Religion

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)

72. This also comes back to christians defining non-belief

Reply to eomer (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 03:49 PM

Feb 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(Poll) On Neil deGrasse Tyson's use of "agnostic" versus his views on the existence of God. [View all] eomer Jan 2015 OP

for approximately the 1,000,000,000th time here: Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #1

Exactly Ohio Dem Jan 2015 #3

I'm sympathetic to your quest, but it's a bit quixotic and not entirely true. eomer Jan 2015 #9

It's not just that Alittleliberal Jan 2015 #26

Right, I understand those definitions but am saying that usage does not universally conform to them. eomer Jan 2015 #28

Usage certainly is far from universally conforming to them... *however* gcomeau Feb 2015 #142

re: belief is a binary solution set eomer Feb 2015 #143

You are talking about levels of confidence *in* beliefs. gcomeau Feb 2015 #144

Exactly what are the criteria for saying you have it? eomer Feb 2015 #146

I'm not sure what you're asking? gcomeau Feb 2015 #147

Right, but the question was about a person who assesses the probability as something between 0 and 1 eomer Feb 2015 #148

Well, gcomeau Feb 2015 #149

If it's up to me then I'll answer in degrees of belief. eomer Feb 2015 #150

That wasn't answering, that was avoiding answering. gcomeau Feb 2015 #151

Posting again to add something about these words, their meaning, and dictionaries. eomer Jan 2015 #27

NDT says he 'remains unconvinced.' I am positive there could be no evidence. Agnostic is probably a Panich52 Feb 2015 #131

Of course... gcomeau Feb 2015 #145

Think there's still semantics problem. Or connotation. Panich52 Feb 2015 #152

The term as originally (and correctly) formulated by Huxley gcomeau Feb 2015 #153

My connotations came long before there was an internet. But I'm a bit ashamed I'd neglected Huxley Panich52 Feb 2015 #154

The only thing that is required is that people educate themselves. LiberalAndProud Feb 2015 #76

The problem I am having with this is that you have pretty much provided cbayer Jan 2015 #2

Fair point, but that's just my own view I offered in hopes that others would respond with theirs. eomer Jan 2015 #12

Do you have any evidence for any of your assertions, and stop inserting "scientific" when the proper Humanist_Activist Jan 2015 #21

I didn't make them as assertions - I expressed them as just what I think. eomer Jan 2015 #29

that actually is more accurate qazplm Feb 2015 #78

I would replace the word "know" with believe. cbayer Feb 2015 #80

The Universe is a long running comedy / reality show for the God(s) lapfog_1 Jan 2015 #4

I dislike labels IphengeniaBlumgarten Jan 2015 #5

Yes, NDT's rationale is something like that. eomer Jan 2015 #14

Thanks for that edhopper Feb 2015 #109

What you hear when whathehell Feb 2015 #103

It's not your problem. okasha Jan 2015 #6

Is there a problem? eomer Jan 2015 #17

Apparently there is. okasha Jan 2015 #18

If he wanted it to be a secret he wouldn't have spoken on a radio blog. eomer Jan 2015 #19

Oh, you mean like telling some Muslims skepticscott Feb 2015 #133

Humm. Not quite sure how to vote on this... TDale313 Jan 2015 #7

Thanks, that's really the point I was trying to get at, and you put it well. eomer Jan 2015 #23

This is my position, also. stone space Feb 2015 #95

Why is it anyone else's business which label he chooses to identify himself? procon Jan 2015 #8

I haven't attributed anything to him, I've only quoted him. eomer Jan 2015 #11

Look at your poll. procon Jan 2015 #15

True, no one needs to. It's their choice and I assume most will have already chosen. eomer Jan 2015 #16

I think Yoda said it best: LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #10

Correct, you may be. eomer Jan 2015 #13

One would think by now Pascal's Wager would... TreasonousBastard Jan 2015 #20

Pascal's wager assumes that Pascal knows which of the many gods are the ones to worship Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #24

Like many in science, NDT tends not to deal mmonk Jan 2015 #22

The main point I was trying to get at (with thanks to TDale313). eomer Jan 2015 #25

Yeah, I think that's the basic issue. trotsky Jan 2015 #30

Yes, exactly. NDT also laments the fact that there are not more words to express the nuances. eomer Jan 2015 #32

I think a huge part of it is that he more uses the language of science and... Humanist_Activist Jan 2015 #70

Which is why, for the 1,000,000,0001th time: atheist and agnostic are not mutally exclusive. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #31

If those are the universally-accepted definitions then the dictionaries should reflect that. eomer Jan 2015 #33

I'm just trying to help you out with your obvious confusion. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #34

Seems like you need to help Webster and Oxford with theirs as well. eomer Jan 2015 #35

I have a huge problem with the second definition for agnostic in both dictionaries... Humanist_Activist Jan 2015 #69

Seriously? stone space Feb 2015 #93

Belief is on a continuum? You are talking about mathematical objects, we are talking about objects.. Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #137

Mathematical objects are not objects? (nt) stone space Feb 2015 #140

Not in a tangible sense, and many mathematical objects can't exist in our space-time... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #141

This also comes back to christians defining non-belief Lordquinton Feb 2015 #72

Both Christians and atheists sometimes try to define belief for agnostics. (nt) stone space Feb 2015 #94

You continue with the working premise that people who call themselves cbayer Jan 2015 #36

I said I think it's fairly prevalent, not that it's the case for everyone. eomer Jan 2015 #44

I have also previously made the case for a new nomenclature. cbayer Jan 2015 #46

Yes, agree, with some minor (friendly) improvements. eomer Jan 2015 #47

From my reading it seemed clear that he was doing this reluctantly. cbayer Jan 2015 #49

Oh, right. eomer Jan 2015 #62

The man is not stupid and I think his relatively neutral position cbayer Jan 2015 #64

As you can clearly see from the above posts rock Jan 2015 #37

I really like your example and have not seen it before. cbayer Jan 2015 #38

I don't agree. Goblinmonger Jan 2015 #39

That is good edhopper Jan 2015 #40

Apatheist is a term I like and sometimes use cbayer Jan 2015 #41

Though that might be edhopper Jan 2015 #42

Wouldn't that mean that you didn't care whether you knew? cbayer Jan 2015 #43

That's an interesting position you take, if I understand it. eomer Jan 2015 #45

Sure, though you may not like the answer rock Jan 2015 #48

Actually I do like that answer but I tend to say it a bit differently. eomer Jan 2015 #66

I like you're approach rock Jan 2015 #68

"Disbelieve" literally means "does not believe" they are the same thing. (nt) LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #50

and neither is the same as "believe in the absence of" whatthehey Jan 2015 #52

Completely agree (nt) LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #55

There are those that disagree with you. I think he makes a valid point. cbayer Jan 2015 #53

I think the problem is that the English language LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #54

Really good point. We need a new nomenclature badly. cbayer Jan 2015 #56

I avoid the word belief edhopper Jan 2015 #58

I like that. I also like Tyson's phrase "I remain unconvinced" cbayer Jan 2015 #59

Belief just has too many uses edhopper Jan 2015 #60

Agree, I believe in lots of things. cbayer Jan 2015 #61

As well as your values edhopper Jan 2015 #65

Many people make this mistake rock Jan 2015 #57

Upon what source do you base this premise? LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #63

Hey LostOne4Ever: You're not wrong rock Jan 2015 #67

Not only do I believe it, I can prove it. stone space Feb 2015 #74

the issue here is between technical precision and conveying meaning to a non-technical audience whatthehey Jan 2015 #51

If the guy calls himself an agnostic, then... stone space Feb 2015 #71

NDT and Richard Dawkins share this belief Lordquinton Feb 2015 #73

Really? Did he tell you all this, because he has never said anything cbayer Feb 2015 #75

Here it is, in his own words Lordquinton Feb 2015 #96

Say what? That's Dawkins, right? cbayer Feb 2015 #100

yea, Dawkins showing his belief is at the same level as Tyson Lordquinton Feb 2015 #138

Not to me it's not the same thing at all. cbayer Feb 2015 #139

Here's something else: edhopper Feb 2015 #77

I just had a rather lengthy discussion about this. cbayer Feb 2015 #79

As a shorthand edhopper Feb 2015 #81

NDT has used the elegant phrase "I remain unconvinced". cbayer Feb 2015 #82

I do agree he clearly refuses to take a position edhopper Feb 2015 #85

Disagree. He takes a position. He says he is agnostic. cbayer Feb 2015 #87

He has also stated he does not claim to be an atheist edhopper Feb 2015 #89

I've not seen him say that. cbayer Feb 2015 #98

Not seen him say what? edhopper Feb 2015 #102

I have never seen him say that he doesn't take the label atheist because cbayer Feb 2015 #104

here edhopper Feb 2015 #105

Great statement, but he isn't speaking specifically about anything. cbayer Feb 2015 #106

No edhopper Feb 2015 #107

I have heard it and I know he gave this response to a question specifically cbayer Feb 2015 #108

Listening to him edhopper Feb 2015 #111

I remain unconvinced as well, and I have a high degree of skepticism. cbayer Feb 2015 #112

Not just evidence driven edhopper Feb 2015 #113

I'm not convinced that non-material things play no role in his life. cbayer Feb 2015 #114

The materialst was a joke edhopper Feb 2015 #115

Yeah, I just looked at some of the definitions of materialism and materialist, cbayer Feb 2015 #116

You sexist! edhopper Feb 2015 #117

Just add it to the list. cbayer Feb 2015 #118

There are intellectual women i find very sexy edhopper Feb 2015 #119

Yes. It is definitely safer for a straight women to express her attraction cbayer Feb 2015 #120

Rock Star level scientist edhopper Feb 2015 #121

You can come up with new terminology and shortly it will be just as useless Fumesucker Feb 2015 #83

I resent and object to the idea that people call themselves agnostic because cbayer Feb 2015 #88

Look at the poll in the OP Fumesucker Feb 2015 #90

That poll is meaningless. It's just that some people want him to be something cbayer Feb 2015 #99

Is it your contention that everyone who picked that option in the poll was lying? Fumesucker Feb 2015 #122

Oh, no. I think that everyone that answered that poll was telling the truth. cbayer Feb 2015 #124

You voted in the poll Fumesucker Feb 2015 #125

Clearly I am in a considerably smaller group. cbayer Feb 2015 #126

I'm comfortable with Tyson calling himself anything he wants Fumesucker Feb 2015 #127

I think people should be able to call themselves what they want as well. cbayer Feb 2015 #128

That certainly seems to elevate theism as the default condition of humans Fumesucker Feb 2015 #129

No it doesn't. All it says is that some people embrace belief and some people reject it. cbayer Feb 2015 #130

Turn it around the other way and see if that changes your feelings on it.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #132

Sure, that works as well. It's clumsy and has a confusing double negative, cbayer Feb 2015 #134

Sometime I feel like atheism is more of a movement than the non-belief of a higher being. RandySF Feb 2015 #84

There are organized atheist yes edhopper Feb 2015 #86

It's largely defensive and reactionary in the sense it's reacting to religious extremism. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #91

For some, I think it is a critical part of their identity. cbayer Feb 2015 #110

Okay, all together now: LostOne4Ever Feb 2015 #92

Lol. Sometimes it's good to wake the dead. cbayer Feb 2015 #101

He can't be honest... MellowDem Feb 2015 #97

It is sad that by doing this, both NDT and certain people on DU... trotsky Feb 2015 #123

Yes, and it's ironic that some posters here castigate Richard Dawkins skepticscott Feb 2015 #136

Tyson is an atheist, whether anyone likes it or not. skepticscott Feb 2015 #135