Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we all get too caught up in definitions.
Neil Degrasse Tyson won't call himself atheist essentially because he doesn't want to be associated with all the baggage that comes with the word. But then you have to get into all the conversations about why you won't use the word so you might as well have just used the word and saved yourself the effort.
I think we all get too caught up in definitions.
Neil Degrasse Tyson won't call himself atheist essentially because he doesn't want to be associated with all the baggage that comes with the word. But then you have to get into all the conversations about why you won't use the word so you might as well have just used the word and saved yourself the effort.
I agree.
All a definition does is tell us what a word technically means. And, as we have seen with (for example) the word 'gay', definitions change over time. But even beyond that change, people use words as they wish. As we chat we don't run over to the dictionary and look up each word we use. I don't pay much attention to the definition police.
I think we all get too caught up in definitions.
Neil Degrasse Tyson won't call himself atheist essentially because he doesn't want to be associated with all the baggage that comes with the word. But then you have to get into all the conversations about why you won't use the word so you might as well have just used the word and saved yourself the effort.
I'm not sure I'm caught up in definitions, but when it comes to simply describing what I believe or don't, my opinions and perspective, I do try to use the words that best suit. Accordingly, I don't have the concerns deGrasse might have, but for me explaining I am an atheist seems more appropriate if not more accurate than simply saying I am agnostic. Or put another way, I am still not understanding any good reason I should call myself agnostic rather than atheist. Not altogether sure why others do either who seem to be athiests, except those reasons like deGrasse's and concerns about negative connotations associated with atheists.
Gets harder with people who think atheists are no better than murderers and rapists, but what can you do about people like that?
All a definition does is tell us what a word technically means. And, as we have seen with (for example) the word 'gay', definitions change over time. But even beyond that change, people use words as they wish. As we chat we don't run over to the dictionary and look up each word we use. I don't pay much attention to the definition police.
But, but, but...
You often claim to be a Buddhist. Why use that word or label? How well would you do with explaining your beliefs or inclinations along those lines if you could not use the word Buddhist? You might do well over time, but I think it would take you a lot more time. Maybe that's simply what definitions do for us. They save us a bit of time.
You often claim to be a Buddhist. Why use that word or label? How well would you do with explaining your beliefs or inclinations along those lines if you could not use the word Buddhist? You might do well over time, but I think it would take you a lot more time. Maybe that's simply what definitions do for us. They save us a bit of time.
"that's simply what definitions do for us"
that's my point...definitions are a simple starting point for context
that's my point...definitions are a simple starting point for context
Roger that. I was kind of getting the feeling we were under-stating and under estimating the value of definitions as we make the effort to make ourselves understood. I am not sure they are "simply a starting point" unless dealing with someone who doesn't know the definitions of these words or labels either.
For example, with most people, if I explain I am an atheist, they know what I mean. They know what that word means. For the most part both the starting and end point. Right?
Of course in this forum, even a term like atheist can be twisted about beyond comprehension, and no doubt this can be quite the starting point with some people without any ending point, but that's not generally the case with everyone in this forum or outside I don't think.
I leave you with this great insight as I sign off now. Cheers!
I can understand Prof.Tyson wanting to keep it easy by avoiding the 'atheist' label, as there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. Even though the old Webster definition (Deniers of God) has been replaced by 'Do not believe in God', or something like 'does not believe any god - claim', the idea of gnostic denial, as though we knew for certain (in fact we are pretty convinced ) there was no god of any kind, is still the universal misconception of atheism by the public.
We are even more convinced that the god of the Bible does not exist. The (negative) evidence is compelling.. But even then, we can only point to probability, not knowledge of non - existence. So Dr. Tyson is probably avoiding a lot of misunderstanding by preferring to talk of being agnostic. If that is also misunderstood, it at least doesn't bring a lot of bad rap with it.
I can understand Prof.Tyson wanting to keep it easy by avoiding the 'atheist' label, as there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. Even though the old Webster definition (Deniers of God) has been replaced by 'Do not believe in God', or something like 'does not believe any god - claim', the idea of gnostic denial, as though we knew for certain (in fact we are pretty convinced ) there was no god of any kind, is still the universal misconception of atheism by the public.
We are even more convinced that the god of the Bible does not exist. The (negative) evidence is compelling.. But even then, we can only point to probability, not knowledge of non - existence. So Dr. Tyson is probably avoiding a lot of misunderstanding by preferring to talk of being agnostic. If that is also misunderstood, it at least doesn't bring a lot of bad rap with it.
The untenable position that you just do not believe in God claims because there is no evidence that convinces you is self-contradicting. In order for you to exclude ANY evidence of God, you have to ASSUME that NONE of the evidence is of God. That is IMPLICIT in your claimed unbelief but you can only ASSUME that if you THINK AND BELIEVE there is NO God for any of the existing evidence to apply to. To YOU, it is NOT EVIDENCE of God in any way, shape, or form. That is pretty unambiguously a belief that God does NOT exist without any "claims" being involved to reject.
The untenable position that you just do not believe in God claims because there is no evidence that convinces you is self-contradicting. In order for you to exclude ANY evidence of God, you have to ASSUME that NONE of the evidence is of God. That is IMPLICIT in your claimed unbelief but you can only ASSUME that if you THINK AND BELIEVE there is NO God for any of the existing evidence to apply to. To YOU, it is NOT EVIDENCE of God in any way, shape, or form. That is pretty unambiguously a belief that God does NOT exist without any "claims" being involved to reject.
If not circular, pretzel logic this...
I can't "exclude ANY evidence of God," if I can't establish any evidence of God. It's not an assumption that "NONE of the evidence is God." It's an evaluation of the evidence, all of it, and a determination as to what conclusions we can most properly and accurately draw.
To put it another way, we don't exclude any evidence the earth is flat. We examine the evidence, all of it, and conclude as the facts dictate. About all things. Or we should anyway. Needless to say, theists like you don't subscribe to this manner of critical thinking. That's the simple difference. You have your reasons. Atheists have theirs.
Which is the "untenable position?"
Depends on what criteria for establishing the truths of these matters one relies upon to draw proper conclusion. To judge which is the most credible and justifiable given the best of our abilities.
The untenable position that you just do not believe in God claims because there is no evidence that convinces you is self-contradicting. In order for you to exclude ANY evidence of God, you have to ASSUME that NONE of the evidence is of God. That is IMPLICIT in your claimed unbelief but you can only ASSUME that if you THINK AND BELIEVE there is NO God for any of the existing evidence to apply to. To YOU, it is NOT EVIDENCE of God in any way, shape, or form. That is pretty unambiguously a belief that God does NOT exist without any "claims" being involved to reject.
Learnme above nailed it. Your logic is (like all Theist logic) back to front. The burden of proof is on you to show that any Evidence is of God or any god or supernatural kind.
This over many discussions,you have signally failed to do, so your apologetic fails and your attempt to show my position untenable shows that, despite your undoubted smarts, and not dwelling on your habit of shouting block caps as though that made your case more compelling, you are incapable of thinking logically, because your entire mindset is based on Faith in an unvalidated god-claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) there was no god of any kind, is still the universal misconception of atheism by the public. 
