Neil Degrasse Tyson: Religious People

[King Shining Heaven]

BlackShadow03

...."New Atheist"? What exactly happened to regular 'ol Atheism? No Atheist that I am aware of calls themselves a "New Atheist". Such a phrase should have no meaning since the term Atheism has not changed nor added some form of systematic belief-structure.

Or is this some new term for "Anti-Theists" (or even "Angstheist" if the anti-Theist is of the rebellious stage of their life)? If so, then Neil deGrasse Tyson is not some "New Atheist" but rather an Astrophysicist who just so happens to be an Atheist and has vocal views about religion in the science classroom. Hardly worth some kind on new nomenclature.

New Atheism, from my personal experience, refers to a change in how atheists treat religion. "Old" atheists merely pointed out the flaws they saw in religion, but they did not mock it or its worshipers, and some even held a degree of mourning for the "death of God". "New" atheists refers to the new anti-theist stance which is becoming more popular

[Xiam]

BlackShadow03

Xiam

BlackShadow03

Agnosticism is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. For example, both Neil and I am classified as Agnostic Atheists. Whereas a standard Christian is a form of Gnostic Theism (they believe in a deity and claim to know for sure it exists).

TANRailgun

God damn, you just hit so many of my pet peeves...

I don't see how Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive. One regards belief, one regards knowledge. It is extraordinarily common for someone to lack belief in a statement while admitting they cannot prove it wrong.

You know... one of my pet peeves is the assumption that there is a four-option axis where people who admit that they simply don't know must either still make a declaration on whether they believe in a god or not.

The whole point in saying you do not know is that you just simply, legitimately, do not ******** know. Why can't that be a belief? Where one's beliefs follow directly from how much they know about the subject?

Because it seems pretty weird that there can be "gnostic atheists" and "gnostic theists." Because you can't logically have people who 100% know there is god, and people who 100% know there is no god. It is only a matter of certainty in their belief (or disbelief).

As far as knowledge goes, nobody actually ******** knows. Agnostics are just the ones who admit that.

So, I suppose you could be agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But that's really only an additional tag. Someone who admits they could be wrong.

So what about someone who just doesn't know, and refuses to declare a belief other than "I don't ******** know"? They can't just be wedged into whatever you think they are. They might take offense. I know I have.

As far as Neil's placement in this s**t goes...

Someone who lacks belief in a deity is an Atheist. Even without the conscious rejection of the idea. The term you are looking for isn't "Agnostic" at that point, but "Implicit Atheism". If you went deep into the Amazon and found a tribe that has never had other human contact and never developed a belief in deities, they are Implicit Atheists rather than Agnostic. It all comes down to the actual definition of Atheism as a lack of belief in a deity rather than a rejection of belief.

Anything to increase the numbers, huh?

[The Herald of War]

Xiam

BlackShadow03

Xiam

BlackShadow03

Agnosticism is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. For example, both Neil and I am classified as Agnostic Atheists. Whereas a standard Christian is a form of Gnostic Theism (they believe in a deity and claim to know for sure it exists).

TANRailgun

God damn, you just hit so many of my pet peeves...

I don't see how Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive. One regards belief, one regards knowledge. It is extraordinarily common for someone to lack belief in a statement while admitting they cannot prove it wrong.

You know... one of my pet peeves is the assumption that there is a four-option axis where people who admit that they simply don't know must either still make a declaration on whether they believe in a god or not.

The whole point in saying you do not know is that you just simply, legitimately, do not ******** know. Why can't that be a belief? Where one's beliefs follow directly from how much they know about the subject?

Because it seems pretty weird that there can be "gnostic atheists" and "gnostic theists." Because you can't logically have people who 100% know there is god, and people who 100% know there is no god. It is only a matter of certainty in their belief (or disbelief).

As far as knowledge goes, nobody actually ******** knows. Agnostics are just the ones who admit that.

So, I suppose you could be agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But that's really only an additional tag. Someone who admits they could be wrong.

So what about someone who just doesn't know, and refuses to declare a belief other than "I don't ******** know"? They can't just be wedged into whatever you think they are. They might take offense. I know I have.

As far as Neil's placement in this s**t goes...

Someone who lacks belief in a deity is an Atheist. Even without the conscious rejection of the idea. The term you are looking for isn't "Agnostic" at that point, but "Implicit Atheism". If you went deep into the Amazon and found a tribe that has never had other human contact and never developed a belief in deities, they are Implicit Atheists rather than Agnostic. It all comes down to the actual definition of Atheism as a lack of belief in a deity rather than a rejection of belief.

Anything to increase the numbers, huh?

You seem to get upset if people reason better than you do

He explained it without any hostility. You throw a stupid accusation in return.

Its easy enough. Either you believe something or you don't. If you can't affirmatively say "I think this is right" then you don't believe it

[TANRailgun]

Xiam

BlackShadow03

Agnosticism is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. For example, both Neil and I am classified as Agnostic Atheists. Whereas a standard Christian is a form of Gnostic Theism (they believe in a deity and claim to know for sure it exists).

TANRailgun

God damn, you just hit so many of my pet peeves...

I don't see how Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive. One regards belief, one regards knowledge. It is extraordinarily common for someone to lack belief in a statement while admitting they cannot prove it wrong.

You know... one of my pet peeves is the assumption that there is a four-option axis where people who admit that they simply don't know must either still make a declaration on whether they believe in a god or not.

The whole point in saying you do not know is that you just simply, legitimately, do not ******** know. Why can't that be a belief? Where one's beliefs follow directly from how much they know about the subject?

Because it seems pretty weird that there can be "gnostic atheists" and "gnostic theists." Because you can't logically have people who 100% know there is god, and people who 100% know there is no god. It is only a matter of certainty in their belief (or disbelief).

As far as knowledge goes, nobody actually ******** knows. Agnostics are just the ones who admit that.

So, I suppose you could be agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But that's really only an additional tag. Someone who admits they could be wrong.

So what about someone who just doesn't know, and refuses to declare a belief other than "I don't ******** know"? They can't just be wedged into whatever you think they are. They might take offense. I know I have.

As far as Neil's placement in this s**t goes...

Where did I say Agnosticism cannot stand alone? My post was in response to the implication that one cannot be Agnostic and Atheist at the same time, or that Atheism is a "hard" form of Agnosticism...I never claimed there was a "four axis" system or whatever, nor did I mean to imply as much.

Now calm the ******** down.

[Dieu des hommes]

Aporeia

He is primarily critical on points, not on religious ideas in general. Neil emphasizes the subject scientific illiteracy, but separates it from religious perspective as a whole. Sagan viewed religions as containing some literary wisdom, but tended to speak down his nose about it. The original Cosmos series was seeped in that sort of passive aggressive tone.

The new Cosmos seems to bear this tone too from what the first episode showed. Given a large section of it was dedicated to the treatment of Giordano Bruno by the Catholic Church. Neil definitely seems to be touching on the religious perspective now, just as Sagan did.

[Aporeia]

Dieu des hommes

Aporeia

He is primarily critical on points, not on religious ideas in general. Neil emphasizes the subject scientific illiteracy, but separates it from religious perspective as a whole. Sagan viewed religions as containing some literary wisdom, but tended to speak down his nose about it. The original Cosmos series was seeped in that sort of passive aggressive tone.

The new Cosmos seems to bear this tone too from what the first episode showed. Given a large section of it was dedicated to the treatment of Giordano Bruno by the Catholic Church. Neil definitely seems to be touching on the religious perspective now, just as Sagan did.

I need to get around to watching it. I missed it airing, so I'll have to hunt it down.

[rmcdra]

Dieu des hommes

Aporeia

He is primarily critical on points, not on religious ideas in general. Neil emphasizes the subject scientific illiteracy, but separates it from religious perspective as a whole. Sagan viewed religions as containing some literary wisdom, but tended to speak down his nose about it. The original Cosmos series was seeped in that sort of passive aggressive tone.

The new Cosmos seems to bear this tone too from what the first episode showed. Given a large section of it was dedicated to the treatment of Giordano Bruno by the Catholic Church. Neil definitely seems to be touching on the religious perspective now, just as Sagan did.

Yeah I just saw it. I concur with you on that. It spins the story of Bruno making him into some sort of martyr for science. Do not misunderstand me here, I think his trials were cruel and unusual, but he didn't die for defending heliocentricism, he died for defending other views that were counter to authorities at the time. Those views considered the most grave being denying the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and Transubstantiation according to wikipedia. If he was a martyr for science, the article doesn't make that clear.

Edit: Other than that, it was very visually stunning and entertaining. I kept on thinking though in the back of my mind what's the angle because you know it's Fox who's airing it. How does Fox, the company that produces Fox News, benefit from something like this? News fodder so they don't have to report actual news? Something to appease those who criticize Fox Network? Stuff like that.

[Kaworu 17]

BlackShadow03

In either case, I would hardly count Atheism as a "movement". Not like Atheists hold rallies and meetings.

>Atheists don't hold meetings.
>Atheists don't have non-profits nor communities and stuff like that dedicated to advocating their beliefs.

Yeah okay.

[Kaworu 17]

Dieu des hommes

The new Cosmos seems to bear this tone too from what the first episode showed. Given a large section of it was dedicated to the treatment of Giordano Bruno by the Catholic Church. Neil definitely seems to be touching on the religious perspective now, just as Sagan did.

2014 and people still think that guy burned due to Copernicanism and not because he was literally a heretic. Oh jeez.

[rmcdra]

Kaworu 17

Dieu des hommes

The new Cosmos seems to bear this tone too from what the first episode showed. Given a large section of it was dedicated to the treatment of Giordano Bruno by the Catholic Church. Neil definitely seems to be touching on the religious perspective now, just as Sagan did.

2014 and people still think that guy burned due to Copernicanism and not because he was literally a heretic. Oh jeez.

This was actually the first time I've even heard of him. Copernicus and Galileo were the only ones I was aware of that were the great contributors of heliocentricism. But yeah the little bit of perusing I did on Bruno made it pretty obvious that they(Fox) did add some spin to his story.

[BlackShadow03]

Kaworu 17

BlackShadow03

In either case, I would hardly count Atheism as a "movement". Not like Atheists hold rallies and meetings.

>Atheists don't hold meetings.
>Atheists don't have non-profits nor communities and stuff like that dedicated to advocating their beliefs.

Yeah okay.

...Ok, would you like to add to the discussion? Perhaps you could begin with telling me where I, as an Atheist, should be reporting to for all the meetings I am evidently missing? Or what non-profits I must be unknowingly donating to for the "spreading of Atheism"? Or perhaps you might be conflating a group who happens to be Atheistic with all Atheists in existence?

[Kaworu 17]

BlackShadow03

...Ok, would you like to add to the discussion? Perhaps you could begin with telling me where I, as an Atheist, should be reporting to for all the meetings I am evidently missing? Or what non-profits I must be unknowingly donating to for the "spreading of Atheism"? Or perhaps you might be conflating a group who happens to be Atheistic with all Atheists in existence?

I know plenty of people who identify as Christians but are lazy and don't go to church. Yet that don't mean that Christianity isn't a social movement.

[BlackShadow03]

Kaworu 17

BlackShadow03

...Ok, would you like to add to the discussion? Perhaps you could begin with telling me where I, as an Atheist, should be reporting to for all the meetings I am evidently missing? Or what non-profits I must be unknowingly donating to for the "spreading of Atheism"? Or perhaps you might be conflating a group who happens to be Atheistic with all Atheists in existence?

I know plenty of people who identify as Christians but are lazy and don't go to church. Yet that don't mean that Christianity isn't a social movement.

Yet, if they wanted to, they have a church they could go to. A place for every person of their ascribed form of Christianity (even Non-Denominational Churches!) To meet, pray, and hold events. Where are the Ur-Churches I am supposedly skipping my non-Mass at?

[The Herald of War]

BlackShadow03

Kaworu 17

BlackShadow03

...Ok, would you like to add to the discussion? Perhaps you could begin with telling me where I, as an Atheist, should be reporting to for all the meetings I am evidently missing? Or what non-profits I must be unknowingly donating to for the "spreading of Atheism"? Or perhaps you might be conflating a group who happens to be Atheistic with all Atheists in existence?

I know plenty of people who identify as Christians but are lazy and don't go to church. Yet that don't mean that Christianity isn't a social movement.

Yet, if they wanted to, they have a church they could go to. A place for every person of their ascribed form of Christianity (even Non-Denominational Churches!) To meet, pray, and hold events. Where are the Ur-Churches I am supposedly skipping my non-Mass at?

Idk where the Ur-Churches at, but I know where to find ur-priests =O

[Fermionic]

The Herald of War

BlackShadow03

Kaworu 17

BlackShadow03

...Ok, would you like to add to the discussion? Perhaps you could begin with telling me where I, as an Atheist, should be reporting to for all the meetings I am evidently missing? Or what non-profits I must be unknowingly donating to for the "spreading of Atheism"? Or perhaps you might be conflating a group who happens to be Atheistic with all Atheists in existence?

I know plenty of people who identify as Christians but are lazy and don't go to church. Yet that don't mean that Christianity isn't a social movement.

Yet, if they wanted to, they have a church they could go to. A place for every person of their ascribed form of Christianity (even Non-Denominational Churches!) To meet, pray, and hold events. Where are the Ur-Churches I am supposedly skipping my non-Mass at?

Idk where the Ur-Churches at, but I know where to find ur-priests =O

Uruguay?