Neil deGrasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design and religion...

[rexcat]

&feature=player_embedded

He may call himself an agnositic but...

[cbayer]

1. But what?

You think NDT does not have the right to identify himself however he wishes?

Are you the one who changed his own wiki article for him?

[longship]

2. Please do not go there. I beg you.

This argument inevitably devolves into a senseless and useless rhetorical chair throwing exercise. I write this not only to the post To which I am responding, but the OP as well.

It is an inherently stupid argument. Let people identify themselves as they will. This atheist/agnostic dichotomy is both silly and ignorant.

[cbayer]

3. I agree, but felt the need to contest what the OP was implying.

I don't want to debate the issue of agnostic vs. atheist vs. theist, but I do wish to support the position that everyone has the right to classify or define themselves (if they so wish) and no one else has the right to classify or define them.

Of everyone I have ever heard, NDT states this as clearly and convincingly as anyone.

Appreciate your thoughts on this, though.

[longship]

4. I agree with you on NDT

But I wish your response had not thrown a chair to the OP's first chair, so to speak.

But I think you've made amends.

Cheers!

[cbayer]

5. I was wrong for that. It's a touchy point for me.

[laconicsax]

9. Do you identify as agnostic?

You've posted several things that give me the impression that you identify as an agnostic rather than a believer and I'm curious if that's the case.

[rexcat]

6. It is obvious even to the casual observer...

that Dr. Tyson is not comfortable using the descriptor of atheist. I have no problem with that but the video I posted gives a much deeper understanding of his beliefs than the video you posted. He is much closer to atheism than anything remotely religious.

Is understanding of “intelligent design” and the poison (my words) religion has on science is one of the best explanations I have heard in a long time. He is in the same league as Dr. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Baker, et el.

Please don't accuse me of "changing his wike article" or putting words in my mouth. It is not nice on your part and distracts from the conversation at hand.

On edit: the most important thing Dr. Tyson says is what I outlined in paragraph 2. That is what should be up for debate.

[cbayer]

7. He is what he says he is.

FTR, I am a huge fan of Tyson and have heard him talk in both spiritual and non-spiritual manners. He objects to being labeled, and I support him in that objection.

He does not wish to be associated with Dawkins, etc, so I am not sure why anyone would insist on doing so.

The video is great. Your comment at the end is what I object to.

[Goblinmonger]

8. He can call himself whatever he wants and I'll respect his self labeling

And I think he is an awesome person.

BUT, words do have meaning and agnostic and atheist are not different points on a linear scale. They deal with different things. Too many people think that agnostic just means something less "certain" than atheist and that is not the case. Theism deals with believe and gnosticism with knowledge. He either believes in a god or he does not. He is either an atheist or a theist. Whether he claims knowledge about his belief will place him on the agnostic/gnostic scale.

And I agree with the person above that he probably doesn't want the atheist label because of the way society reacts to it. he probably doesn't want some of the regulars in this form telling him that he is like Stalin and Pol Pot.

[rexcat]

10. You seem to object to a lot of things...

big deal! Such hyperbole on your part.

In neither video did Dr. Tyson state an objection to Dr. Dawkins, a preeminent evolutionary biologists, who just happened to be at the same meeting and one could take inference in what Dr. Tyson said in the of his remarks, without stating Dr. Dawkins by name, referred to him and others in the audience.

I also don't know what you are talking about concerning my comment that you objected to. Please elaborate so that I may defend myself. Your vagueness is annoying but typical.

By the way your lack of respect for both Dr. Tyson and Dr. Dawkins is glaring.

[cbayer]

11. Annoying but typical. Ouch, lol!

My lack of respect for Dr. Tyson? Not by a long shot. My respect for him is deep. That is why I defend his right to say what he is or isn't and his position that he doesn't want to be labeled as an atheist.

I would suggest that the disrespect is shown by your unwillingness to let him do that as evidenced by your editorial comment, "He may call himself an agnositic but...".

Dr. Dawkins, on the other hand, is an anti-theist, imo. While I respect him as a scientist, I do not respect his position regarding theism.

[rexcat]

12. He can call himself anything he wants...

I think I have been clear on that point but please refer to post #8 by Goblinmonger. He states the obvious and for which I was referring to when I posted this video. This video was originally posted in the A&A forum and the OP did not want to cross-post it in this forum for which I can’t blame him considering how easily offended some people get on this forum.

You finally got it right with both gentlemen's names, they should always be referred to as "Dr." This is a pet peeve of mine ever since my wife received her doctorate. Anyone who receives a PhD deserves respect and recognition for their academic achievements, no matter how much you do or don’t like them. We all have our hot buttons!

On edit: If you are going to attack me a least read and understand what I said and then go after me on the specifics of what I said. You don't seem to get my point other than the one on my head!

[cbayer]

13. Oh, you mean the member who has so much dread of offending members of this group that

he referred to those that participate here as "those retarded brains".

You are right, people here are really easily offended.

BTW, I would wonder if your respect for people that have earned their PhD's extends to those that have received them from seminaries or from fundamentalist based schools. I disagree that everyone that has a PhD should be called Doctor or automatically deserves respect.

[rexcat]

16. I participate here...

so why bring up something someone said, most likely in frustration? No one cares what someone said in another forum but I must say you can get upset when you perceive someone calling you out but you sure can dish it out. The only term I can think of is hypocrisy on your part.

As far as someone receiving a PhD from a fundamentalist religious school I may or may not respect them depending on the circumstances. I obviously can't speak for you but I am not such a cad or have an inferiority complex when dealing with people who have achieved a PhD to be rude to them in a work or social setting. It would take a mean spirited person to do that and I don't fit the bill.

[cbayer]

21. You brought him up and even speculated as to why he didn't want to post it himself.

I merely quoted him, because your speculative reasoning was not consistent with what he said. Not even close.

As to PhD's being called doctor? Not even going to go near that one.

[rexcat]

29. For one thing...

edcantor was the one who originally posted the video in A&A, not Goblinmonger, so it appears that you don't really know what you are talking about. Also Goblinmonger made a valid point as to where I was coming from but your prejudices came out and attacked me, Goblinmonger and edcantor. It appears that you don't really want constructive dialog.

I give up on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cbayer]

30. Who said anything about goblinmonger?

I know exactly who said it and he has since edited it. And edcantor and I don't seem to have a problem. Why goblinmonger thought I was referring to him is a mystery.

You brought the A/A thread into this thread and stated why you thought he didn't want to post it here. I refuted your premise that he chose not to post it here because some were overly sensitive. Due to my responding to you to point out what he really said, I have been banned from A/A.

Witchunts can be very effective. Don't get caught up in it would be my suggestion.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Seriously, meta is the place for the discussion of the blocking decision.

Not here.

[cbayer]

33. BTW, the only PM I have ever sent you was the following (in response to one you sent me)

cbayer
Re: Locked thread by Silent3...

No. The chickenshit hosts will be leaving it locked.

> "Please, oh, please let there be a believer only religion group." This post belongs in the Religion forum since it is sarcasm, not the Meta/Help forum. I believe the poster had a point to make and the post should not have been locked. Please reconsider.


The *chickenshit* comment was in response to a post of yours where you called religion hosts chickenshit

[rexcat]

37. My point was your decision was chickenshit but not you personally...

I was disapointed in your decision about blocking the OP. There is a difference but I doubt you would understand. You do seem to like to go to protected forums and then use it against anyone you disagree with.

[cbayer]

39. No, I go into protected forums to defend myself or other members of this group.

I have taken things out of there only twice. Once in responding to your PM and once in responding to your claims about why someone chose not to post something here.

Anyone who was being attacked repeatedly in a protected forum would do the same.

[Goblinmonger]

17. When I search for that phrase, only your post comes up.

You certainly aren't talking about me, are you? Since I'm the only DUer mentioned in his thread.

[cordelia]

18. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12307250#post3

[Goblinmonger]

19. Huh

Wonder if my new lack of a star makes it so I can't search the safe haven groups. Thanks.

And I still find it interesting that cbayer reads the Atheist group in order to bring things in here she disapproves of but doesn't comment on any comments by our resident "all organized atheism is just like Stalin" member.

[laconicsax]

20. That is interesting.

How does the line go? Something about a plank and a speck?

[daaron]

52. Matthew 7:5 nt

[Gore1FL]

22. He is Agnostic for the same reason I am.

There is neither evidence of a God nor the absence of one.

[edcantor]

23. Can you state that in a more grammatically correct form?

Neither nor, either or.

evidence of a God , absence of ?one?

After we get through the non-equal grammar

There is evidence for the absence of a God. There is, therefore, no "evidence of a God". There are millions of statements by humans, each statement wishing to act as "evidence" but no factual material to back any of those millions of statements up.

Let's try to state your statement in a more balanced, and grammatically correct fashion, ok?

There is no evidence of a God, nor is there evidence to contradict there being no evidence of a God. There are wishes, and there is no evidence. That is all there is.

[Gore1FL]

38. You want to attack grammar? Really?

There is neither evidence for the absence of a God nor is there evidence for the existence of a God.

Define God, first.

In the mean time, I'll just quote Carl Sagan:

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]

If you look hard enough, you might find something grammatically wrong with that too. I wouldn't know. I tend not to give two shits.

[cleanhippie]

24. I don't think you are using that word correctly.

[Gore1FL]

35. I am using it according to Webster. n/t

[cleanhippie]

46. Webster has Gnosticism defined as evidence?

gnos·tic
adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2.possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.


And I cannot find anything about evidence in any webster definition. Link please?

Webster does have this though...

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

[Gore1FL]

47. I've had this discussion several times already on this subthread.

Please read those. It seems silly to have it again.

[cleanhippie]

48. I did, and nowhere do you recant what you just told me, that Websters includes evidence as part

of the definition.

I do see that you appear to have a better understanding of just what Agnostic and Atheist mean and that they are not one and the same, but deal with two very different things. All is well that ends well. Have a great day.

[Gore1FL]

49. My basic point was that ultimately, I don't know the answer. (Which is also Tyson's.)

I am anti-religion. I think a "God of the Gaps" argument is silly and perpetually narrowing.

I don't see evidence of a God poking and prodding. I don't believe in the power of prayer. I suppose I could believe in a God outside the Universe, but there really isn't a need for one base on current understanding in science.

If not having enough information available to make a sound decision on the matter makes me an atheist, then I guess I am an atheist.


Edited to add: You have a great day as well!

[Goblinmonger]

25. But are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

It's not one linear scale.

[Gore1FL]

34. Of course it is not linear.

I am not anywhere on the scale. I don't have data to draw a conclusion.

[Goblinmonger]

36. So you currently don't believe in a god?

That would make you an agnostic atheist. Unless you believe in a god, then you are an agnostic theist. It's not that hard of a matrix--four simple quadrants.

[Gore1FL]

40. So you are saying it is not linear, but it is 2 dimensional?

Define God, first.

Is God the laws of Physics? Is God the Universe? Is God "love"? If so, of course I believe in God.

Is God some being poking and prodding into everyone's affairs and who arbitrarily speaks to people in private? No. I believe in no such being.

[Goblinmonger]

41. I've been pretty clear about what I've been saying

It is not a linear line between agnostic and atheist. Gnostic deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. They are not related in a "well I'm an agnostic not an atheist" kind of way. They are each binary switches about different concepts.

And I guess we could say that god is oreo cookies, but since I've been grading English essays all day, I'm not in the mood for a good old round of postmodernist nonsense. So I'll go to your favorite source for defining things:

apitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

[Gore1FL]

42. Then I am on the atheist side of things. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

43. I fully understand people not wanting the atheist label

because of what society has put on that. I'm not an out atheist at my workplace and with any one other than close friends in real life. It would not be a good thing. And I'm also fine with someone labeling themselves an agnostic and will respect that.

I've enjoyed the conversation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. You are misusing the term "Agnostic"

"Atheist" is a belief proposition. An Atheist does not believe there is a God. This belief is based on the lack of positive evidence for the existence of God.

"Agnostic" is a knowledge proposition. An Agnostic does not know whether or not God exists.

"Soft" or "weak" atheists take the position of simply disbelieving God, but make no claims to whether or not they know God not to exist. This means one may very well be both Agnostic and Atheist. They are not rungs on ladder of hierarchical terms.

[Gore1FL]

32. No I'm not

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

I take the stated position of Dr. Tyson for the same reasons of Dr. Tyson.

I am evidence based.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. Yes, you are.

Read your own quote:

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown

Again, agnosticism is a knowledge proposition. It addresses the question "Does God exist?". Atheism is a belief proposition, and addresses the question "Do you believe in God?"

The questions are not the same, and their answers are not mutually exclusive. To argue that a person is one, but not the other, as if the terms described varying degrees of disbelief is to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what the terms describe.

Furthermore, to suggest agnosticism is steeped in "evidence" is to demonstrate a misunderstanding as to what qualifies agnosticism. You cannot have positive evidence of non-existenc, ergo there will never be evidence that God does not exist. Rather, agnosticism addresses the issue of absolute certainty. As science can only offer explanations for phenomena to a certain degree of certainty, it technically cannot completely rule out the existence of God.

Agnosticism is, therefore, a scientific answer to the question "Does God exist". Science suggests no, but there's no way to be absolutely certain.

[Gore1FL]

45. I lean towards there not being a God..,

...but ultimately the answer is unknowable. I don't believe in God as a poking prodding jealous entity that desperately needs praise. I don't believe in the power of prayer. I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe that it makes sense to explain the existence of complexities with a greater complexity.

If you want to label me as an atheist because of that, then so be it.

Webster defines Atheist as "one who claims there is no deity." I don't make that claim. I don't know what exists outside this Universe. I'm not going to claim to. Ultimately it comes down to "it's unknowable."

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. I have no desire to label you whatsoever...

... I merely wish that you use these terms correctly.

Webster's definition of atheist is both misleading and incomplete. Both Dictioary.com and the Collins English Dictionary provide definitions which are better suited to the term, as those who do not believe in God do not necessarily assert that there is no God.

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

"Atheist", Dictionary.com

—n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

atheist. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

The reason I prattle on about this is that there is a legion of people who are essentially nonbelievers, but who cringe at the word "atheist" because of the social stigma it incurs. They blurt out inane statements like, "I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic", as if the two were incompatible terms. They are not. There are many agnostic atheists. We call them "soft atheists" or "weak atheists", and most atheist writers predating the New Atheist movement subscribed to this outlook.

Whether you truly disbelieve or do not is of little consequence to me. I merely request that if you are going to use these terms, that you use them correctly.

[cbayer]

27. He explains it really well, which is not surprising.

Arguments that agnostic can only be used as a modifier are meant to force people to take a side in a petty and useless war.

[Goblinmonger]

28. That's just not true.

The word has a meaning. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It is about knowledge. Theism is about belief.

[JNelson6563]

51. That was splendid!

Watched it with the kids who happen to be over. Wonderful! Thanks for posting.

Julie