and wonder with science and Tyson is very good at that.

[RedBlackAttack]

Tyson is a great speaker and a person that will inspire you with enthusiasm even if you already know the stuff. What makes Tyson great is that he can reach both those that may be completely ignorant to the basics of science and also those that may already be a physicist.

I'm looking forward to what sort of cool graphics they will be using to point out various scientific knowledge and the style he will use to get that knowledge across. I know I won't be learning completely new things, but knowing Tyson, I will still be awed and amazed.
Carl Sagan was the master of this... and Neil has humungous shoes to fill on that front. If there is anyone who could partially fill those shoes, it is him.

Looking forward to it.

[bladefd]

That was a great ending to first episode. I thought it was a good episode overall. Definitely has tons of potential of being even greater.. I can't wait to see the other episodes.

I thought they did a good job of being as neutral as possible to those that may not be very knowledgeable to the ways of science.

[embersyc]

Neil's speaking seems so rushed compared to Sagan's. Sagan just had a way of making every word that came out of his mouth seem rhythmic and amazing.

It was okay for a first episode, however I hope they go more in depth on subjects in future episodes.

[Myth]

I saw Neil deGrasse Tyson in person about 2 weeks ago on @midnight. It was the Community episode.

[Rodmantheman]

where can I watch this show.

[SpecialQue]

where can I watch this show.

On TV.

[Clyde]

On TV.


National geographic channel.......also was on fox.

[Solidape]

Last part about Carl reaching to him as a teenager was a really good story to hear. I had people like that help me when I was a young man, and I hope I can do the same for someone in the future.

[Take Your Lumps]

Tyson is Based for sure :bowdown:


But how much more is there to explain to people whove already watched The Universe and other relatively recent space docu programs. Hasnt exactly been an effusion of major discoveries in the last 5 years. Not even all that many minor ones to my knowledge.

Tyson's gift (as was Sagan's) is to make you feel like he's talking directly to you when he's communicating what he understands about the universe. It makes the process of discovery and understanding that much more profound for people. If you watched the first episode last night, you probably have already noticed this.

What you get on a lot of these other Universe shows is a bunch of talking heads talking at you...making it a much more passive experience.

[Take Your Lumps]

where can I watch this show.

Re-run Monday night at 10EST on NatGeo.

[highwhey]

Am.i the only one who noticed how some of the music was the same from the movie contact when jodie foster is remembering her father?

[Akrazotile]

Tyson's gift (as was Sagan's) is to make you feel like he's talking directly to you when he's communicating what he understands about the universe. It makes the process of discovery and understanding that much more profound for people. If you watched the first episode last night, you probably have already noticed this.

What you get on a lot of these other Universe shows is a bunch of talking heads talking at you...making it a much more passive experience.


Im aware of this as Ive been a fan of the guy's for years, my point was just that between The Universe, Nova, and various single episode documentaries many of which already feature him I guess I was just wondering aloud if there was any actual new info to share here or if this was mostly just repackaging, thats all.

[fiddy]

where can I watch this show.
http://thepiratebay.se/search/cosmos/0/99/0

[shlver]

I always thought CGI depictions of molecular machinery like polymerase running along a DNA strand at thousands of base/sec were awe inspiring. Since it is a pop sci show, I'm going to keep my expectations low on depth of detail.

Many of my friends were disappointed with the episode and thought it was short on any actual explanation of physics. Haven't seen how neil did, but he has big shoes to fill to be compared to the likes of Sagan and Attenborough. Going to watch the encore presentation tonight and share my thoughts afterwards.

[-p.tiddy-]

watched it...was okay

good visuals, but I don't feel like anything was touched on that I didn't already know...

the calender analogy was pretty good though IMO

[Akrazotile]

I guess but you could just rerun the programs that have already covered it and arent even 10 yrs old.

If there isnt much new info I dont know what the point of a new series is. This isnt a sitcom, its science.

I mean obviously I dont really care if they do or not, just saying I dont quite get the motivation.



m aware of this as Ive been a fan of the guy's for years, my point was just that between The Universe, Nova, and various single episode documentaries many of which already feature him I guess I was just wondering aloud if there was any actual new info to share here or if this was mostly just repackaging, thats all.




Well, the reviews are in and it sounds like Nostrastarface was right again :pimp:

[Cowboy Thunder]

watched it...was okay

good visuals, but I don't feel like anything was touched on that I didn't already know...

the calender analogy was pretty good though IMO

Calendar was impressive.

Rest of it seemed pretty weak. I watched a few reruns of Carl's Cosmos before the new one and the new one paled in comparison.

Hopefully they get better. Read today that it was third in the ratings. Science Fiction show "Resurrection" dominated it, 13.3 mill to 5.3. Dumbards.

[Cowboy Thunder]

60 minutes feature on A.L.M.A. was almost better...

[shlver]

Neil was very good; his cadence is easy to listen to and follow. The show did a good job including historical context and remaining neutral while contradicting creationist ideas. This and the stressing of scientific method bodes well for the scientific integrity of the show. The visuals were great and I'm looking forward to see how they depict cellular and molecular mechanisms in future episodes.

Being the first episode, I understand the lack of detail but hope there is more depth in later episodes that focus on specific topics. For an introductory overview, the episode did an amazing job giving the average person a perspective on the size and timescale of the universe.

[miller-time]

Being the first episode, I understand the lack of detail but hope there is more depth in later episodes that focus on specific topics. For an introductory overview, the episode did an amazing job giving the average person a perspective on the size and timescale of the universe.

I feel the same way. Usually science documentaries are just infotainment rather than truly educational. I really hope they step it up in the other episodes and that this episode was just an introductory one.

My only other criticism is that I felt the cartoon was a bit too heavy with victimhood and overly elaborate metaphorical wonder. It actually resembled a religious cartoon more than anything.

[Derka]

I own all six seasons of The Universe cos they were $10 each on iTunes...and Tyson is everywhere on that series.

[Akrazotile]

I own all six seasons of The Universe cos they were $10 each on iTunes...and Tyson is everywhere on that series.


Forgive my technological simpleness but do you have to store those all on your computer or do you keep them like on a "cloud" or something? Or did you burn them onto some external format?

Seems like fitting the entire Universe onto your cpu would take up a lot of space :lol. But again I'm not real tech savvy.

[gts]

Well watched it... I liked it, will watch again.. DVR'd it and my 8 year old was glued to it and it spawned a ton of questions from her.. will certainly be DVRing it again for that reason alone

[-p.tiddy-]

http://www.upworthy.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-like-being-called-an-atheist-because-hes-not-one

^^^ atheists watch please


Some things I would like Tyson to touch on:

"Time"... many believe that both space and "time" started at the point of the big bang. "Time" is becoming more and more accepted as an actual tangible thing. Something that can bend or warp, has a start and a finish as though it did NOT always exist.

The Higgs Boson particle. So we have a particle that can actually create matter and mass? How does that work? Is it even possible to explain that in layman's terms?

Other dimensions, it is said that with the hadron collider could let us see into other dimensions... Wouldn't mind some brief clarity on that

Scale of the universe going DOWN rather than UP. I have read things on the atom not being the smallest things in existence, that other particles make up the particles in atoms. We spend so much time focusing on how huge the universe is, but can we do the same thing scaling down as though each atom is a universe in itself? Is size infinite in both directions???

[miller-time]

http://www.upworthy.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-like-being-called-an-atheist-because-hes-not-one

^^^ atheists watch please

I don't think it really matters what he is (which is his point too) but he is still an atheist even if he claims not to be. Atheism is a position in response to a claim not a philosophy or a movement. Right now he does not posses a belief in God, that makes him an atheist (i.e. without God). But he also claims to not know whether there is a God or not so that makes him an agnostic. So by definition he is an agnostic atheist whether he wants to subscribe to the definition or not. I understand his resistance and disinterest in being labelled an atheist but that has no bearing on whether he is one or not.

Although I'm not really sure why you brought this up? Was anyone here categorizing him as an atheist?

[-p.tiddy-]

I don't think it really matters what he is (which is his point too) but he is still an atheist even if he claims not to be. Atheism is a position in response to a claim not a philosophy or a movement. Right now he does not posses a belief in God, that makes him an atheist (i.e. without God). But he also claims to not know whether there is a God or not so that makes him an agnostic. So by definition he is an agnostic atheist whether he wants to subscribe to the definition or not. I understand his resistance and disinterest in being labelled an atheist but that has no bearing on whether he is one or not.

Although I'm not really sure why you brought this up? Was anyone here categorizing him as an atheist?
Lol, in the video he says he hate it when atheists say that...

IMO there is a clear difference between agnostic and atheist (like Tyson said) and many so called atheists are actually agnostic.

Atheist is not "without God" it is the rejection of the existence of a God... read the definition.

[DCL]

i think the show was really made for 7th or 8th graders, perhaps even younger folks. I want NDGT to turn it up a bit and break down the more advanced stuff like on his radio shows but he probably won't for this series because this show is made for the mass audience.

[shlver]

I feel the same way. Usually science documentaries are just infotainment rather than truly educational. I really hope they step it up in the other episodes and that this episode was just an introductory one.

My only other criticism is that I felt the cartoon was a bit too heavy with victimhood and overly elaborate metaphorical wonder. It actually resembled a religious cartoon more than anything.
I didn't have much of an opinion to the cartoon. It served its purpose and I took the information in context.

[miller-time]

Lol, in the video he says he hate it when atheists say that...

IMO there is a clear difference between agnostic and atheist (like Tyson said) and many so called atheists are actually agnostic.

Atheist is not "without God" it is the rejection of the existence of a God... read the definition.

Yes there is a difference between the two. One is a position of belief and one is a position of knowledge. If you don't believe in God, whether you actively reject the concept or you just reject the claims made thus far (and suspending judgement) you are an Atheist. You don't hold a belief in God. The concepts are called strong (or positive) and weak (or negative) atheism, there is a difference and it is an either or position. Either you have the belief or you don't (theist/atheist) and you either claim to know or you claim to not know (gnostic/agnostic).

His problem with the label is that it carries a lot of baggage and he doesn't want that baggage to overrule his personal persona or distort his image. I understand his reaction. Being called an atheist (especially in certain parts of the US) can be tantamount to being called a devil worshiper. He doesn't want the label to misrepresent or define him as a person in that instance so he rejects its application. Even in ordinary situations labels can be overly generalizing. However I think off the record he probably wouldn't care one way or another about being in the atheist camp, it just isn't something wants to be firstly associated as. He wants to be a called Neil deGrasse Tyson - scientist and educator, not Neil deGrasse Tyson - popular atheist.

[El Kabong]

i think the show was really made for 7th or 8th graders, perhaps even younger folks. I want NDGT to turn it up a bit and break down the more advanced stuff like on his radio shows but he probably won't for this series because this show is made for the mass audience.
Seems like it, but even if it gets people interested enough that they then go and do more research/reading themselves, then that can't be a bad thing.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yes there is a difference between the two. One is a position of belief and one is a position of knowledge. If you don't believe in God, whether you actively reject the concept or you just reject the claims made thus far (and suspending judgement) you are an Atheist. You don't hold a belief in God. The concepts are called strong (or positive) and weak (or negative) atheism, there is a difference and it is an either or position. Either you have the belief or you don't (theist/atheist) and you either claim to know or you claim to not know (gnostic/agnostic).

His problem with the label is that it carries a lot of baggage and he doesn't want that baggage to overrule his personal persona or distort his image. I understand his reaction. Being called an atheist (especially in certain parts of the US) can be tantamount to being called a devil worshiper. He doesn't want the label to misrepresent or define him as a person in that instance so he rejects its application. Even in ordinary situations labels can be overly generalizing. However I think off the record he probably wouldn't care one way or another about being in the atheist camp, it just isn't something wants to be firstly associated as. He wants to be a called Neil deGrasse Tyson - scientist and educator, not Neil deGrasse Tyson - popular atheist.
This is wrong... I am a THEIST, the opposite of atheist... and I reject all claims made thus far.

Tyson is agnostic, like he claims, because he doesn't reject the existence of a deity or deities... an atheist does, as defined


Let me ask you this though, why do so many so called atheists have a problem with being labeled agnostic? Like they are offended at that label?

[Rose]

This is wrong... I am a THEIST, the opposite of atheist... and I reject all claims made thus far.

Tyson is agnostic, like he claims, because he doesn't reject the existence of a deity or deities... an atheist does, as defined


Let me ask you this though, why do so many so called atheists have a problem with being labeled agnostic? Like they are offended at that label?
Not that it matters what religion he is or isn't, but there's A LOT of things he said before in books or videos you can find on YouTube that pretty much say he's an atheist.

Really the reason why he doesn't come out and say he's an atheist is because then he'll get shunned by the masses for not believing in god because he's a scientist.

Like this quote from him.
“The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement,” says Tyson, “then they assign all the baggage, and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it, to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important that there is to know about you because of that association. And that’s not the way to have a conversation.”

[-p.tiddy-]

Not that it matters what religion he is or isn't, but there's A LOT of things he said before in books or videos you can find on YouTube that pretty much say he's an atheist.

Really the reason why he doesn't come out and say he's an atheist is because then he'll get shunned by the masses for not believing in god because he's a scientist.

Like this quote from him.
that quote is from the video that I just posted...

in the video he clearly says he doesn't go one way or another, he doesn't reject the idea of a God...he says the word that describes him best is "agnostic" and he is saying that from a logical stand point and not from the stand point of trying to make people happy.

[QUOTE][B]a

[Akrazotile]

that quote is from the video that I just posted...

in the video he clearly says he doesn't go one way or another, he doesn't reject the idea of a God...he says the word that describes him best is "agnostic" and he is saying that from a logical stand point and not from the stand point of trying to make people happy.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

^^^ that definition doesn't fit with NDT because he doesn't "deny" or "disbelieve"...he doesn't "deny" or "disbelieve" that the lack of a deity either...he is AGNOSTIC


tiddy I think that definition, despite coming from dictionary.com, is based on the colloquial, or practical definition of atheist. Not a lexical definition.

even tho my philosophies/politics generally differ greatly from miller time, i have to agree with him on the technical deconstruction of the word.

A theist is:

Some who believes in god.

Let's start with that. There are then two ways to look at how the word "athiest" would be applied:

1. Literally, "not"... someone who believes in god.
2. Someone who believes there is no god.

The first one is correct, the second one is not. At least, lexicologically. The 'a' nullifies the person as a theist. Meaning they don't have an affirmed belief in god. It doesn't mean they have an affirmed belief against god either.


There's the bell. Miller time wins on a technicality. Sorry tidds. I often score you higher than most people do in your battles. But not this time, friend.

[-p.tiddy-]

you guys are doing EXACTLY what NDT says he dislikes...lol

he CLAIMS he is not atheist...he CLAIMS he is agnostic...HE is saying this, not me

how can anyone here argue with that?




oh shit, sorry Neil, you're wrong, a few peeps on a bball site said you're atheist so that's what you are...

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE]ag

[Akrazotile]

you guys are doing EXACTLY what NDT says he dislikes...lol

he CLAIMS he is not atheist...he CLAIMS he is agnostic...HE is saying this, not me

how can anyone here argue with that?




oh shit, sorry Neil, you're wrong, a few peeps on a bball site said you're atheist so that's what you are...

Being agnostic is by its very definition atheist. It is the absence of an affirmative belief.

Maybe we're arguing different things here. I realize he is distancing himself from the perceived definition of atheism by distinguishing himself as agnostic. But by the technical linguistic construction, an agnostic is an atheist. Although an atheist is not necessarily an agnostic. :confusedshrug:

[-p.tiddy-]

Being agnostic is by its very definition atheist. It is the absence of an affirmative belief.

Maybe we're arguing different things here. I realize he is distancing himself from the perceived definition of atheism by distinguishing himself as agnostic. But by the technical linguistic construction, an agnostic is an atheist. Although an atheist is not necessarily an agnostic. :confusedshrug:
agnostic and atheist are two different things...one rejects the idea of God the other doesn't

an "agnostic-atheist" would be someone who doesn't reject the idea of God but leans in the direction of no God existing

you should watch the video I posted of NDT himself explaining why he is agnostic and not atheist

[-p.tiddy-]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/atheism-agnosticism.png

[Akrazotile]

agnostic and atheist are two different things...one rejects the idea of God the other doesn't

an "agnostic-atheist" would be someone who doesn't reject the idea of God but leans in the direction of no God existing

you should watch the video I posted of NDT himself explaining why he is agnostic and not atheist


Bro.

I have a Ph.D in linguistics with a specialty in ebonics.


I think I know what Im talkin about.

[Dresta]

p tiddy spewing his bullcrap again. Atheism derives from the Greek atheos: 'a' = without, theos=God.

NDT said what he said simply because he didn't want to be associated with a movement, and the misconceptions of dumbasses like p tiddy would lump him into a movement if he used the term atheist. Terms like 'new atheism' and the 'atheist movement' tend more often than not to be purported by those hoping to slander atheism. Atheism is not an ideology or creed or even a denial, it is simply the affirmation that God is not part of your life, not that it is known that he doesn't exist. It does not require a movement, and those who take it up as one are misguided as well as being a minority.

[-p.tiddy-]

I am using both the actual definitions and the words of NDT HIMSELF

but yes, please go ahead and pretend that NDT would put what other people think of him over actual logic :facepalm it fits your agenda so do what you must

Einstein was an atheist too right?


Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."


yes please go ahead and lump all the geniuses of the world into your group even though they openly reject it...

[Dresta]

I am using both the actual definitions and the words of NDT HIMSELF

but yes, please go ahead and pretend that NDT would put what other people think of him over actual logic :facepalm it fits your agenda so do what you must

Einstein was an atheist too right?


yes please go ahead and lump all the geniuses of the world into your group even though they openly reject it...
Einstein was a kind of Pantheist you utter cretin and he has nothing to do with this anyway. I'm not lumping anyone into groups and i don't really care what NDT has to say about it considering this is a definitional issue, and one in which he and you are wrong. He may just not like the association that comes with the term 'atheism' hence why he wants to distance himself from it, but that does not mean that his perception of its meaning is correct, because it isn't.

You say atheism is defined as 'disbelief in God' - well 'disbelief' can be defined as 'lack of faith in something' - so once again, it defines an absence of belief, not an open refutation of God. Nor is that Einstein quote a rejection of atheism, it is closer to a rejection of theism: 'I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one' (i.e. being a theist is child-like. So perhaps Einstein was a Pantheistic anti-theist - a more precise definition of his views than the somewhat vague 'atheist'). He also says 'You may call me an agnostic, I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist...' - notice 'you may' he does not call himself that, and notice the term 'professional' placed before atheist, meaning he is clearly disassociating himself from any kind of atheist movement, just like NDT. When it comes to language it matters how what you say is perceived - the strict, literal definition and meaning of a word is not the only consideration, especially with a word with as ambiguous perceptions as 'atheist'.

Typical insecure religious person saying 'why do you atheists cast all religious people with the same brush' while simultaneously lumping all atheists together as being the same. You are the one with the agenda here; all i care about is that people properly understand the definitions of the words they use, something you time and again have shown yourself incapable of.

[-p.tiddy-]

as I stated earlier I am not religious...anyway


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

^^^ this does NOT fit NDT

[QUOTE]Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims

[Akrazotile]

Tiddy, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, the appropriate phrase for what you are describing is "anti"-theist. Meaning against or opposite. "a" just means not.


Again, I understand that in colloquial language atheism is often used interchangeably with antitheism. But linguistically they have a difference.

[-p.tiddy-]

Tiddy, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, the appropriate phrase for what you are describing is "anti"-theist. Meaning against. "a" just means not.

Again, I understand that in colloquial language atheism is often used interchangeably with antitheism. But linguistically they have a difference.
call Webster

like Tyson said though, the "atheism" shouldn't even exist..."there is no word for people that don't play golf"

[Dresta]

Getting your definitions from Wikipedia now? Right on!

Funny really, because you cut your quote in a way that shows you're just being a disingenuous asshole:


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist

So NDT posits that religious and metaphysical claims are unknown or unknowable, but he does not have an absence of belief? If there is no absence of belief then there must be some kind of belief present. This should not be hard to understand: both definitions can actually fit NDT, it is not an either/or question.

[-p.tiddy-]

so Dresta, you are of the belief that agnosticism = atheism, correct?

to you an agnostic IS an atheist?...they are just describing the same thing in different ways?

[ItsMillerTime]

Can we revoke p tiddy's right to post in any intellectual-based thread?

That would really help me out. Thanks.

[-p.tiddy-]

Can we revoke p tiddy's right to post in any intellectual-based thread?

That would really help me out. Thanks.
/ignore feature

but I really didn't want to bog this thread down with Dresta BS...I do apoligize for that

and I am taking the same side as NDT himself

[-p.tiddy-]

http://www.upworthy.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-like-being-called-an-atheist-because-hes-not-one

^^^ atheists watch please


Some things I would like Tyson to touch on:

"Time"... many believe that both space and "time" started at the point of the big bang. "Time" is becoming more and more accepted as an actual tangible thing. Something that can bend or warp, has a start and a finish as though it did NOT always exist.

The Higgs Boson particle. So we have a particle that can actually create matter and mass? How does that work? Is it even possible to explain that in layman's terms?

Other dimensions, it is said that with the hadron collider could let us see into other dimensions... Wouldn't mind some brief clarity on that

Scale of the universe going DOWN rather than UP. I have read things on the atom not being the smallest things in existence, that other particles make up the particles in atoms. We spend so much time focusing on how huge the universe is, but can we do the same thing scaling down as though each atom is a universe in itself? Is size infinite in both directions???
when I posted the NDT agnoistic blurb I really wanted to discuss the OTHER things

[Budadiiii]

Can we revoke p tiddy's right to post in any intellectual-based thread?

That would really help me out. Thanks.

[-p.tiddy-]

no you can't

[Dresta]

so Dresta, you are of the belief that agnosticism = atheism, correct?

to you an agnostic IS an atheist?...they are just describing the same thing in different ways?
No, an agnostic can be either atheist or theist or even pantheist. I would also say that those who think they are gnostic are simply deluded, and that from an indifferent epistemological standpoint ignorance and hence agnosticism is the only logical position one can hold towards anything that lies outside of the material world.

I think you can claim to not know and believe, and i think you can claim to not know and not believe. But nobody can claim to know for sure and expect to be taken seriously, at least by me.


call Webster

like Tyson said though, the "atheism" shouldn't even exist..."there is no word for people that don't play golf"
Do you not see that this is just a piece of meaningless rhetoric and a terrible comparison? The same logic could be used for saying the word agnostic shouldn't exist. There is no word for people who don't play golf because there has never been a need for such a word, but there are many words that describe or indicate an absence of something.

[Take Your Lumps]

as I stated earlier I am not religious...anyway



^^^ this does NOT fit NDT



^^^ this DOES fit NDT


not sure why you are so hell bent on trying to reword "agnostic" to fit the definition of "atheist"

NDT does not have a disbelief in God...He ISN'T EVEN A SKEPTIC...he is in the "I have no clue" camp...this isn't dificult

Until the very last sentence I thought p-diddy meant that as an abbreviation for Near Death Theory. :oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

No, an agnostic can be either atheist or theist or even pantheist. I would also say that those who think they are gnostic are simply deluded, and that from an indifferent epistemological standpoint ignorance and hence agnosticism is the only logical position one can hold towards anything that lies outside of the material world.

I think you can claim to not know and believe, and i think you can claim to not know and not believe. But nobody can claim to know for sure and expect to be taken seriously, at least by me.
it's all on a spectrum but a pure agnostic would fall directly in the middle of atheist and theist

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg


^^^ like that (what NDT claims he is)

I know you hate it when I post scales/charts/actual data...sorry

[-p.tiddy-]

Do you not see that this is just a piece of meaningless rhetoric and a terrible comparison? The same logic could be used for saying the word agnostic shouldn't exist. There is no word for people who don't play golf because there has never been a need for such a word, but there are many words that describe or indicate an absence of something.
that was a quote from NDT himself...that was not mine

did you even watch the video or no?

[Dresta]

I'd just like to know why knowledge and belief are being measured on the same axis when they are fundamentally different concepts? I'd also like to know just what a 'pure agnostic' is because it seems to me that if one claims God to be unknowable, then one must be as pure an agnostic as one can be, yet this does not preclude an absence of belief.


that was a quote from NDT himself...that was not mine

did you even watch the video or no?
I know it was his quote, but that doesn't make it a valid comparison because it's actually a pretty ridiculous thing to say if you think about it.

[-p.tiddy-]

I'd just like to know why knowledge and belief are being measured on the same axis when they are fundamentally different concepts? I'd also like to know just what a 'pure agnostic' is because it seems to me that if one claims God to be unknowable, then one must be as pure an agnostic as one can be, yet this does not preclude an absence of belief.


I know it was his quote, but that doesn't make it a valid comparison because it's actually a pretty ridiculous thing to say if you think about it.
there are other scales but on that scale a PURE atheist has belief (100% certainty) as shown on that scale...

that scale seems to rule out Gnosticism (which should work perfectly for you given you just shunned the idea of it)

and PURE agnostic has 0% certainty...PURE theist 100% certainty

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE]The primary difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist does not believe God or gods exist whereas the agnostic is not sure either way because existence of God or gods, they say, cannot be proven. The atheist may be a weak atheist or strong atheist. The weak atheist may say,

[Dresta]

Sorry man, that quote makes no sense and is riddled with contradictions:


The primary difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist does not believe God or gods exist whereas the agnostic is not sure either way because existence of God or gods, they say, cannot be provenIf the agnostic is 'not sure either way' then it is fair to say he does not believe. Hence according to this agnostic=atheist.


The atheist, whether weak or strong, is not in search of spiritual meaning through finding proof of a god. The agnostic may, on the other hand, be looking for proof, or may be open to the proofs or faith people use to define god. The agnostic does not necessarily rule out that faith might come to him or her at some future point.

Nonsense. I've met atheists who desperately want to believe, and who strove to believe for years, but simply couldn't find any justification for it. But they wanted to believe, and they would certainly have been open to evidence had it been presented. An atheist doesn't believe because they see no reason to believe: they see fanciful delusions in religious doctrines, and have as of yet seen no evidence to reverse these convictions.


The atheist on the other hand, completely discounts the concept of being converted to a belief in god. Even if the atheist is weak, he or she does not choose ever to worship any sort of god. This does not mean that all atheists will stay atheists for life, but many do.An atheist completely discounts the possibility of religious conversion, but then some atheists actually do convert? Thus they can't possibly have completely discounted all religion or possibility of religious conversion? More nonsense.

See, this kind of nonsense is why NTD doesn't want to be grouped with an -ism, because it results in morons like whoever wrote the above grouping together a diverse group of people who share a single similarity - destroying their own personal and idiosyncratic views of life and the universe - all to categorise and systemise. Two atheists can have completely different metaphysical outlooks, and these kind of groupings and generalisations only destroy the subtleties that distinguish them, especially when idiots use a term to generalise and turn being without belief into some kind of creed or movement.

[-p.tiddy-]

if those "atheists" desperately want to believe and are open to it perhaps they are not really atheists but instead agnostics? :confusedshrug:

you know what, never mind that article, I am not the biggest fan of that either...

answer me this please...do you understand how the graph I posted earlier works?

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg


the more I think I about this particular graph, the more I think it falls directly in line with all definitions...and I was wrong earlier to say this graph excludes gnostics...it is just saying that a PURE atheist is gnostic and a PURE theist is GNOSTIC...they are 100% certain of their beliefs

a PURE agnostic falls in the center...and there is everything inbetween...all that grey area is open

a "weak" atheist may be 50% certain, but enough to be called "atheist" rather than agnostic

so anywho...has this chart made things sink in for you at all?

[miller-time]

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg


the more I think I about this particular graph, the more I think it falls directly in line with all definitions...and I was wrong earlier to say this graph excludes gnostics...it is just saying that a PURE atheist is gnostic and a PURE theist is GNOSTIC...they are 100% certain of their beliefs

The graph is wrong. And it is in direct conflict with the graph you posted before where agnoticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism were on two separate axes. See the axis labelled certainty on your graph there? It should actually be relabeled as agnosticism/gnosticism. Because those terms relate to the measure of certainty.

This is a better graph and it goes into more detail than the one you posted before.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Athei st%252520v%252520Theist.png

I'm sorry dude but you are just wrong on this one. There is no pure atheist or pure theist. You are either an atheist or a theist, and you either claim to know or not know.

[-p.tiddy-]

That is the typical graph and yes I posted that same set up earlier...It is really saying the same thing Miller only in a different way

a "gnostic atheist" would fall into the 100% certain "pure atheist" area of the other graph, and the "gnostic thiest" would fall on the other end of the spectrum

obviously there can be "pure atheist" or "pure theist"

understand?

IMO the line graph is a better visual representation of all the inbetween area

[-p.tiddy-]

Agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)


Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

Agnostic theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism)


Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in


and these two things would be grey area beliefs on that line chart...they would fall on the line around the "evidence horizon" area on each side

[Jailblazers7]

Yeah, I thought the show was pretty cool too.

[miller-time]

Agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

And what part of that definition doesn't apply to Tyson? Does he right now have a belief in a deity or not? If he does then which one is it?


and these two things would be grey area beliefs on that line chart...they would fall on the line around the "evidence horizon" area on each side

Yes but again the chart is wrong. It is a convoluted piece of nonsense made up by some random guy on the internet. It isn't saying the same thing as the other chart. Agnosticism and atheism cannot be on the same continuum. It would be like putting height and weight together on the same axis. It is a logical absurdity. You can't be in between atheist and agnostic in the same way you can't be in between tall and fat. One deals with faith the other deals with knowledge.

[-p.tiddy-]

And what part of that definition doesn't apply to Tyson? Does he right now have a belief in a deity or not? If he does then which one is it?



Yes but again the chart is wrong. It is a convoluted piece of nonsense made up by some random guy on the internet. It isn't saying the same thing as the other chart. Agnosticism and atheism cannot be on the same continuum. It would be like putting height and weight together on the same axis. It is a logical absurdity. You can't be in between atheist and agnostic in the same way you can't be in between tall and fat. One deals with faith the other deals with knowledge.
that is a really bad analogy...so agnosticism and atheism cannot exist on the same continuum yet you and Dresta are arguing they are the same thing?

an agnostic-atheist works perfectly fine...what about it doesn't work for you exactly, what is absurd about it? it is an agnostic that leans in the direction of atheism, it's simple

both charts say the same thing and all of these charts are made by "some random guy on the internet", no need to point that out

[miller-time]

that is a really bad analogy...so agnosticism and atheism cannot exist on the same continuum yet you and Dresta are arguing they are the same thing?

an agnostic-atheist works perfectly fine...what about it doesn't work for you exactly? it is an agnostic that leans in the direction of atheism, it's simple

both charts say the same thing and all of these charts are made by "some random guy on the internet", no need to point that out

LOL. No. That isn't what it is man. You don't lean in the direction of atheism. You are either an atheist or you aren't. The term agnostic in agnostic-atheist denotes the type of atheist you are. You are an atheist (you hold no belief in God) yet you don't claim God doesn't exist - you just don't have that particular belief because certain criteria haven't been met, but you also don't reject the concept outright either because it has not yet been disproved. A gnostic-atheist is an atheist who has no belief in God but also claims to know that God doesn't exist. Both are atheists, but they both make different knowledge claims. To make it easier, replace agnostic-atheist with unknowing-athiest and gnostic-atheist with knowing-atheist. Neither have any active belief in God, but one claims to know he doesn't exist and the other claims to not know.

Also the analogy is fine. It is taking two concepts or values that do cannot be on the same axis, the concepts themselves didn't really matter.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt73/_primetime_pics/AgnosticvGnosticvAtheistvTheist_line_zpsa5db256b.p ng

^^^ your chart with the SAME line on it

it is impossible to have grey area in between "gnotic-atheist" and "gnostic-theist"...and that is why the line graph is better visually

[-p.tiddy-]

LOL. No. That isn't what it is man. You don't lean in the direction of atheism. You are either an atheist or you aren't. The term agnostic in agnostic-atheist denotes the type of atheist you are. You are an atheist (you hold no belief in God) yet you don't claim God doesn't exist - you just don't have that particular belief because certain criteria haven't been met, but you also don't reject the concept outright either because it has not yet been disproved. A gnostic-atheist is an atheist who has no belief in God but also claims to know that God doesn't exist.

Also the analogy is fine. It is taking two concepts or values that do cannot be on the same axis, the concepts themselves didn't really matter.
you say "agnostic" and "atheism" can't exist together yet YOUR GRAPH has them together

and yes you can "lean" certain directions...there is plenty of grey area in this, not sure why you think it has to be exclusive...there are "weak atheists" and "strong atheists"

[miller-time]

you say "agnostic" and "atheism" can't exist together yet YOUR GRAPH has them together

and yes you can "lean" certain directions...there is plenty of grey area in this, not sure why you think it has to be exclusive...there are "weak atheists" and "strong atheists"

They can't exist on the same continuum. Like being fat and tall. You can be both fat and tall but you don't rank them on the same axis. You wouldn't say "that guy is half way between fat and tall" you would say "that guy is fat and tall." Analogously you can't say "that guy is halfway between agnostic and atheist" you can only say "that guy is agnostic and an atheist."

The graph I put up has them on different axes. Weak and strong are synonyms for agnostic and gnostic. Different terms same concept. They don't refer to leanings but to the type of atheist you are.

[-p.tiddy-]

They can't exist on the same continuum. Like being fat and tall. You can be both fat and tall but you don't rank them on the same axis. You wouldn't say "that guy is half way between fat and tall" you would say "that guy is fat and tall." Analogously you can't say "that guy is halfway between agnostic and atheist" you can only say "that guy is agnostic and an atheist."

The graph I put up has them on different axes. Weak and strong are synonyms for agnostic and gnostic. Different terms same concept. They don't refer to leanings but to the type of atheist you are.
but they aren't on the same continuum in that sense on the chart I posted...you could move the words "atheist" and "theist" up to the top of the graph if you wanted to and it would work the exact same...

can you not see that our charts are the same from the image I posted with a line on your graph?

[miller-time]

can you not see that our charts are the same from the image I posted with a line on your graph?

Actually you are right. I misread that chart. I didn't see the fundamentalism at the top. I thought the bottom line was one scale.

[-p.tiddy-]

Actually you are right. I misread that chart. I didn't see the fundamentalism at the top. I thought the bottom line was one scale.
thank you...I appreciate that, would rep

NOW, since that is out of the way, can you see how there is a place for an agnostic that isn't an atheist?

[miller-time]

thank you...I appreciate that, would rep

NOW, since that is out of the way, can you see how there is a place for an agnostic that isn't an atheist?

No, I think it is still a binary position. Either you have a belief in God or you don't. You can be uncertain about your belief or disbelief but you can't half believe something.

[-p.tiddy-]

No, I think it is still a binary position. Either you have a belief in God or you don't. You can be uncertain about your belief or disbelief but you can't half believe something.
I disagree 100%...this isn't black and white like that, in my opinion (and his) NDT is an example of someone who isn't atheist or theist, he is in the middle

I feel like there were points in my own life where I was directly in the middle...I didn't feel like I fell in the atheist category OR the theist category, I felt exactly as the definition explains it, that is impossible to know of a higher dimension, but I thought it was certainly possible and I was open to the idea of it

it's fine for us to disagree on this...really was wanting to debate the other things in my post with that link of NDT speaking on this issue but oh well

[highwhey]

So did any of u assimilate some of that music on the show to that of jodie foster's scene in contact with her father/alien?

[miller-time]

I feel like there were points in my own life where I was directly in the middle...I didn't feel like I fell in the atheist category OR the theist category, I felt exactly as the definition explains it, that is impossible to know of a higher dimension, but I thought it was certainly possible and I was open to the idea of it

At that point before you accepted the belief in higher dimensions or God you were still an atheist simply because you held no actual belief in those concepts. Remember atheism is a default position, it isn't necessarily a rejection of something. That point 0 on the graph is still atheism. Once you kind of sort of believe that something exists then you move to the right of the scale.

[Dresta]

I disagree 100%...this isn't black and white like that, in my opinion (and his) NDT is an example of someone who isn't atheist or theist, he is in the middle

I feel like there were points in my own life where I was directly in the middle...I didn't feel like I fell in the atheist category OR the theist category, I felt exactly as the definition explains it, that is impossible to know of a higher dimension, but I thought it was certainly possible and I was open to the idea of it

it's fine for us to disagree on this...really was wanting to debate the other things in my post with that link of NDT speaking on this issue but oh well
Well did you believe in God or not at that time? If the answer in no, then you were an atheist.

[bladefd]

At that point before you accepted the belief in higher dimensions or God you were still an atheist simply because you held no actual belief in those concepts. Remember atheism is a default position, it isn't necessarily a rejection of something. That point 0 on the graph is still atheism. Once you kind of sort of believe that something exists then you move to the right of the scale.

I read the whole back-and-forth debate. The way I think of this... It's the theist making a claim that an all-powerful entity exists (god). The other guy asks "You made a claim. What do you have to backup that claim?" The theist says "Faith." If you don't share the same or similar faith then that other guy is called a nonbeliever (For the sake of argument, I will group together Christian-Muslim-Hindu-Buddhism/etc as believers in faith).

The difference, to me, is how that nonbeliever takes that answer. If the nonbeliever says "Well, you're wrong" then the person is an atheist. If the nonbeliever says "Cool, I don't care either ways" or "I need more evidence than simply faith" then the person is an agnostic. See the difference? That's how I personally look at the difference between theist-atheist-agnostic.

A nonbeliever does not necessarily have to be somebody that outright believes god does not exist. They may or they may not - that's the difference between atheist or agnostic to me.

[-p.tiddy-]

Well did you believe in God or not at that time? If the answer in no, then you were an atheist.
I would say way of saying it is that I "half-beleived"

It wasn't a case of either-or

I believed a higher power was possible, and I believed no higher power was possible

[bladefd]

I believed a higher power was possible, and I believed no higher power was possible

That makes no sense. "I believe earth may be round and I also believe earth may not be round"

How's both beliefs possible at the same time?

[-p.tiddy-]

That makes no sense. "I believe earth may be round and I also believe earth may not be round"

How's both beliefs possible at the same time?
That analogy doesnt work, one is proven

A better analogy would be "I believe there may be UFOs that have visited Earth" and I believe"there may have never been UFOs that have visited Earth"

Understand?

[Euroleague]

Tyson is OVERRATED.

He has a tested IQ of 130.

I beat that by far and away both times I was officially tested.

People are way too easily impressed these days.

He's no ****ing way in the same realm with Carl Sagan.

[mr.big35]

Tyson is OVERRATED.

He has a tested IQ of 130.

I beat that by far and away both times I was officially tested.

People are way too easily impressed these days.

He's no ****ing way in the same realm with Carl Sagan.

then why are you in insidehoops and working in NASA

[Jailblazers7]

Tyson is OVERRATED.

He has a tested IQ of 130.

I beat that by far and away both times I was officially tested.

People are way too easily impressed these days.

He's no ****ing way in the same realm with Carl Sagan.

He'd probably average a double double in Euroleague tho.

[Take Your Lumps]

Tyson is OVERRATED.

He has a tested IQ of 130.

I beat that by far and away both times I was officially tested.

People are way too easily impressed these days.

He's no ****ing way in the same realm with Carl Sagan.

What is your I.Q.?

"I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." - Stephen Hawking

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?_r=0

[miller-time]

The difference, to me, is how that nonbeliever takes that answer. If the nonbeliever says "Well, you're wrong" then the person is an atheist. If the nonbeliever says "Cool, I don't care either ways" or "I need more evidence than simply faith" then the person is an agnostic. See the difference? That's how I personally look at the difference between theist-atheist-agnostic.

I get what you are saying but that is just a colloquial understanding of the concept. Which is where the issue with this discussion lies. People are confusing the academic definition with the colloquial definition. It relates to knowledge not a position on belief.

The person that says they believe on faith but admits they have no evidence or direct knowledge is still agnostic. They are an agnostic theist. They know that they don't know whether God exists or not but they believe in him using faith based reasoning. The non-believer that doesn't care either way is an agnostic atheist. Even though they aren't bothered either way at that point in time they still hold no belief in a personal God. They might accept that it is a possibility, but that is different from accepting that it does actually exist. I believe it is possible that aliens exist on the dark side of the moon, but right now I don't hold that belief because I don't see any evidence for it. I'm willing to change my position if evidence comes up but right now it is not something I believe.

[Dresta]

That analogy doesnt work, one is proven

A better analogy would be "I believe there may be UFOs that have visited Earth" and I believe"there may have never been UFOs that have visited Earth"

Understand?
Why are you adding 'mays'? - you believe or you don't believe. You cannot believe in UFOs while also not believing in UFOs. Your mind may change, but it is still either one or the other.

Belief - 'an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:'

You can't half-accept things as being true.

[miller-time]

I believed a higher power was possible, and I believed no higher power was possible

Neither of those positions are related to your belief in a higher power. They are beliefs about possibilities. Accepting there are different possible outcomes is not the same as believing all of those outcomes are true at the same time.

[-p.tiddy-]

Why are you adding 'mays'? - you believe or you don't believe. You cannot believe in UFOs while also not believing in UFOs. Your mind may change, but it is still either one or the other.

Belief - 'an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:'

You can't half-accept things as being true.
Bullshit, you're not forced to pick a side, it is completely feasible to think both sides are possible.

Not only that but there is infinite amount of room for grey area...

You are trying to make something black and white that is anything but black and white

[-p.tiddy-]

Neither of those positions are related to your belief in a higher power. They are beliefs about possibilities. Accepting there are different possible outcomes is not the same as believing all of those outcomes are true at the same time.
Everything in the middle of gnostic atheist and gnostic theist is a perception of how you view the "possibilities"

And that is a large middle ground imo

[miller-time]

Everything in the middle of gnostic atheist and gnostic theist is a perception of how you view the "possibilities"

And that is a large middle ground imo

But that ground is entirely on the agnostic/gnostic spectrum. At the end of the day you either have a belief in God or not. Even if you only believe in one tiny detail relating to the existence of God then you are a theist - it doesn't matter how small the belief is (although deist might be a better term). To reiterate, if you accept something (anything at all) about God's existence being true then you are a theist. You might be right next to the middle line as close as can be, but you are next to it not on top of it. If you don't have that belief but accept that it is possible at that point in time you are on top of that line and you are still an atheist.

[-p.tiddy-]

But that ground is entirely on the agnostic/gnostic spectrum. At the end of the day you either have a belief in God or not. Even if you only believe in one tiny detail relating to the existence of God then you are a theist - it doesn't matter how small the belief is (although deist might be a better term). To reiterate, if you accept something (anything at all) about God's existence being true then you are a theist. You might be right next to the middle line as close as can be, but you are next to it not on top of it. If you don't have that belief but accept that it is possible at that point in time you are on top of that line and you are still an atheist.
There is no where that defines how large the middle is the way that you are. It doesn't matter though it is completely possible to be 50\50 on this, there is no "at the end of the day you have to pick a side" like you suggest.

IMO if you are just 51% on something then you are MUCH more of an agnostic than anything else so you should get that label, but that is just my own personal view of who should get what label


NDT is an agnostic (like he says) if you are forced to pick between just agnostic and atheist.

[miller-time]

There is no where that defines how large the middle is the way that you are. It doesn't matter though it is completely possible to be 50\50 on this, there is no "at the end of the day you have to pick a side" like you suggest.

But you don't pick a side as such (you don't have to sit there and declare "I am an Atheist/Theist!"). Either something is a part of your belief system or it isn't. Either you accept some claim (no matter how small or fragmentary) about God as true or you don't. Atheism/Theism is about what beliefs you actually hold at the present moment not about what you consider possible in the future. Saying you can be 50/50 doesn't make sense in terms of belief. How can you hold the belief that God exists while at the same time not believe in him?

Now you can be uncertain, I'm not disputing that. But if your uncertainty leaves you without committing to any beliefs about God then you are still an atheist. If you are uncertain but are still left with one small belief about God then you have moved to the theistic side - even if you don't believe in every other thing about God, one small belief puts you in the theistic side, it doesn't average out or cancel out the beliefs you do have.

But give me an example of two conflicting ideas you held at one time?

[-p.tiddy-]

But you don't pick a side as such (you don't have to sit there and declare "I am an Atheist/Theist!"). Either something is a part of your belief system or it isn't. Either you accept some claim (no matter how small or fragmentary) about God as true or you don't. Atheism/Theism is about what beliefs you actually hold at the present moment not about what you consider possible in the future. Saying you can be 50/50 doesn't make sense in terms of belief. How can you hold the belief that God exists while at the same time not believe in him?

Now you can be uncertain, I'm not disputing that. But if your uncertainty leaves you without committing to any beliefs about God then you are still an atheist. If you are uncertain but are still left with one small belief about God then you have moved to the theistic side - even if you don't believe in every other thing about God, once small belief puts you in the theistic side.

But give me an example of two conflicting ideas you held at one time?
50/50 makes perfect sense in terms of belief...not sure why you think it doesn't

and how is it possible Miller that I am a theist that accepts no current claims?

I just gave an example with aliens visiting Earth...you can be on the wall 50/50 with that the same way...you are not forced to lean a certain way

Or the existence of other dimensions...

Or ANYTHING that has yet to be proven one way or another...actually you could still be 50/50 on things that are proven if you're really hard headed...I could claim that I am not sure if the Earth is flat or round, I'm 50/50 on it, who are you to tell me I'm not allowed to believe that way?

[miller-time]

and how is it possible Miller that I am a theist that accepts no current claims?

The fact that you say your a theist is a claim. You are making a claim yourself.

[-p.tiddy-]

The fact that you say your a theist is a claim. You are making a claim yourself.
And atheist is not a "claim"?

[miller-time]

And atheist is not a "claim"?

Depends. Gnostic atheist yes, agnostic atheist no. Agnostic atheism is a response to a claim, it is essentially saying "I don't accept your claim but I have no evidence to disprove it either."

[-p.tiddy-]

Depends. Gnostic atheist yes, agnostic atheist no. Agnostic atheism is a response to a claim, it is essentially saying "I don't accept your claim but I have no evidence to disprove it either."

On the spectrum of beliefs both atheism and theism are equal in the "claims" department... it is agnosticism that is without claim. Pure 100% agnosticism would be completely claimless... any % in either direction would have some amount of "claim"

[miller-time]

On the spectrum of beliefs both atheism and theism are equal in the "claims" department...

The claims aren't equal. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The response is just not accepting the claim as true unless some sort of evidence demonstrates it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I claimed that there are fairies in my backyard and you responded that you don't accept my claim would you say our positions are of equal weight?

Now you could extend your position and make a truth claim that fairies don't exist and you know it, but that would also require some evidence to demonstrate their non-existence. But just being in a position of response is not an equally weighted position. That is the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism.

[-p.tiddy-]

The claims aren't equal. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The response is just not accepting the claim as true unless some sort of evidence demonstrates it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I claimed that there are fairies in my backyard and you responded that you don't accept my claim would you say our positions are of equal weight?

Now you could extend your position and make a truth claim that fairies don't exist and you know it, but that would also require some evidence to demonstrate their non-existence. But just being in a position of response is not an equally weighted position. That is the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism.
The claims ARE equal though, you are just not using the right words to fit your definition

"Claim": there are fairies in my backyard (theist)
"Claim": there are NOT fairies in my backyard (atheist)

"No Claim": I have no idea if they're fairies in my backyard or not (agnostic)

You're trying to make atheist fit for agnostic and that's not how it works...

[miller-time]

The claims ARE equal though, you are just not using the right words to fit your definition

"Claim": there are fairies in my backyard (theist)
"Claim": there are NOT fairies in my backyard (atheist)

"No Claim": I have no idea if they're fairies in my backyard or not (agnostic)

You're trying to make atheist fit for agnostic and that's not how it works...

We are going around in circles now. Lets just agree to disagree.

[-p.tiddy-]

We are going around in circles now. Lets just agree to disagree.
Done :cheers:

[Swaggin916]

Well I was impressed with the show. Like some others have said, it didn't give me any new information (I have already studied quite a bit about the universe in depth and will continue to), but obviously not everyone is in that same boat and I enjoyed the way the information was presented. I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't feel to strongly for the subject to be blown away, but i would expect their curiosity to be peaked. Looking forward to the future shows.

[Dresta]

Bullshit, you're not forced to pick a side, it is completely feasible to think both sides are possible.

Not only that but there is infinite amount of room for grey area...

You are trying to make something black and white that is anything but black and white
You can easily THINK both sides possible, but you cannot BELIEVE that both sides are correct when they are opposite. Belief is an affirmation, if you don't affirm any kind of belief in a supernatural deity then you do not believe, you are 'without belief' - simple.

The only grey area between theism and atheism is deism (and perhaps pantheism).

Gnostic/agnosticism lies on a different scale. I don't know why you are incapable of getting this. Miller-time has explained it well, in detail, and with far more patience than i ever could.

[-p.tiddy-]

You can easily THINK both sides possible, but you cannot BELIEVE that both sides are correct when they are opposite. Belief is an affirmation, if you don't affirm any kind of belief in a supernatural deity then you do not believe, you are 'without belief' - simple.

The only grey area between theism and atheism is deism (and perhaps pantheism).

Gnostic/agnosticism lies on a different scale. I don't know why you are incapable of getting this. Miller-time has explained it well, in detail, and with far more patience than i ever could.
yes I understand that believing in both at the same time is impossible, that would be some strange grey area between gnostic theist and gnostic atheist that can not exist

the scale that I buy into is the one I already posted...

could also be seen as this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ne5jeKqrEkQ/T5f5-cSaD5I/AAAAAAAAFQU/lWUWXuRqDOI/s1600/chart2.png

or maybe this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvVWi_iSmdw/T60fRJh2PEI/AAAAAAAAFcQ/1CNpVPsBlBY/s1600/dawkins.png



NDT is an AGNOSTIC (and claims it) because agnostics make no claims, they are NUETRAL, and that is the mind set of a scientist, to be neutral on an issue until evidence or proof is shown in one direction

What you and Miller are doing is trying to force the definition of agnostic to mean atheist

[-p.tiddy-]

Dresta scale:

either you believe in God or you're an atheist...those are your only choices :oldlol:

[Dresta]

Sorry, but no amount of posting of idiotic charts created by some random person is going to alter linguistic meaning of a word.

Nobody is trying to force the definition of agnostic to mean atheist, that is just another fabrication of your imagination. Nobody has said agnostic=atheist and i have already refuted that moronic assertion of yours earlier. Whether you are agnostic or not has no relation to whether you are theist/atheist.

And yes, if you do not have belief in God or gods (either personal or non-intervening), if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you are an atheist, whether you want to admit it or not. Those very much are your only 'choices' though there is no choice really involved: whether you actually believe something or not has nothing to do with whether you chose to believe it.

You can see this through the development of language. The words 'atheist' and 'theist' and 'deist' existed long before the term 'agnostic' was spawned and people still managed to classify their beliefs just fine. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between belief and knowledge, because the former implies an absence of the latter.

[Akrazotile]

Dresta scale:

either you believe in God or you're an atheist...those are your only choices :oldlol:


Tiddy that really is accurate from a lexical perspective.

Either youre a theist, meaning you believe affirmatively in god, or youre are an atheist, simply meaning you are NOT theistic.

If you dont ACTIVELY believe in god, youre not theistic. You are athiestic. Regardless of how casual or forceful you are about the possibility or impossibility of it. If you are not a proactive theist, you are atheist.

[-p.tiddy-]

you guys can view it that way if you want but that isn't how me or NDT view it, we view the way that "all those idiotic charts" illustrate it...and like he says he dislikes it when atheists throw him on that end of the spectrum...a true scientist is neutral on this in his eyes, an agnostic...which is neither atheist nor theist

anyway, I am fine agreeing to disagree...moving on

[Euroleague]

What is your I.Q.?

"I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." - Stephen Hawking

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?_r=0

He's a ****ing liar. His IQ has been tested officially and scored at 160.

[miller-time]

What you and Miller are doing is trying to force the definition of agnostic to mean atheist

But have we not also said that you can be an agnostic theist too? We are saying they are mutually exclusive concepts. There is no pure agnostic in the sense that your position on the theism scale is both theistic and atheistic at the same time. Either you believe something about God is true or you don't. If you don't have any actual belief in God but just believe his is existence is equally probable and improbable then you are still an atheist.

Going back to your alien example, right now I believe it is highly probable that aliens exist but I don't hold a belief that any particular species of aliens actually exist. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't truly know they exist, I only have perceived probabilities, and I am atheistic in the sense that I don't hold a belief about an alien species existing. Now I can make a small leap of faith and believe that microbes exist somewhere else in the universe (even though I have no evidence of it) because I think it is incredibly likely and even though it is a small leap it then now puts me in the position of being an alienist (analogously a theist). But before I make that leap even though I think it is extremely likely something exists, I am still a non-alienist. Acknowledging the possibility of something is different from actually believing in it.

[-p.tiddy-]

But have we not also said that you can be an agnostic theist too? We are saying they are mutually exclusive concepts. There is no pure agnostic in the sense that your position on the theism scale is both theistic and atheistic at the same time. Either you believe something about God is true or you don't. If you don't have any actual belief in God but just believe his is existence is equally probable and improbable then you are still an atheist.

Going back to your alien example, right now I believe it is highly probable that aliens exist but I don't hold a belief that any particular species of aliens actually exist. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't truly know they exist, I only have perceived probabilities, and I am atheistic in the sense that I don't hold a belief about an alien species existing. Now I can make a small leap of faith and believe that microbes exist somewhere else in the universe (even though I have no evidence of it) because I think it is incredibly likely and even though it is a small leap it then now puts me in the position of being an alienist (analogously a theist). But before I make that leap even though I think it is extremely likely something exists, I am still a non-alienist. Acknowledging the possibility of something is different from actually believing in it.
Why do you keep acting as though you ate forced to pick a side? An agnostic is NEUTRAL to it...neither atheist or theist

Maybe this will help you, when you were born were you an atheist or a theist? YOU WERE NEITHER, you were born an agnostic, completely clueless and without knowledge of either side. Many adults go through life like that, they don't give God much thought or care to pick a side, they view it as something that can not be known.

NDT is like that, as a scientist he has chosen to remain ignorant on the subject UNTIL some form of evidence is brought forward. Until that day comes he is neither atheist nor theist, he is agnostic.

Get it yet?

[miller-time]

Maybe this will help you, when you were born were you an atheist or a theist? YOU WERE NEITHER, you were born an agnostic, completely clueless and without knowledge of either side. Many adults go through life like that, they don't give God much thought or care to pick a side, they view it as something that can not be known.

You are simply an atheist because you have no belief in God. It isn't a choice you make, it is just a position you are in. If you have no belief in God, whether it is because you actively chose to reject the claim or if you haven't even heard the claim before you are an atheist.

If you don't care about whether God exists or not do you at that point in time have a belief in a personal God?

When you are born do you have a personal belief in God?

The answer to these is no and by definition make you an atheist. It is the default position. Right now there is a historical God that some forgotten civilization believed in, you've never heard of it so therefore by default you hold no belief in it. You are by default an atheist in respect to that forgotten God simply because you don't hold a belief in it. It isn't a side you chose, it is a default position.

[-p.tiddy-]

You are simply an atheist because you have no belief in God. It isn't a choice you make, it is just a position you are in. If you have no belief in God, whether it is because you actively chose to reject the claim or if you haven't even heard the claim before you are an atheist.

If you don't care about whether God exists or not do you at that point in time have a belief in a personal God?

When you are born do you have a personal belief in God?

The answer to these is no and by definition make you an atheist. It is the default position. Right now there is a historical God that some forgotten civilization believed in, you've never heard of it so therefore by default you hold no belief in it. You are by default an atheist in respect to that forgotten God simply because you don't hold a belief in it. It isn't a side you chose, it is a default position.
You don't have a belief OR a disbelief of God

You are an agnostic

It is the default position just because in your opinion that holds the most logic? Dude that isn't how the scientific method works...

[-p.tiddy-]

You don't just default to disbelief...you default to unknowing of the subject at hand, from there you can choose disbelief or belief, OR you can choose to remain unknowing

[Akrazotile]

tidster, once again, you are trying to assert that because something is generally accepted, it is technically accurate. Which is not the case.

There are two branches. Theism, and atheism.

Atheism then has two of its own branches. Agnosticism, and antitheism.


Theist ................... Atheist


Theist
|
God

...........Athiest
........./.........\
agnostic......antitheist

[-p.tiddy-]

tidster, once again, you are trying to assert that because something is generally accepted, it is technically accurate. Which is not the case.

There are two branches. Theism, and atheism.

Atheism then has two of its own branches. Agnosticism, and antitheism.

Theist
|
God

.....Athiest
/.........\
......agnostic......antitheist
There are dozens of visual representations on the net that display what I am saying...can you find me one that displays what you are saying here?

[miller-time]

You don't just default to disbelief...you default to unknowing of the subject at hand, from there you can choose disbelief or belief, OR you can choose to remain unknowing

When you are unknowing you don't hold a positive belief about something. Atheism isn't just about having an active non-belief, it can also be just a lack of a belief. Not knowing the outcome of an experiment means that until the experiment is performed and results are gathered you do not posses a belief about its conclusion. You know the possible outcomes but you are not committed to any of them - therefore you lack a positive belief in them. It doesn't mean you believe any of the outcomes are not true or possible it just means that by default you do not posses a positive belief one way or the other. You are neither a gnostic atheist or an agnostic or gnostic theist. You simply are an agnostic atheist. You don't know what the outcome will be and you have no positive belief one way or the other.

[-p.tiddy-]

When you are unknowing you don't hold a positive belief about something. Atheism isn't just about having an active non-belief, it can also be just a lack of a belief. Not knowing the outcome of an experiment means that until the experiment is performed and results are gathered you do not posses a belief about its conclusion. You know the possible outcomes but you are not committed to any of them - therefore you lack a positive belief in them. It doesn't mean you believe any of the outcomes are not true or possible it just means that by default you do not posses a positive belief one way or the other. You are neither a gnostic atheist or an agnostic or gnostic theist. You simply are an agnostic atheist. You don't know what the outcome will be and you have no positive belief one way or the other.
Miller I've always understood the way you view the word, but I don't agree with that. And neither does NDT

I'm pretty positive that you can see my view point add well, and I'm pretty sure you understand why it makes sense...we should probably go back to agreeing to disagree

[-p.tiddy-]

You say there there is some ancient religion I have never heard of that I don't believe in by default? That isn't true...I have never heard of it, it has yet to be presented to me. I don't believe OR disbelieve in it. I am oblivious to it ,a pure agnostic with that particular religion

[miller-time]

You say there there is some ancient religion I have never heard of that I don't believe in by default? That isn't true...I have never heard of it, it has yet to be presented to me. I don't believe OR disbelieve in it. I am oblivious to it ,a pure agnostic with that particular religion

That is the part that makes you an atheist in respect to that forgotten religion. It isn't that you disbelieve, it is that you hold no belief. If you disbelieved then it would require a knowledge component and you would be a different breed of atheist. You are still agnostic if that makes you happy, but your lack of belief (not disbelief) is still an atheistic position.

[-p.tiddy-]

That is the part that makes you an atheist in respect to that forgotten religion. It isn't that you disbelieve, it is that you hold no belief. If you disbelieved then it would require a knowledge component and you would be a different breed of atheist. You are still agnostic if that makes you happy, but your lack of belief (not disbelief) is still an atheistic position.
First off "lack of knowledge" =\= "lack of belief"

Second, I don't agree that atheism should also include the properties of agnosticism... it's primary role and definition is in direct contrast to theism.

I mean to you the word agnostic may as well not even exist...

Let me ask you this Miller, if you had to label NDT either agnostic or atheist which would you choose, of JUST those two words which fits him better?

[shlver]

Wow, another semantics debate from primetime.

[-p.tiddy-]

Wow, another semantics debate from primetime.
Yes we are debating the definition of atheist...

[russwest0]

was the show any good

[Dresta]

You don't have a belief OR a disbelief of God

You are an agnostic

It is the default position just because in your opinion that holds the most logic? Dude that isn't how the scientific method works...
:wtf:

Dude is talking about the scientific method now. :hammerhead:

Stop denying what is a linguistic fact and what has repeatedly been shown to be linguistic fact. We don't need silly internet charts to know that we are correct on this matter because it is a simple matter of logical progression.

Theist = 'belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures'

atheist = 'a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods'

(definitions from the New Oxford American Dictionary)

Therefore if you DO NOT BELIEVE you are an atheist whether you like to call yourself one or not. This has nothing to do with knowledge and the term agnosticism is irrelevant to the discussion.

And from your own favourite source (wikipedia):

'Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist...'

Agree to disagree all you like, that doesn't make you any less WRONG.

[fiddy]

was the show any good
nothing spectular, produced for the general public, id skip it

[Kblaze8855]

Therefore if you DO NOT BELIEVE you are an atheist whether you like to call yourself one or not.

And if you dont know either way you are....what?

You really pretend that option does not exist? That everyone either believes or doesnt?

What...these people dont exist or does admitting they dont know mean they dont believe....because you say so....when they themselves arent sure?

[Take Your Lumps]

Let me ask you this Miller, if you had to label NDT either agnostic or atheist which would you choose, of JUST those two words which fits him better?

You could just watch the man talk about it himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

He prefers not to be constrained to a label, so by default he chooses "agnostic" since it carries no particular connotations and doesn't make people think they know everything there is to know about you before they even have a conversation with you.

But really...this is all just semantics. NDT doesn't "believe" in gods for the same reason that most atheists don't; he hasn't seen any good observable evidence yet to support that belief.

[Akrazotile]

And if you dont know either way you are....what?

You really pretend that option does not exist? That everyone either believes or doesnt?

What...these people dont exist or does admitting they dont know mean they dont believe....because you say so....when they themselves arent sure?


Dude.

This is so simple.

Atheist means you are not an affirmative believer in god/s. It means you don't have an active belief. You are not on the positive side of belief. Within the category of atheism, there is antitheism, which is rejecting the idea of god, and there is agnosticism which means you are without surety either way.

Think of it this way: If I said "I have no money." You can't tell from that statement whether my account has a zero balance, or is overdrawn/in debt. All it tells you is that I don't have a positive balance. There are still further specific possibilities to my situation, all you did was rule out one particular possibility.


That is all the word atheism implies. That you are not committed to the idea of God. Maybe you are neutral, maybe you reject it. To determine that you would need more specific terminology. Again, it's like "I have no money." Maybe you're flat in between positive and negative, or maybe you're negative. It's just the absence of a positive position.

[Akrazotile]

He prefers not to be constrained to a label, so by default he chooses "agnostic" since it carries no particular connotations and doesn't make people think they know everything there is to know about you before they even have a conversation with you.

But really...this is all just semantics. NDT doesn't "believe" in gods for the same reason that most atheists don't; he hasn't seen any good observable evidence yet to support that belief.


Exactly. He avoids the word because it has social baggage. Not because it doesn't describe his position.

[Kblaze8855]

Oh so you are fighting over wording that means nothing at all to the issues being discussed? A dictionary argument not one on ideals/beliefs or anything the words themselves are involved in. Well then...carry on.

[miller-time]

Second, I don't agree that atheism should also include the properties of agnosticism... it's primary role and definition is in direct contrast to theism.

Atheism doesn't include the properties of agnosticism in its own definition, agnosticism just describes the type of atheist (OR theist) you are. If you are a person that doesn't hold a belief then you are an atheist. If you don't hold the belief because you either don't know anything about it or because you don't think there is enough evidence to back up the claim itself then you are an agnostic atheist. Again it just describes the your position as one based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. You seem so resistant to the concept of atheism being one that can be in neutral territory. It is still in contrast with theism but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with it. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to go around shouting there is no God and theists are wrong. It just means you aren't a theist at that point in time.

[-p.tiddy-]

You could just watch the man talk about it himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

He prefers not to be constrained to a label, so by default he chooses "agnostic" since it carries no particular connotations and doesn't make people think they know everything there is to know about you before they even have a conversation with you.

But really...this is all just semantics. NDT doesn't "believe" in gods for the same reason that most atheists don't; he hasn't seen any good observable evidence yet to support that belief.
This entire debate started because I posted that same link, and yes I said earlier this is just a semantics debate but IMO it is important enough to talk about because clearly there is a divide on how people view the word "atheist". There is the way me and NDT view it, and there is the way Miller and Dresta view it. (the wrong way IMO)

[-p.tiddy-]

Atheism doesn't include the properties of agnosticism in its own definition, agnosticism just describes the type of atheist (OR theist) you are. If you are a person that doesn't hold a belief then you are an atheist. If you don't hold the belief because you either don't know anything about it or because you don't think there is enough evidence to back up the claim itself then you are an agnostic atheist. Again it just describes the your position as one based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. You seem so resistant to the concept of atheism being one that can be in neutral territory. It is still in contrast with theism but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with it. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to go around shouting there is no God and theists are wrong. It just means you aren't a theist at that point in time.
Your problem is that you think holding no knowledge defaults to atheist... that is wrong though it is completely possible, and common, to be directly in the middle on this and JUST be agnostic


Both atheist and theist are making a claim, agnostic makes no claims which is why NDT chooses that label, as a scientist he makes no claims without evidence. Can you at least understand that view?

[-p.tiddy-]

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg

Again, this is how myself and NDT view the spectrum, theist and atheist are in direct contrast to each other, like the definition states. And in the center you have pure agnostism, which is neither atheist nor theist

I understand that your definition of the word atheist includes the center area, but mine does not. We can keep going back and forth on this but I don't think either of us will budge.

[miller-time]

Your problem is that you think holding no knowledge defaults to atheist... that is wrong though it is completely possible, and common, to be directly in the middle on this and JUST be agnostic


Both atheist and theist are making a claim, agnostic makes no claims which is why NDT chooses that label, as a scientist he makes no claims without evidence. Can you at least understand that view?

No it is not a claim. What do you think the prefix a in atheist means? It simply means without. If you have no knowledge of a concept then by default you can not have a belief in it. If you have no belief in God then you are an atheist by definition. Agnostic atheist is the middle ground you are talking about. You keep rejecting the word atheist because you think it always is combatively opposed to theist. NDT discusses why he doesn't want to be labeled an atheist. It has nothing to do with his actual position and everything to do with the words social baggage and his disinterest to be involved in atheist social movements. He even states that there is overlap between the categories but calling himself just agnostic because it "separates me from the conduct of atheists." He isn't talking about the technical definitions of the words but rather the social ramifications of labels.

[-p.tiddy-]

The base definition for atheist is a rejection of dieties, and a contrast to "theism"

We are really going in circles, but NDT days atheists are ACTIVE (they have a claim)... agnostics are not

He dislikes it when atheists claim him, and I am also annoyed at atheist claiming middle ground people who are completely open to both sides...

[miller-time]

The base definition for atheist is a rejection of dieties, and a contrast to "theism"

We are really going in circles

We are because you aren't accepting that there is more than one definition for atheism. It does not only cover positive rejection, it can also be absence with no actual claim being made. In that sense it doesn't mean you aren't open to to the possibility of other ideas it just means you haven't actively accepted one yet. Agnostic atheist is the middle ground. It is holding a position that is not theistic yet doesn't make a claim about the existence of God one way or another. Just because you are holding on to the idea that atheism is only a positive position (an active rejection) in respect to the concept of God doesn't make it so. I can understand why Neil doesn't want to be labeled an atheist but why are you so resistant to the term under its the second definition? It isn't a dirty word. It isn't a close minded position. It is contrasted to theism because it is not theism, not because it rejects theism.

[-p.tiddy-]

We are because you aren't accepting that there is more than one definition for atheism. It does not only cover positive rejection, it can also be absence with no actual claim being made. In that sense it doesn't mean you aren't open to to the possibility of other ideas it just means you haven't actively accepted one yet. Agnostic atheist is the middle ground. It is holding a position that is not theistic yet doesn't make a claim about the existence of God one way or another. Just because you are holding on to the idea that atheism is only a positive position (an active rejection) in respect to the concept of God doesn't make it so. I can understand why Neil doesn't want to be labeled an atheist but why are you so resistant to the term under its the second definition? It isn't a dirty word. It isn't a close minded position. It is contrasted to theism because it is not theism, not because it rejects theism.
you're correct I do not accept that...and neither does NDT..."pure agnostic" is the middle ground to us

I am resistant to it because you have atheists running around claiming middle ground people as their own who are totally and completely open to either side.

The better question IMO is why are you so resistant to just labeling people "agnostic" when that definition is a MUCH better fit for them than "atheist"?

[Akrazotile]

Oh so you are fighting over wording that means nothing at all to the issues being discussed? A dictionary argument not one on ideals/beliefs or anything the words themselves are involved in.


Yes.

[-p.tiddy-]

tiddy how many times have you gotten into this argument about what the word atheist means?
a handful of times...this isn't the first I know

I've been trying to agree to disagree, but really I do feel like it is a debate worth having (which is why NDT felt the need to address it also)...there are conflicting opinions out there on the definition of this word and it is unfortunate imo.

[TheMan]

:oldlol:










:roll:

How out of touch is this dude?
It's like saying we wouldn't want young white youth looking up to Jesse James:oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

How is it important though? If people are mislabeling their beliefs one way or another how is it a big deal?
because, like in NDT's case, you have atheists out there claiming him in their camp when the truth is he is neutral in the debate...he doesn't want to be defined as an atheist or a theist, he wants to be defined as an agnostic

Atheists want to claim the agnostic camp as well as the camp who believes there is no higher power...that is not how it should be IMO

[Kblaze8855]

Yes.

Well then....I dont need to be involved in that. Feels like people interested in matters on such a grand scale and discussions on the nature of life and reality itself wouldnt get so bogged down in such things. Its like the people who spent years telling others that "aint" or "dang" arent words. Pull out a dictionary to prove it.

I had an Italian teacher(who I loved by the way...brilliant woman) do that to me as a kid. Well....when you look now..."aint" is in there. "Aint" I suppose is now official...."dang" as well.

So what was the point of 90 years of looking down on people for using those words when....over time a words definition just becomes what its known to mean conversationally?

The point of words is to convey your ideas outside your own mind. Let others know what.....without a shared language....you couldnt express.

Arguing over what a word means when you know gotdamn well what the person is attempting to convey is kinda pointless isnt it?

Even if it doesnt say in a dictionary what he says it means...but you understand his meaning...its mission accomplished. communication was successful.

And over time when more and more people understand what people using said word means...it actually becomes the dictionary definition.

We need to wait that long to acknowledge it?

If I said "I ain't eating that!" in 1974 they would know what I meant. It might not be "official" for some time but...at some point arent you just being a douchebag acting like it merits conversation and criticism?

[Rasheed1]

:oldlol: There is no "neutral" position..

Either you believe in theist ideas or you don't..

I don't think Atheism states that it is impossible for a deity to exist.. More so that there isn't evidence that one does..

If evidence comes to light, the people who don't believe would change their opinion

[-p.tiddy-]

of course there is a "neutral" stance...that is how you where when you were born, oblivious to both sides and not having an opinion or thought on the matter and many adults choose to go through life like that. NDT is like that, he has chosen to be ignorant on this subject because as a scientist he refuses to believe one way or another without some form of evidence.

and that particular debate is NOT semantics...that is just not understanding that beliefs are not black and white, there is lots of grey area

[-p.tiddy-]

why does that matter?

It's personal beliefs

there is no right or wrong side
there IS a right or wrong side, we just don't know who that is yet...but that isn't why it matters, it matters for the reasons NDT explained...he doesn't want to be labeled as an atheist because he feels that definition doesn't fit him. Again, many atheists want to give true agnostics like NDT the atheist label and that isn't how it should be...

[-p.tiddy-]

I didn't watch the show so I don't know what he said. I get what your saying I just don't get why it matters. at all.

It doesn't matter if NDT is atheist or agnostic or religious, it doesn't matter what people label him as. At most it's a minor annoyance.
you're right in that it doesn't REALLY matter that much, but it mattered enough for him to comment on it...

annoying like if Christians decided that all people named Macho Man where also Christian lol

[-p.tiddy-]

We need to be able to correctly label people's personal beliefs because...?
because that matters when debating one's beliefs...

[Rasheed1]

of course there is a "neutral" stance...that is how you where when you were born, oblivious to both sides and not having an opinion or thought on the matter and many adults choose to go through life like that. NDT is like that, he has chosen to be ignorant on this subject because as a scientist he refuses to believe one way or another without some form of evidence.

and that particular debate is NOT semantics...that is just not understanding that beliefs are not black and white, there is lots of grey area

That is what I said up above..


I don't think Atheism states that it is impossible for a deity to exist.. More so that there isn't evidence that one does..

If evidence comes to light, the people who don't believe would change their opinion


There is no neutral... Saying "I don't believe one way or another" places you OUTSIDE the religious camp..

Theism is about AFFIRMATION and BELIEF in a God...

Atheism is about the ABSENCE of a belief in God

Atheism is not a belief system.. so therefore the person who says "I don't know" is automatically OUTSIDE the religious group because religion is ALL about BELIEVING

[Rasheed1]

The key word in all of this is "believe"

If you "believe", you fall into the theist group..

Anything else places you in the other group... Atheism is the absence of belief..

Someone saying "I don't know" is an absence of belief :oldlol:

[Jailblazers7]

The key word in all of this is "believe"

If you "believe", you fall into the theist group..

Anything else places you in the other group... Atheism is the absence of belief..

Someone saying "I don't know" is an absence of belief :oldlol:

Haven't followed any of the thread but I do think "I don't know" is worthy of being distinguished compared to affirmative atheism. I don't think it should be a binary distinction considering how complex a person's spiritual beliefs can be.

[-p.tiddy-]

Someone saying "I don't know" is an absence of belief
and an absence of disbelief...it is an absence of both sides

lack of knowledge =/= lack of belief

if there is some ancient religion that used to exist and you have never heard of it?...you don't believe in it, nor do you NOT believe in it. You are oblivious to it, no one has presented it to you yet, you are "agnostic" to it.

[Rasheed1]

Haven't followed any of the thread but I do think "I don't know" is worthy of being distinguished compared to affirmative atheism. I don't think it should be a binary distinction considering how complex a person's spiritual beliefs can be.


I think that there is definitely a range of disbelief along the scale of atheism.. But even the most staunch Atheists generally have the same criteria as the people who simply say "I don't know"

Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher have both said they would believe if the evidence were presented to them..

I don't think Atheists are saying "it is impossible for God to exist"

they are basically saying "the evidence to support such a claim has not been shown"

I think the distinctions are generally semantic but boil down to the same conclusion

[Dresta]

Also, if there is a religion you've never heard of then you obviously don't believe in it, so that is a silly example.


And if you dont know either way you are....what?

You really pretend that option does not exist? That everyone either believes or doesnt?

What...these people dont exist or does admitting they dont know mean they dont believe....because you say so....when they themselves arent sure?
You are conflating knowledge and belief. To know is different than to believe. To believe is to simply accept something as true, to have faith in it being true; you can believe and not be sure, you can disbelieve and not be sure. There is no such thing as half belief; you may waver between belief and an absence of belief at different times, but in a single moment it can only be one or the other.

Do you believe that a supernatural power created or governs/controls the universe? If the answer is no then you are by definition an atheist; if you say 'maybe' then you do not believe and are also definitionally an atheist; if you say yes, then further questions may determine whether you are a theist/deist/pantheist etc.

Reject the label if you like, i see no reason to call people things they don't like the sound of because of the long and invidious association that comes with it, but when people like p tiddy and NDT are using incorrect definitions to brand atheism as an active movement that makes assertions, rather than a skeptical position that rests on ignorance, then they should be corrected, whether it is a matter of semantics or not.


Your problem is that you think holding no knowledge defaults to atheist... that is wrong though it is completely possible, and common, to be directly in the middle on this and JUST be agnostic


Both atheist and theist are making a claim, agnostic makes no claims which is why NDT chooses that label, as a scientist he makes no claims without evidence. Can you at least understand that view?
No they don't. Some may do, but the definition has no need for a claim. Why can't you understand this FACT?


because, like in NDT's case, you have atheists out there claiming him in their camp when the truth is he is neutral in the debate...he doesn't want to be defined as an atheist or a theist, he wants to be defined as an agnostic

Atheists want to claim the agnostic camp as well as the camp who believes there is no higher power...that is not how it should be IMO
This is your problem: you are thinking in camps. It is not a competition, only a question of linguistic accuracy. I don't care where NDT wants to place himself, but his description of what atheism is was utter bullshit. You have also done the same thing in the past in saying that my views make me agnostic, not atheist, when i am both.

[Dresta]

So what was the point of 90 years of looking down on people for using those words when....over time a words definition just becomes what its known to mean conversationally?

The point of words is to convey your ideas outside your own mind. Let others know what.....without a shared language....you couldnt express.

Arguing over what a word means when you know gotdamn well what the person is attempting to convey is kinda pointless isnt it?

Even if it doesnt say in a dictionary what he says it means...but you understand his meaning...its mission accomplished. communication was successful.
Yes, and ideas can't be accurately expressed without concrete definitions with limited ambiguity. At the moment, because of the word's misapplication, i can't tell someone i'm an atheist without them thinking i'm a militant atheist claiming absolute truths, going to group meets, and wearing hats with a logo saying 'atheists unite' - and this is also why people are reluctant to admit to the position of atheism.

Absence of belief. Absence. Absence. Absence.

[-p.tiddy-]

Dresta which is a better word to describe an "absence of belief" to you if you are forced to choose between "agnostic" or "atheist"?



i can't tell someone i'm an atheist without them thinking i'm a militant atheist claiming absolute truths, going to group meets, and wearing hats with a logo saying 'atheists unite' - and this is also why people are reluctant to admit to the position of atheism.

this is a different debate, and NDT did list this as part of the reason that he wants nothing to do with the atheist label, but to be clear that is not the fault of the people that have that view but it is the fault of the faction of atheists who are gnostic outspoken dolts.

Just like Christians getting a bad rap to some is the fault of the hard core retard level Christians that reject the existence dinosaurs and all that...

[Dresta]

Dresta which is a better word to describe an "absence of belief" to you if you are forced to choose between "agnostic" or "atheist"?


this is a different debate, and NDT did list this as part of the reason that he wants nothing to do with the atheist label, but to be clear that is not the fault of the people that have that view but it is the fault of the faction of atheists who are gnostic outspoken dolts.

Just like Christians getting a bad rap to some is the fault of the hard core retard level Christians that reject the existence dinosaurs and all that...
Atheist is obviously the better word because you could be agnostic and yet still have belief. Have you never heard a religious person say they don't know that God exists, but in their hearts they believe in him, they have 'faith' in his existence. Faith is not knowledge.

I don't think that is a particularly large faction, and their claims are frequently exaggerated and misrepresented by those with an agenda to try and make them look silly. Even someone like Dawkins doesn't claim to know that God doesn't exist. In fact, has anyone who's part of the 'New Atheist' movement actually used that term to describe themselves, or is it just a means of smearing those who bear a grudge against religion?

[-p.tiddy-]

Atheist is obviously the better word because you could be agnostic and yet still have belief. Have you never heard a religious person say they don't know that God exists, but in their hearts they believe in him, they have 'faith' in his existence. Faith is not knowledge.

I don't think that is a particularly large faction, and their claims are frequently exaggerated and misrepresented by those with an agenda to try and make them look silly. Even someone like Dawkins doesn't claim to know that God doesn't exist. In fact, has anyone who's part of the 'New Atheist' movement actually used that term to describe themselves, or is it just a means of smearing those who bear a grudge against religion?
you realize that you can be atheist and still have belief correct?...belief that there is no higher power, which isn't a rarity at all...

agnostic-theists can have slight belief and agnostic-atheists...but not a pure agnostic

[-p.tiddy-]

Agnosticism

in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

...

[russwest0]

I'm an agnostic.

Disbelief until proven other wise.

[Dresta]

you realize that you can be atheist and still have belief correct?...belief that there is no higher power, which isn't a rarity at all...

agnostic-theists can have slight belief and agnostic-atheists...but not a pure agnostic
Should have had 'in God' there after belief.

[QUOTE]'The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:
Arkansas:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[84]
Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

[Dresta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

...
'in the popular sense...'

ok, then. In the real sense it means something a bit different.

[shlver]

This debate is still going on?
Theism/atheism is used to denote a belief or lack of belief in god/gods, respectively. The agnostic or gnostic qualifier is used to describe the theist/atheist's epistemological belief about what humans can know about god or gods.

How is this difficult to understand? It's been explained clearly in multiple posts by different people.

[-p.tiddy-]

This debate is still going on?
Theism/atheism is used to denote a belief or lack of belief in god/gods, respectively. The agnostic or gnostic qualifier is used to describe the theist/atheist's epistemological belief about what humans can know about god or gods.

How is this difficult to understand? It's been explained clearly in multiple posts by different people.
both sides understand that...there is no debate there, I have posted several images that represent what you are saying.

the debate is a semantics debate (like you said) about weather or not the word "atheist" includes the view of a pure agnostic...IMO someone can fall in the middle and be neither theist nor atheist (they are pure agnostic), and the other side says that is not possible you HAVE to be either atheist or theist.

my views are this:

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7218192_f520.jpg

and this:

http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dawkins-Scale.png

and this:

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg

and maybe this:

http://buckleherry.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/defintion_chart3.jpg
(image too large)



imo, theist and atheist contrast each other perfectly and "agnostic" is found in the center where it is possible to exclude both atheist and theist (this is also NDT's view)

[shlver]

both sides understand that...there is no debate there, I have posted several images that represent what you are saying.

the debate is a semantics debate (like you said) about weather or not the word "atheist" includes the view of a pure agnostic...IMO someone can fall in the middle and be neither theist nor atheist (they are pure agnostic), and the other side says that is not possible you HAVE to be either atheist or theist.

my views are this:

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7218192_f520.jpg

and this:

http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dawkins-Scale.png

and this:

http://nailtothedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/BeliefMatrix.jpg

and maybe this:

http://buckleherry.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/defintion_chart3.jpg
(image too large)



imo, theist and atheist contrast each other perfectly and "agnostic" is found in the center where it is possible to exclude both atheist and theist (this is also NDT's view)
No it cannot be found in the center because atheist/theism is used to describe a metaphysical belief and agnosticism/gnosticism is used to describe an epistemological belief. They are describing two different things.

[-p.tiddy-]

No it cannot be found in the center because atheist/theism is used to describe a metaphysical belief and agnosticism/gnosticism is used to describe an epistemological belief. They are describing two different things.
yes, they are two different things that work together...(gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, etc)

okay, well not going to go over this all again...my views (and NDT's views) on this can be seen in those images and to others it is different and that is fine

[miller-time]

you're correct I do not accept that...and neither does NDT..."pure agnostic" is the middle ground to us

Firstly, stop talking for Neil deGrasse Tyson. He has made no comment on his opinion of the technical definitions. He has merely expressed his opinion on labels and not being a part of any atheist activist movement.


I am resistant to it because you have atheists running around claiming middle ground people as their own who are totally and completely open to either side.

You are doing exactly the same thing. Every post you have made includes some sort of mention of NDT's opinion about agnosticism as if that somehow makes you guys on the same team and subsequently makes you correct. That is an appeal to authority and it is wrong. Should atheists be claiming him because they think it makes their position stronger? No, but neither should you. Talk for yourself, stop bringing up his position.


The better question IMO is why are you so resistant to just labeling people "agnostic" when that definition is a MUCH better fit for them than "atheist"?

But is the term I've said countless times just "atheist"? No, it is qualified by the agnostic component - agnostic atheist. Again there are two broad definitions of atheism, not one. I'll repeat what I said in my last post.


Agnostic atheist is the middle ground. It is holding a position that is not theistic yet doesn't make a claim about the existence of God one way or another.

Atheists under that definition is still open to the possibility of God existing since they have not yet rejected the concept. Someone who might be an agnostic atheist may fluctuate between that and agnostic theism. But at no point can you hold something as true and not true at the same time.

[-p.tiddy-]

NDT DOES view it the same as me though, listen to him, the fact that he goes on to say "atheists are active" only backs me up...

he also expressed the fact that he is uncomfortable with YOU talking for him, not me...he doesn't like you fitting him into your definition of atheist, he doesn't agree with it...IN HIS WORDS he would choose "agnostic" as the best fit for him BECAUSE as a scientist he can't pick a side without evidence

and I am not talking for him here, that is HIM talking...

[-p.tiddy-]

But is the term I've said countless times just "atheist"? No, it is qualified by the agnostic component - agnostic atheist. Again there are two broad definitions of atheism, not one. I'll repeat what I said in my last post.

Atheists under that definition is still open to the possibility of God existing since they have not yet rejected the concept. Someone who might be an agnostic atheist may fluctuate between that and agnostic theism. But at no point can you hold something as true and not true at the same time.
you don't have to keep repeating this...I understand how you view the definition of the word, and I don't agree with that definition. We really don't have to keep doing this because I think you understand my view as well.

I do agree that you can't hold a "true and not true" at the same time but that isn't what a pure agnostic does...they just "don't know"

[miller-time]

NDT DOES view it the same as me though, listen to him, the fact that he goes on to say "atheists are active" only backs me up...

he also expressed the fact that he is uncomfortable with YOU talking for him, not me...he doesn't like you fitting him into your definition of atheist, he doesn't agree with it...IN HIS WORDS he would choose "agnostic" as the best fit for him BECAUSE as a scientist he can't pick a side without evidence

and I am not talking for him here, that is HIM talking...

I'm not talking for him because I am not discussing what his personal opinion on the technical definitions are. He doesn't want to be labeled an atheist, that has nothing to with whether he qualifies as an atheist. The only thing that would disqualify him as an atheist is if he held some sort of belief in God - which he has never expressed. Again, it is that second definition problem you seem to struggle so much with. A definition is a definition is a definition. I don't care whether he is an atheist or a theist, but a person no matter what they want is still technically one or the other. You can't be both and you can't be neither. The second definition is the neutral position. It is not picking any sort of theistic view point and it is not picking an active rejection of theism. It is one that chooses neither position and is waiting for evidence and in doing so not choosing theism is atheistic - quite literally without theism.

[-p.tiddy-]

I'm not talking for him because I am not discussing what his personal opinion on the technical definitions are. He doesn't want to be labeled an atheist, that has nothing to with whether he qualifies as an atheist. The only thing that would disqualify him as an atheist is if he held some sort of belief in God - which he has never expressed. Again, it is that second definition problem you seem to struggle so much with. A definition is a definition is a definition. I don't care whether he is an atheist or a theist, but a person no matter what they want is still technically one or the other. You can't be both and you can't be neither. The second definition is the neutral position. It is not picking any sort of theistic view point and it is not picking an active rejection of theism. It is one that chooses neither position and is waiting for evidence and in doing so not choosing theism is atheistic - quite literally without theism.
That's not talking for him?

He said THE DEFINITION THAT FITS HIM BEST IS AGNOSTIC

[miller-time]

you don't have to keep repeating this...I understand how you view the definition of the word, and I don't agree with that definition. We really don't have to keep doing this because I think you understand my view as well.

I do agree that you can't hold a "true and not true" at the same time but that isn't what a pure agnostic does...they just "don't know"

I keep repeating it because the term "pure agnostic" doesn't make sense. A pure agnostic still has to have a belief or lack of belief or negative belief. It is really really simple. Gnostic literally relates to knowledge, agnostic by contrast means without knowledge. Ok so you are purely without knowledge. Knowledge about what? What beliefs do you hold? Do you accept something as true about God without evidence (knowledge)? If yes then you are an agnostic theist, if not you maintain a position of agnostic atheist. Agnostic isn't a concept that exists in a vacuum - it relates to how you've established your beliefs. Are your beliefs based on knowledge or a lack of knowledge? Being "purely" without knowledge in no way negates the fact that you have or do not have a particular belief about something.

[-p.tiddy-]

I keep repeating it because the term "pure agnostic" doesn't make sense. A pure agnostic still has to have a belief or lack of belief or negative belief. It is really really simple. Gnostic literally relates to knowledge, agnostic by contrast means without knowledge. Ok so you are purely without knowledge. Knowledge about what? What beliefs do you hold? Do you accept something as true about God without evidence (knowledge)? If yes then you are an agnostic theist, if not you maintain a position of agnostic atheist. Agnostic isn't a concept that exists in a vacuum - it relates to how you've established your beliefs. Are your beliefs based on knowledge or a lack of knowledge? Being "purely" without knowledge in no way negates the fact that you have or do not have a particular belief about something.
A pure agnostic makes perfect sense to me, don't know what to tell you anymore.

If we substituted fat and skinny for atheist and theist, and short and tall for gnostic and agnostic, would a person who falls in the middle default to "fat"?...no they would be neither

And you used that analogy earlier...

[ItsMillerTime]

I agree with miller time.

[miller-time]

A pure agnostic makes perfect sense to me, don't know what to tell you anymore.

Tell me what is the difference between a pure agnostic under your definition and an agnostic atheist under nearly everyone elses in this thread.

[-p.tiddy-]

Tell me what is the difference between a pure agnostic under your definition and an agnostic atheist under nearly everyone elses in this thread.
The only person that have touched on "agnostic athiest" is you, and I am more than sure anyone that has an issue with what I am saying in here is self proclaimed atheist.

Anyway, did you see the images I posted at the top of the page? An agnostic-atheist would be someone that believes there is no God but admits they have no proof or could be wrong. A pure agnostic doesn't lean either way , thinks it's impossible to know, etc

[Rose]

The segment on eye was pretty brilliant. My favorite thing so far.

[bladefd]

My take on the 2nd episode..

Honestly, I felt this episode started off bit slow. I was a bit disappointed in the beginning ~15 minutes - I do not know if artificial selection is the best way to start off describing evolution, but I can understand the reasons. If you're not familiar with evolution, you have to start off with something that people can understand and perhaps relate to - the domestication of animals. Dogs are considered humans' best friend and so you explain how we chose genes to end up with different breeds of dogs just 15,000 years ago. They spent too much time on artificial selection though

Polar bear sequence to explain natural selection was decent. Essentially, white polar-bears had an advantage over brown polar-bears due to being able to blend better into the ice. White color genes pass down the generation more. Right approach and it makes evolution on the micro-scale obvious. For macro-scale, they connected the dna similarity between every species. Then comes the next part - the eye.

The eye sequence was very good. It shows selective evolution between different animals. Very similar yet different from species to species, animal to animal. I did not like that they just said evolution is a fact to end that sequence - why did they not show anything about fossils? Where were the whale fossils that we have documented that evolved over time? Why didn't they show any of that evidence? Show people the deeply documented evidence that we have available. I was disappointed there. Not just whales, but we also have evidence of fossils of horses as they moved and evolved through the continents (went Americas to Asia across the peninsula in Alaska/Siberia then they went extinct in Americas before domesticated horses were brought back from Europe but we have great fossils). Where the hell was all that???

Instead they take us to extinction. Extinction sequence was essential, but that could have been broken down into 5-6 minutes maximum. The whole Saturn's moon sequence could be broken down into 2 minutes.. Those 2 sequences took up over 18 minutes... and dogs sequence 15 minutes more (33 mins for 3 sequences that did not even show the best evidence we have available of evolution???) Sorry, but I was looking for more stuff there.

The very last sequence was top-notch to explain how science does not have all the answers. Another great tribute to Dr Sagan.

[goldenryan]

It's amazing. I'm glad to see some unapologetic, real science back in prime time on a major network.

[Meticode]

This is my new favorite show on TV right now. Great timing too. True Detective ended right when this started.

[Solidape]

It's amazing. I'm glad to see some unapologetic, real science back in prime time on a major network.

Amen!

[Take Your Lumps]

NDT DOES view it the same as me though, listen to him, the fact that he goes on to say "atheists are active" only backs me up...

he also expressed the fact that he is uncomfortable with YOU talking for him, not me...he doesn't like you fitting him into your definition of atheist, he doesn't agree with it...IN HIS WORDS he would choose "agnostic" as the best fit for him BECAUSE as a scientist he can't pick a side without evidence

and I am not talking for him here, that is HIM talking...

interview link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-god-alien-life-multiverses-interview_n_4790408.html)


DF: Do you want to talk about religion now?

NT: I'm here for you.

DF: Do you believe in god?

NT: I presume you've pre-specified which god you're asking about?

DF: Define god as you would.

NT: You're the one who's asking the question. So pick a god and ask me if I believe in that god.

DF: The Judeo-Christian god.

NT: OK, if that god is described as being all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good, I don't see evidence for it anywhere in the world. So I remain unconvinced. If that god is all-powerful and all-good, I don't see that when a tsunami kills a quarter-million or an earthquake kills a quarter-million people. I'd like to think of good as something in the interest of your health or longevity. That's a pretty simple definition of something that is good for you. That's not a controversial understanding of the word "good." So if Earth in two separate events separated by just a couple of years can kill a half-million people, then if the god as you describe exists, that god is either not all-powerful or not all-good. And so therefore I am not convinced.

DF: Can science and religion be reconciled?

NT: As religion is now practiced and science is now practiced, there is no intersection between the two. That is for certain. And it's not for want of trying. Over the centuries, many people--theologians as well scientists--have tried to explore points of intersection. And anytime anyone has declared that harmony has risen up, it is the consequence of religion acquiescing to scientific discovery. In every single case.

DF: Is religion dying?

NT: It depends on what you mean by dying. Most of Europe is atheistic. Even in Italy, the seat of the Vatican, most people never go to church. The Netherlands is essentially 100 percent atheist. The churches are relics. So the trend line in the Western world is that the influence of religion is diminishing. That's just a fact. I don't care whether it rises or falls. It really doesn't matter to me.

DF: And yet for some people, religion provides a source of wonder and awe.

NT: I would say it's not the only way. It's not the best way. You can have awe of the universe, and it has the advantage of being objectively verifiable. And this is an awe that will continue even after new discoveries are made. You're not being awed at the same thing your ancestors were. You've moved on.

[-p.tiddy-]

^^^ that falls right in line with the interview I posted

He doesn't believe in religion based Gods, sees no evidence for it, just like an agnostic would



wish the interviewer would have asked about a "higher power" in general though...why did that have to be narrowed down to Christianity, smh

also don't like how he used the tsunami to make him lean a certain way...that doesn't seem very scientific lol

anyway, IMO his beliefs fall in line with science like he says...he falls in the middle on this as an agnostic until some form of tangible evidence is shown.

[-p.tiddy-]

didn't get a chance to see episode 2 btw...:(

sounds like it was geared toward evolution

[bladefd]

didn't get a chance to see episode 2 btw...:(

sounds like it was geared toward evolution

Yeah, you can read my summary of the episode on the previous page to get the general gist of it.

Somebody posted this on facebook yesterday - pretty disappointing that there are people out there that were angered by this episode:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Cosmos explained evolution fairly well and as neutrally as possible, yet people out there still harp on same questions that were answered in the episode. Either points to comprehension issues or they watched the episode with their ears closed.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, you can read my summary of the episode on the previous page to get the general gist of it.

Somebody posted this on facebook yesterday - pretty disappointing that there are people out there that were angered by this episode:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Cosmos explained evolution fairly well and as neutrally as possible, yet people out there still harp on same questions that were answered in the episode. Either points to comprehension issues or they watched the episode with their ears closed.
It's not that disappointing IMO...we already know there are idiots out there that refuse to accept things like the Big Bang and evolution and this show is a great way to help eradicate that as well as point out who the idiots are. I'm somewhat glad to see there some people throwing little hissy fits over this show, lets me know they are watching and lets them know the truth is getting around and they can't stop it.

[SpecialQue]

Can you assholes take the atheist/theist debate to another fvcking thread and leave this one for discussion about the show?

[eriX]

Can you assholes take the atheist/theist debate to another fvcking thread and leave this one for discussion about the show?

this :applause:

[Cowboy Thunder]

Man I'm sorry guise, but this show is a major disappointment to me so far.


Rehash of elementary school. Can't even touch Sagan's show.

It honestly disappoints me to think that we've collectively become dumber as a country and this show is not more advanced than it is.

Idiocracy at it's finest :(

[bladefd]

Well, the crazies have come out of the woodworks. :lol


Creationists held a pity party for themselves Thursday because “Cosmos” isn’t being fair and balanced to their beliefs.

Falkner appeared Thursday on “The Janet Mefford Show” to complain the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths, reported Right Wing Watch.

“I don’t recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it’s based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that,” Falkner said.

Mefferd said the show should at least offer viewers a false compromise.

“Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed,” she said.

Tyson recently said science reporting should not be balanced with nonscientific claims, so that seems unlikely he would offer that sort of fallacious argument on his own show.

“You don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers,” Tyson told CNN. “Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/21/creationists-demand-equal-airtime-on-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-to-provide-balance/

[Rasheed1]

Well, the crazies have come out of the woodworks. :lol



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/21/creationists-demand-equal-airtime-on-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-to-provide-balance/


this is where the disdain for creationism and religious knuckleheads comes from..

it is fine to believe in creationism if you want.. but don't start b*tching because your views aren't repped on a SCIENCE program

US kids are already falling behind in education, we don't need them being taught this BS too like it's an equivalent of science

[Akrazotile]

this is where the disdain for creationism and religious knuckleheads comes from..

it is fine to believe in creationism if you want.. but don't start b*tching because your views aren't repped on a SCIENCE program

US kids are already falling behind in education, we don't need them being taught this BS too like it's an equivalent of science


I have news for you it's not the kids from religious homes falling behind in academics.

[Rasheed1]

I have news for you it's not the kids from religious homes falling behind in academics.


1. that has nothing to do with what I said.. If creationism is taught in schools, it affects more than just kids from religious homes... This is another example of you twisting the what someone said to fit your own troll agenda..

2. you would need to actually post some statistics to back up your comment because your word is worth toilet paper on this site

if you wanna try and twist and change the subject, I'll cook you whatever way you wanna be cooked...

stay on topic and respond to my post which challenges the idea that creationism deserves to be mentioned by neil degrass Tyson on a science show like cosmos

other than that? crawl back into your hole

[Quizno]

can you guys stop arguing over the definition of atheist and agnostic? shit is annoying and you it never goes anywhere. also nobody cares

back on topic, this show is amazing. the part they did about the evolution of the eye is incredible. that entire second episode was amazing actually. neil degrasse tyson is the man and he's really a great role model for young kids to look up to, especially young black kids

[Rose]

Fantastic episode.:applause: Well done, best of the series so far. The cartoons were on point, tons of facts were presented and it flowed well unlike last week. The end was pretty perfect as well.

[Derka]

I'm watching episode 2 right now. So far, this is excellent. I expected another rehash of The Universe, but this is sooooooooo much more. Tyson presents it wonderfully, as well.

[nightprowler10]

Yes fantastic episode. The galaxies merging at the end was mesmerizing.

[Swaggin916]

This is just an extremely well done series. I really like the cartoon accompaniment... I think this show could appeal to everyone young and old.

[Clyde]

Great show, it's the best thing on Sunday nights.

[eriX]

can't wait to see halley's comet again in 2061 :cheers:

[embersyc]

can't wait to see halley's comet again in 2061 :cheers:

I saw it in 1986, Hale-Bopp in 1997 was far more impressive, that one won't be back until 4380 tho.

[miller-time]

can't wait to see halley's comet again in 2061 :cheers:

How old will you be? I'll be 77. I have a decent chance of seeing it.

[eriX]

I saw it in 1986, Hale-Bopp in 1997 was far more impressive, that one won't be back until 4380 tho.

its more about the historical context i guess, who knows in 50 more years we could be in a space shuttle looking out to watch the comet go by. :pimp:


How old will you be? I'll be 77. I have a decent chance of seeing it.

ill be 68 so maybe i can catch the one after too

[Rake2204]

This is pretty cool. Actually a breath of fresh air to see a show like this can exist on a primary network on a Sunday night.

[Cowboy Thunder]

black holez

[gigantes]

finally got around to watching the first ep:


pretty basic information... i hope this introductory phase is quickly concluded.

feels a bit overproduced. that voyage through the cosmos on a flying saucer schtick dips pretty close to awkward.

tyson's trying so hard he's starting to sound like levar burton on reading rainbow.

i like the sagan reverence. not sure it's strictly necessary, but cool to see.