>> ^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

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).

>> ^VoodooV:


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.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

>> ^LukinStone:

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.
People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.


My particular dislike is being told I'm simply a cowardly atheist.

FUCK YOU! [Edit: directed at the people who say that, not LukinStone]

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.

I think most atheists — whether they know of the idea of a god or are oblivious to any concepts of god(s) whatsoever (babies, cats, dogs, etc) — would agree that if undeniable evidence of some supernatural being were to be there, it would definitely change their mind (or make them aware). I've heard many "militant" atheists even take that stance. I believe even Dawkins himself has said so. I'm in the same boat, but that makes us all agnostic atheists, meaning that we don't know for sure, and we definitely don't subscribe to any particular religion or idea of god. At the same time, if this is true, we'd have to put "believers" in the agnostic category as well. Since they don't know any more than anybody else. The fact of the matter is, there is no objective evidence. Some people have faith and don't need the evidence, some of us need an objective source of data, not just anecdotal evidence.

We're all agnostic.

@gwiz665

Sorry, type-o, hope it didn't bug you to much (tee hee)

There is actually an implicit atheist; one whom doesn't even know of an idea of "God". You can say we all start off that way really, and some people in far off lands that haven't been exposed to the idea of religion can still maintain that. Once exposed, though, you either are or you aren't! I don't think the golf analogy is perfect because golf isn't a belief system. Golf by nature is an activity, you can be a golfer without golfing currently just by being the type that regularly golfs. The same doesn't hold for religious thoughts, as they start and end with thinking.

Many of us on the sift and pretty clear on the literal meanings of agnostic and atheist, but those other denoted meanings are pretty meaningful when talking to the public at large. I classify him in my non-angry atheist camp, which is what atheist has unfortunately come to mean, and agnostic now kind of means a non-mean atheist...which is also wrong. In the end, though, those connotation can't be helped, and when you are trying to address the public at large about how you believe, you have to talk their language, yo. He has always been such a positive person when I see him, and for that, I have always enjoyed hearing him talk about how he treats different religious ideas from people of faith in his field.

Well when people ask, I say I am from a Christian background, specifically Baptist. It's hard to get rid of that. However, I am not prepared to say there is no higher power/God/being/whatever. I do see many links and ideas shared between religions of today, but I won't say one is better/right/whatever...I can't say that. Since it's all basically "proven" after you're dead.....why bother with trying to figure it out. I personally think if people live up to the better points of each religion, we really wouldn't care whose a member of what religion...but far too many people are quite the opposite of what their religion tells them to be. Which is why I have a hard time even entertaining the thought of ever being a member of any religion as an adult, it's too much "do as I say, not as I do" or "ignore what horrible thing I did yesterday, Im a Christian!"

I tend to just tell people Im agnostic, I don't mind hearing about stuff when I ask. But seriously, don't keep harping on about it...that's a good way to make me totally ignore your group altogether and funnily enough it applies to politics as well. You really don't need people in lockstep with you if you both perhaps hold one idea that makes you part of whatever group, but generally if you're part of a group...the "core" of it should be shared. And even in politics the "core" issues/points/whatever is hardly consistent. Which I don't like trying to sort through all the -isms and -ists that people throw out like insults, it's not conducive to discussion at all. And like he said, it carries a lot of baggage because people spend far too much time taking what they don't agree with an assigning to the "opposite" group.

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.

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.

People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.

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

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

@shinyblurry

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.

The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.

The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".

An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.

The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly.

And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.

Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical.

Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.

>> ^jmzero:
I appreciated your reply, and your "fate of the rich" comment, @shinyblurry. Clearly we don't agree on lots of stuff (and I was, true to character, angry in my initial response) but I understand your perspective on the political bits and am inclined to agree with your interpretation on the religious ones (whatever we disagree in terms of cosmic reality, I think we agree that Jesus had a worthwhile philosophy that's worth understanding). And we also agree that this video was really grating, so there's that too .

Thanks, I am glad we can agree on something, especially if it is Jesus. I'm glad you can see something worthwhile in what He has taught us. Even when I was agnostic I recognized a deeper wisdom in His words that I hadn't seen anywhere else. I suspect we have more areas of agreement about it, but of course we are looking at the world through very different glasses. I'm interested to hear what your particular prescription is, if you feel like sharing that some time.

As far as anger goes, don't sweat it. I've been guilty of being fairly reactive as well, and I apologize for that. This medium does not always lend itself well to civil discourse, and without being able to read facial expressions and body language, misinterpretations are inevitable. It is also an issue that tugs at your heart strings, because it touches everything about who you are as a person. It goes straight to the core of a persons belief system. That can be a sensitive area for many.

And yes, this video is obnoxious, but somehow something good came out of it.