>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.


You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.
As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.


you seem to be quantifying "life" in terms of your own perceptions of space and time.
just saying.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.



You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.

As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.

You are absolutely right, NDT. Of course the original Enterprise is the greatest starship of all time. You'd have to be daft not to know that. Now sit down and shut up, attention whore!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

Agnostic (i don't know) is the most logical, justifiable and intellectually-honest position as the subject can neither be proved nor disproved (except by a God themselves).
Regular statement: i don't know..

Theist (i subscribe to believing) is a natural position to take due to survival based psychological tendencies. i.e we believe things that may or may not necessarily be true because doing so provides an internal beneficial effect.. it's called 'hope' which provides comfort and allows us to kick on without being held up on something, which is what we do in many situations across many subjects that are out of our control.
Regular statement (gist): you have to have faith..

Atheist (i do not subscribe to believing) is a defiant position, but one that would likely change given credible reason to do so as the only reason for the defiance is a lack of acceptable reason to commit. (before Atheists cry about the word 'defiant', shut up. Used to state the strength of ones value/requirement of evidence)
Regular statement (gist): show me genuine proof of God and I'll believe..

I say I'm an Atheist because most of what I've learned about the human mind points to (imo) 'it' being a survival system that would have been valuable in the past and still holds great value today.
Note, the subject 'it' here isn't God specifically, it's 'hope' re the unknown/uncontrolled. The God aspect 'the belief in a more capable entity than one's self with an aspect of caring for one' simply portrays human intelligence and creativity at reaching the pinnacle of concepts to support/maintain having such hopes in the face of any issue/concern.
In actuality I'm an Agnostic-Atheist (i don't know, but suspect not), but lean so close to Atheism (i believe not) in my comments/positions due to my suspicions that i see it as pointless saying I'm Agnostic in short exchanges, as it gets past all the explanations to which people would often then state 'ah, so you mean you're an Atheist'. Sure, whatever, it's a fine line between where I'm at and Atheist and am happy to be called either.

I understand why Agnostics don't want to be called Atheists, it's the same reason they don't want to be called Theists either.. it's because they're not. Stating 'if you're not a believer, then you are Atheist', is wrong and unfair because there is a 'don't know/don't care' stage between. Everyone deserves their own voice.

I hadn't heard NDT state his position but suspected Agnostic.. you can't be that intelligent and reasonable and be anything but. Was a bit off putting to hear the wiki changes but not surprising, who wouldn't want NDT!
Good to see it's (currently) saying Agnostic: under 'View'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

Edit: A personal belief in God or something of that nature is reasonable imo, it shouldn't likely have large impacts.. but i have no patience for religions and the unknowable knowledge's they claim, or discrimination's they push/support. Large groups of people can make impacts, the negative aspects of religions make many impacts in many countries. This is what i care about re God(s).

sorry, but you're wrong and it just strengthen's NDT's point

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

I can't reject what I don't know exists or not.

Therefore, I'm not a theist, and I'm not an atheist. Get over it. You're only giving atheism a bad name by continuing to assert that agnosticism falls under atheism, desperately seeking increased political power by claiming to be a bigger group than you actually are...same as theists. Shit like this just further proves to me that atheists are no better than theists.

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.

I agree with his overall message. I dislike labels because you are automatically assumed to have all the traits of others with that label.

This is rarely the case, of course, and it's sad to see a genius such as NDT make this point and then turn around and say, essentially, that all atheists are activists.

If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. That's it.

Why does the term exist? Because the religious ancient Greeks needed a pejorative to hurl at non-believers. It's comparable to calling someone 'godless' or 'heathen' today.

And of course, while NDT may be an agnostic (it would seem to be consistent with how he's talked about knowledge elsewhere), he defines it incorrectly. Agnosticism is the view that the truth about the existence of gods is unknowable.

(A)theism is about what you believe. (A)gnosticism is about what you think can be known.

The rest is pretty good, but my favorite part was "Stewed Beef".

Also, way to game the viewers by selling your 20 seconds of NDT.

"At the end of the day I'd rather not be in any category at all" -NDT

This sounds good, but is, at best, cute.

I like NDT, and I understand his (small p)political reason for taking this "position", but I don't believe him.

I do believe that he does not want to deal with it, but that does not reflect well on him.

Remember this is a man who tells a story of how he was the first black expert on TV who was an expert in something other than being black.

Black people in the US don't organize and identify as a group to share vit-D suppliments, but because there are very real socio-political disadvantaged be being a member of a non-white group. Yet NDT not only does not balk at taking this non-label, which would be completely non existent in the absence of whiteness as a label, but embraces it.

I think it's great that he publicly discusses his blackness, our society feels this is good to such an extent that it would be considered offensive if he were to disclaim being black, or to argue that it did not concern him.

I don't see how this disowning of this other marginalized group, presumably just because people in it can "pass" by waiving their hand about agnosticism, is any less offensive.

Everyone's an atheist, if they're not a theist. One is active one is passive. This is what NDT hints at with his "why does this word exist". Recently Atheist has become a label for the more active, atheist "preachers" if you will, but that's a re-definition of the word. The conflation of meanings into that one word is confusing, and seems to get even NDT on thin ice.

Agnostic is not what he says it is. It is only "I don't know, I make no claim either way". Not a middle ground as so many people seem to think it is. Everyone is agnostic, unless they're will fully ignorant. Not everyone has made up their mind on theism, but I will make this bold claim, everyone lives as if one or the other, whether they consciously thoughtfully make the choice or not, I've not devoted much thought to the existence of a Loch Ness Monster, and I don't have to because it has never influenced my being in the world. I have made up my mind on bacteria, and I thin they're real, and I live as if they are real (wash hands etc). I have not really given much thought to UFOs, as in aliens in planes, but I'm assuming they don't exist and I live as if they don't exist.

When you talk about such an important claim as a god, a being that influences EVERYTHING, you do take it into account in your daily life, because if you don't you would, if you were wrong, already be condemned, so you live as if it doesn't exist (unless you actively live as if it does).

@GeeSussFreeK Entomology is the study of insects, I think you're looking for Epistomology.

In any case, whenever someone goes "I don't care" or "I don't want to spend/waste my time contemplating that" I count that as a win for secularism.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

There are two types of people in the world: People who love NDT and people who've never heard of him.


...as long as you ignore Religious Nuts (tm).

There are two types of people in the world: People who love NDT and people who've never heard of him.

I love NDT, but NASA is a pretty unimpressive organization at this point with a few exceptions. The robotic exploration program (which is being cut?) is definitely one of the most impressive elements, though.

I can't really agree with spending federal dollars on manned space exploration. It's a huge expense with a small scientific return. I'd rather see those dollars go to the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes for Health to fund basic research.

>> ^Fletch:

Everything NDT says sounds like the most astounding fact he's ever heard, and that you should be astounded by it too. His meter - every enunciation, accentuation, and pause - sounds affected and I, for some reason, can't stand to listen to him. I've tried. He talks about things I'm interested in and I enjoy reading what he has written (I have "Pluto Files" and "Space Chronicles" on my Kindle), but when he starts talking, it just sounds like he's talking to five year-olds to me.
F ck it, upvote.


I know exactly what you're saying. There's a british version of this and he's called Brian Cox. Every single time he speaks, i feel my skin crawling that he knows that he has to try and manipulate the audience into feeling emotion that they just don't feel.

I subscribe to the principle as well. I agree, the connectedness of the universe is absolutely amazing. When you think about the familiar vs. the unfamiliar, the known vs. the unknown.... we know each other, we know the planet we live on and we feel safe here, but there's an infinite chasm in all directions around us. Sometimes when i consider this i can give myself vertigo.

If i were trapped in a cave with the most fundamental islamist ever, and we didn't know what lay on the other side of the collapsed wall, we'd eventually cooperate and work together to get out, to see what's there. Maybe we find something great out there, or maybe we have to build some defences to make ourselves safer in the cave.

Put us on earth, and we put bombs in each other's homes. The knowledge of how amazing the universe is really does lift you up, places you above all the stupid racism and general jingoism. But you can't fake it or inspire it, you either feel it or you don't.

Having said that, at least they're getting the field of physics more attention, and maybe they might influence some kids whilst they're influence-able.

>> ^Fletch:

Everything NDT says sounds like the most astounding fact he's ever heard, and that you should be astounded by it too. His meter - every enunciation, accentuation, and pause - sounds affected and I, for some reason, can't stand to listen to him. I've tried. He talks about things I'm interested in and I enjoy reading what he has written (I have "Pluto Files" and "Space Chronicles" on my Kindle), but when he starts talking, it just sounds like he's talking to five year-olds to me.
F ck it, upvote.


Maybe it's an act, but I genuinely believe he just really loves what he does. To me, that is fantastic to hear.