this man reminds me a lot about Einstein he says i am not a communist an internationalist ,he says i am a scientist fore the world not for a country (duringWW2)IMAGINE THAT NEIL IS LIKE EINSTEIN I feel like that idk why
@ well the problem being that, while they are gods, the norse religion wouldnt coincide with the marvel version - maybe a branch of norse gods would exist in that universe. Granted, if you were teleported to the marvel universe id think a norse god would be the least of your worries
@Lalate Beautifully said, I tell my folks these words everyday. good to save money but most people don't understand the market moves and tend to be misled in facts like this and always depend on money in the bank.
Hey, that actually works out What compels you to need to label what you two have? You hang around each other a lot and get closer day by day til you just realize you're partners without having to point it out I'd say that guy's response is perfectly fine
thats how my relationship ended you dont have to label anything at all. let it flow. names ruined it. she named it so did i so did others- expectations and the whole shebang. it didn't had to be that way unless i too wanted it to end that way.
Lol no, it's that he hasn't seen evidence, so he won't waste his time with all the convolution, but at the same time is open to it, and mentally prepared, if it exists. People waste so much time on the unknown, they become out of touch with the now and known.
@Known4475543 I agree with you as far as "younger people" growing up and how their situation and environment can effect them, but this is relative up to the point that most people become mature enough to see past this and can use their freewill to choose to be good or evil. I think similar to your statement good and evil is synonymous to intelligence and non-intelligence. Are you yourself religious at all? I myself am a young Earth creation Christian Bible literalist.
Jeff Smith, if that's the atheist position, then why do so many atheists whine at me for being stubbornly agnostic, and (correctly) noting that the answer to any question with no evidence is "I don't know, maybe"? Also, I don't care if a century ago you could technically call an agnostic an "agnostic atheist", the words are mutually exclusive in modern colloquial usage, and more importantly, in attitude.
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated I don't know what atheists you're speaking to. Our position is that we reject the idea of Supernatural god unless he can be shown, unequivocally that such a God exists. What if I told you I had a cat named Smokey? Do you believe that I do?
Jeff Smith, from a purely scientific perspective I have no reason to believe or disbelieve that you have a cat named Smokey. I have no real data about whether you live with cats and what their names may be, and it's also not something that in any way affects my life. Similarly, I don't reject or accept what'd commonly be called "the supernatural" (a term I find silly, because if something is real and exists then it's part of nature), I have no data either way. My philosophy rests upon knowing that we are dumb, hairless, barely glorified monkeys. We're comparatively ignorant and stupid in understanding the infinite glory of reality.
@@NN-sp9tu Why should I, forcefully, associate myself with a movement? Can I be free of labels or not? It is not being pretentious, it is just thinking by ourselves. Period.
I find this analogy flawed. Imagine a world where almost everyone played golf.. Some played golf on a sunday, some played golf 5 times every day. Since you were born, your parents kept insisting that you play golf. If you don't, you are going to hell. You don't like playing golf. You don't even know if playing golf is going to positively impact you.. There is no evidence that playing golf helps you yet everyone around you wants you to play it. Why? Because when they were young, everyone around them insisted them to play it and so on. This is when you'll start finding groups talking about why they don't want to play golf and create anti-golf associations
@@kentonian Religion has literally nothing to do with his career as an astrophysicist, let alone the fact that religious views one way or the other are highly personal and subjective. I'm an atheist myself, but honestly, I wish every fucking person on earth just kept their religious views _to themselves._ It shouldn't ever BE anyone else's business.
@@ember-brandt I'm afraid it's not religious views. Its facts, there is no scientific evidence for any of the claims of religion. Allow this brainwashing to propagate and it causes wars, segregation and an inability to use critical thinking. No human should be abused with that nonsense.
@@kentonian I'm not relgious but the problem is not relgious people nor Athiest it's just the people. Yes there are wars and riots cause by relgious traditions but there are also wars and riots that were Led by atheist to. Their are relgious people who actually take care of the World and animals and feed the poor and there are Athiest who loves life and the Earth and help people know their value. So you see the problem is not unbelievers or relgious people it's the condition of are heart
Jevon Frost you might be pointing out those whom use beliefs for their own gain like the prosperity Gospel televangelist, and other extreme religious groups.
@@osmq4287 one simply doesn't believe (Atheist) and the other actively attacks others for believing in a god. Most Atheist I know are usually just that untill some theist attacks them first but are otherwise non caring of what you believe as long as you leave them alone.
@@grayfox6930 So.. When i think about it, i am an atheist. As soon as i tell you, about it, i become an anti-theist? To me your answer makes as much sense as the believe in gods - Non at all. .. How would you call a theist who actively attacks others for not believing in the same god, he was indoctrinated to believe in?
@@osmq4287 no your not an anti theist for telling someone your atheist, your an anti theist when you actively seek out fights with theist about their beliefs with the goal of harming theism its self. For the second question I don't know if their is an official modern title but I'd refer to those kind of people as Crusaders.
No its not. Religious: Belief that there is a god without any evidence. and not willing to change that perspective by rational arguments or evidence. Atheist: Disbelief in god because there is no evidence to suggest there is one, but if evidence becomes available is willing to change their minds. Agnostic: wimping out not willing to take a proper stand on your position because you don't want to piss the religious people off and have a smaller audience base in the case of Neil. Neil is a scientist and science is based on evidence and not on maybe so for him to apply this to everything in his life except for god is just weak.
Roberto Zadra or agnostics don't care because they realise in the fallacy and pointless attitude and conviction people put into their belief theist or atheist
@Mimi is back I really loved what you had to say and I feel that I have a very similar train of thought to you. So you are a believer but you think there is no logical or scientific way to prove God? Did I get that right?
@@Eskimoso they arent. atheism isn't a movement all. the movement being pushed by *certain* proclaimed atheist's is actually called anti-theism. Christian's will go out and look for fights and ways to convert others to Christ because that's what God ordered them to do. Anti-theists will do the same, go out and look for fights to express their opposition towards the belief of god, except they do it because they are against theism as a concept. Atheists on the other hand? They just don't believe in god. No rules they need to follow, no fights they inherently need to be entered into either.
This is always how I've explained what agnostic is. I've been agnostic for as long as I can remember. I think I want to believe there's something else after we die only because of losing my mother and sister. I don't like thinking that they're just "nothing" now You know? But there is no proof of a "God" or "Higher Being" or whatever. So maybe there just isn't anything, maybe we just die and that's it. I'm willing to accept both of these possibilities but hell for all we know when we die we turn into insects or aliens. No one really knows until they're gone. But just know that I will respect your beliefs if you respect mine. Just because you believe in something and I may not believe in the same thing doesn't make me a bad person, just like it's doesn't make you a bad person. Be open minded people, be kind and be respectful.
Buggie Marie Just remembered that we can't comprehend everything as humans. And that everything is how we perceive it. And that it's possible that we are conscious beings experiencing what it's like to be human. Not humans experiencing a consciousness. I'm not pushing anything on you and I'm not religious. But just think, if there is consciousness and a higher consciousness, you think us as young as humans are would be able to explain it all through science? Not happening. We can only sense with our eyes, nose, etc. You ever realize that we could be missing things in space or maybe directly in front of us because we can't experience it? It's not only possible but likely. We don't even understand why gravity exists. Or how life started. Or how we have a consciousness. There are things that very very Intelligent people have seen and experienced that they can't explain and that have changed their minds about the meaning or start of things. Again no pushing you, as I'm not even sure what I believe, but I know we don't have close to all the answers. Not close.
Yes, but he's not being 100% truthful or accurate here. First if all, I am an atheist, but I do not believe in shoving that down other people's throats UNLESS they are pushing destructive policy or pushing their own rigid set of "values" or extremist beliefs on others including hatred of certain sections of the population. Second, Tyson, when he gets very upset in interviews or debates with fundamentalists, becomes a very vocal atheist, so I can see why there are those who view him as such as he is highly critical of evangelicalism. An agnostic is someone who does not believe in a god but also does not deny the existence of a "God" should evidence ever present itself that a god exists (which has never occurred). Good scientists value facts, and facts are the foundations of theories. Theories might change over time when new facts are discovered, but the old facts do not change (the theories simply shift with the new facts). A scientist must be open to new facts, but never willing to ignore them as a fact remains a fact -- always.
@@adolphsanchez1429I understand what you're saying, and as someone who goes to a maths and science specialty school. Though, I think what Neil is saying is that human knowledge is so limited and we don't know what there is in store for this universe. Confining in something as close to facts in my opinion is still very close minded, you may not open yourself to the doors of possibility. I think he's saying that labels are useless to something you don't know about
I joined a chat group :atheism . I joined because I thought Neil was moderating it. He is not. Tough group to join. I had to back out. I'm looking for help. I'm from the Philippines and we have a religious war in the south. We now also have another war with China. Difficult time for us. Indeed you to know this war is not just about Philippines vs China. The Americans are bringing in the big guns as they watch the Bashi Channel. The European Envoy was here. There will be a war. Bigger than the Ukrainian war. I think we Philippines little small nation has a role to play. I guess I'm just telling you to be ready.
even if the word agnostic isn't the correct word to use his point still stands, he's not stupid enough to claim he knows everything about anything, he explained it pretty well He just doesn't want to belong to any of the 2 major circlejerk clubs
TheSilverazo Most people are agnostic, but agnostic isnt mutually exclusive to being an atheist or a theist. Its an entirely different category that addresses knowledge. You can be a agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or a gnostic theist. Agnostic simply means "without knowledge" and gnostic, with relevance to Agnosticism, is "having knowledge". Most people are actually agnostic as I've said. The only ones that aren't agnostic are those who've been thinking about the topic for a very long time i.e. their whole lives or they are simply really delusional. The main point is that Agnosticism should be a non issue. It should be taken for-granted that people are agnostics, since everyone is just human and no one has any secret or grand knowledge of existence that everyone else is not aware of. So the main issue is not whether theism is correct or atheism is correct, but which is more likely to be correct and therefore more is a more reasonable belief.
TheSilverazo You don't have to be in either club to share one of their core values. A black guy doesn't have to join panthers to be black. A white guy doesn't have to join KKK to be white.
TheSilverazo He isn't just not calling himself anything, he is actively stating that he is not an atheist. There is a difference between not saying anything and saying the opposite.
Tyson never really fails to amuse me by his authenticity as well as his articulation. I love how precise and articulate his message is. As for this matter, as a then "Christian" I can now say that I am an AGNOSTIC.
I was first an Athiest, but then I became Agnostic, because I feel like I am not smart enough to understand anything really. I don't believe in God, but neither do I say "he doesn't exist" I am not hiding. I am not afraid to be an athiest. I just don't see myself as one. All you athiests in the comment section... I thought athiests was objective. Reasonable. Now, you're annoyed because someone is "wrong" in your opinion. I always thought: Christians: "If you do not agree, I will dislike you" Athiests: "I am fine with whatever you believe, but if you want, I would like to discuss it" That seems to be a lie. For both parts.
Judging an entire group of people from what you see on a TH-cam comment section is a bit short sighted. In my experience the people you've described are typical of the TH-cam community so it's natural that a lot of atheists in this comment section would also fit the bill. As with being an atheist or not, (note: I'm not trying to force any labels or anything, just trying to be informative as you seem to be a bit confused as what an atheist actually is) atheism is a belief claim and agnosticism is a knowledge claim. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most people who claim to be atheist or agnostic actually fall under the same category: "soft" atheism, or agnostic atheism (agnostic because they do not *know* if a god exists, and atheism because they *lack* a *belief* that a god exists). Note I said lack of a belief, not a belief that a god does not exist. This is a key distinction that a lot of people do not make. A person who does not believe a god exists and / or who makes the claim to know that a god does not exist is a "hard" atheist, or gnostic atheist (gnostic because they claim to know a god does not exist).
Dan C I am sorry if my comment sounded judgemental to all atheists; that was not my intention. My point is, that I used to think that atheists were generally smart, but as society evolves, more people start to associate themself as atheists and as the "group" grows, so does the possibility of more "bad apples" I feel like I am well aware of the terms, but a good point with the "agnostic atheist" hope I didn't/don't sound like I wanted to offend people directly.
do you believe in god? no? you are an atheist. atheists do not say "there is for certain no god" that is a ridiculous claim. atheists claim "until you provide evidence i do not believe in your god theory", if you ever find a theory of god you do think is plausible.....you are no longer an atheist
If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. Agnostic is not halfway between theist and atheist, because theist and atheist are statements of belief, whereas agnostic is on the scale of existence.
shit content enjoy I can understand that, but then I rather refer myself as an agnostic-atheist. From what I have gathered; atheists basically deny the existence of God (until proven otherwise). If you ask them, whether there is a God or not, they will say "No" where I would say "I don't know" Honestly, I don't really care what I am associated at. All I'm saying is that I do not know if there is a God or not and therefore I will choose to not believe in God nor deny his existence.
Everyone, by definition, is an agnostic, meaning no one can know whether a god or gods exist. Atheism, on the other hand, is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Then there are those who claim to know for certain that their god exists, or those that claim to know that gods do not exist. These are the true fools. Bertrand Russell had it right when he said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
I recently watched a great video that explained that Atheism and Agnostic are not different points on the same spectrum, but they are actually different dimensions/spectrums. Agnosticism is about knowledge, whereas atheism is about belief. So technically we are all agnostics because none of us can know for sure. But if you don't actively believe in a God, you are an atheist. But it's like we shouldn't even need a word for that anymore than we need a word for someone who doesn't believe in fairies or ghosts. A disbelief in a God is not a religion or a belief system, it's merely an absence of a belief. Sure, there are certain aggressive atheists who take their disbelief in God to more aggressive levels, but one can have no belief in God without needing to be part of that aggressive atheism movement. But even Richard Dawkins, as outspoken as he is against God and religion, admits that he is an agnostic atheist because it's impossible to know for sure.
Terry Peterson *Some people like to say any old stupid shit just so they can draw attention to themselves. You are drawing attention to yourself, but it is the wrong kind of attention. God is the devil who resides inside of the Sun with all the rest of those who have died. This Creation is Nature's Garden. A partial list of what Nature contains has been listed on the Periodic Table of Elements which has been around for about 250 years. Your dead hero Lord Russell could not make out his ass from his elbow in this life either, which is he did not make it long term in this life and is frying inside of the Sun for all times. Happy Maturity TP!!!*
Why it's hard for humans to overcome the idea of the god yes it's only exist as idea not a real thing .fuck the evolution played with human minds like this
Libya's philosopher *Not sure what you're askin'. The world worships the hermaphrodite A'bel as god. A'bel was the first person to make slaves and claim to be the creator of all things and also the first person to die. The gods you are referring to are merely surrogates of The Lord god A'bel, who you now know is the devil.*
@@simpleguy38 I don't think you can be both because "believing" is a sub category below "knowing", you can't believe in something and know it is real at the same time necessarily because they are related and "knowing" is a higher category than "belief". Are you a pantheist or agnostic yourself? I guess you can be agnostic toward a particular God and keep the pantheistic view, but not all Gods because your pantheistic view is a type of God......
@@j0hncon5tantine I am not into any religion and I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, I think myself as an agnostic, but I keep wondering about the nature and its laws (specially Energy) which has no beginning nor end, here comes my pantheistic (scientific pantheism) view of the universe. I love science because it's the only methodology to know the truth, I found out that even the great Albert Einstein had the same position as me.
He, as most people, adheres to dogmas and paradigms, whether he admits it or not. He has a very materialistic & reductionist world view. There are two -isms already. How can you even begin to understand the universe, if you close your eyes from all the possibilities that are out there... what if you can't measure them all, don't they exist then?
@@prince-solomon The only reliable way to test our hypothesis is science. We only talk about things that can be independently verified because if they're not, then there exists no difference between an experience a single person had and a delusion.
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" -Epicurus
Lnathang Why does any of that matter? A religion's idea of what God might be has zero influence on whether or not there actually is one (or 2 etc.). Plus, that argument is overused and useless. If there was a God, and also eternal life, who cares if you experience evil for a short period on earth. Heck, even if your whole life was misery, that's a small price to pay for eternal happiness(if that's one's belief). It's not unlike arriving at the conclusion of an afterlife, because one believes in God. The two are mutually exclusive. There could be God, and no afterlife, or afterlife and no God, or both.
If God removed all the evil himself, then what would us humans do? God is the creator and deity, not a baby sitter. He is like a parent, he won't prevent us from doing anything, but if we do something wrong, then there will be consequences. If God stopped all evil and revealed all secrets, then there would be no purpose for humanity. Pure heart and knowledge would be nothing. Truth is, He is both able and willing, but there is a little gap called "time" between the two. He is able now, but willing to judge later.
Alpha Papa a similar argument can be used. If there is no God and afterlife, then why bother maintaining a guideline in this world? We can do whatever the fuck we want, kill people, lie and cheat etc. Escaping from the law is easy, but escaping from conscience isn't. And that conscience is God.
TheMatrix1101 Are you saying that if tomorrow, you found out there was no afterlife or God, you would disregard all values and morals you currently have? I will ask another point: If killing someone sends them to eternal happiness in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor by saving them from the misery and suffering of human life, to replace it with eternal life in Heaven? I view "Evil" as subjective as well. Is a hunter not evil to the deer? By your choice of words, I'm guessing your idea of evil is derived from a very old book, written by humans with similar ideas. If you can demonstrate that "Evil" is a mutually exclusive property in nature, without appealing to aforementioned human-consrtucted writings, I will listen.
Interesting thought: When you code a game, you don't want it to be all positive and good. You add bad guys, some of them even kill the good ones, to show people how they ultimately fail.
MikeAvenger08 Very dodgy answer from him. It's not respectful to associate all the baggage of the word atheist (as he mentions himself earlier on) to atheists by suggesting they're all activists.
Of course it was. Both Tyson and Nye are losing popularity for pissing off both religious followers as well as other scientists who believe it's a complete waste of time arguing about someone's religious faith. People want positive science; not perpetual wars over "I'm right - you're wrong" childish antics. I could care less if someone believes in God or not, if they're cool people and my friend, well, that's all that counts.
Mike Shearman Except our beliefs inform our actions and we can see that religious beliefs are used to justify bigotry on a daily basis. Challenging the beliefs directly (or any other woo, such as homeopathy) protects people in the future from such harm. It's not all or nothing. Some people can address religion while some address science and others address both. It's disingenuous for NDT to pretend that religious beliefs have no impact on others, however, and to also claim he doesn't like labels because they have baggage attached while simultaneously attaching baggage to a label (atheist).
@@davedurosier Imagine being entitled to another man's words who CLEARLY said that he is an educator and likes getting people to think for themselves. People who like to have evidence before standing firm on a belief is not a rare trait to only one person.
@@Mark-Wilson depends how you define the word huxley the one who created the term did not split belief and knowledge. he literaly says in matters of intellect one shouldnt make claims or hold beliefs they have no evidence for. it was george smith who later on split the two into knowledge and belief. personally i myself i take huxlyes definition so to me saying agnostic atheist is cognitively dissonant as one shouldnt hold any beleif or claim without evidence.
A true wise man. He only gives a shit about something important, immediate and beneficial for the society. Just like Elon Musk as inventor helping scientist also, and other great inventors and scientists. Think like inventors and scientists, not like great debaters.
I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I don't actively believe in a God and I don't see any evidence to believe in one. But I acknowledge that I do not know everything and I could be wrong.
+Jayo Caine My problem with agnostics is that their mentality is completely retarded, because it can be put to anything. "Are unicorns real, but just really, really good at hiding?" No, of course not. That's ludicrous. But I can't 100% prove it, so therefor I won't say that it's not true. It's fucking stupid. If everyone had that mentality, we'd never grow as a race. I mean... leprechauns could be real, hell, sjulkdsfsiss could be real - they are a creature I just made up then, that are invisible gremlins that live in hair and are made from a substance that humans don't have the technology to detect. I mean, you can't prove 100% that sjulkdsfsiss aren't real, can you? Therefor, you won't say, "They are not real." Even though I clearly just made them up. It's so silly. There is no God. I know there is no God. Could I be wrong? Of course. But labeling myself something that gives myself an out to something that makes literally zero sense is, in my opinion, stupid. As stupid, if not more so, than religious people. At least they have the balls to stand by their beliefs.
Curtis Kings Heh, it's pretty funny how you completely miss the point of my post, yet are arrogant enough to call me an imbecile. I said very clearly, I could be wrong. But I still know there is no God. I mean, I know that I am writing on a computer right now, just as you know you are reading what I wrote. I could be wrong, though. I could be in a mental institute pushing my fingers on a padded wall and your vitriolic response could merely be me making up an asshole out of some insecurities I have. I could be in a jar somewhere living in virtual reality. I could be dying, and all this is simply the memories of my life 'flashing before my eyes', yet as it's a memory I perceive it as reality. I don't know anything I just said isn't true, fuck, it could all be true - my brain could be dying, flashing its life before its eyes of me in a mental institute imagining this ridiculous conversation... ...but I know none of that is true. I could be wrong! But I still know that none of that is true... get that? Understand that point? Understand how anything we 'know' is really just our perception of reality which we accept, and we know it's true, even if there's a tiny, minuscule chance it's not true? Well, asshole, that's atheism. I know there's no God, because the concept of a God is fucking ridiculous. Any conscious deity which has control over the universe is a joke. I know it's a joke. Anyone who is intelligent knows its a joke. It's simply not true. But it could be true! It very well may be. But it's so fucking unlikely, so completely crazy and delusional, that we know it's not true, we live our lives as it's not true, and the chance is so strong we are correct, that our knowledge is a truth, as anything is a truth judged by conscious perception. That was clearly my point, which you skewed in an attempt to attack me - ironic, or perhaps fitting, considering you're trying to prove the existence of a God. lol. But yes, I hope you understand my very clear point now I made it even clearer for you. (Note: I am no way inferring that there's not powerful beings in the universe, or perhaps beings that exist of pure conscious or of another dimension. Perhaps to us they'd even be Gods. I am saying there's no all powerful God who gives a flying fuck about humans and what we do. There simply isn't. I could be wrong! But that doesn't make me agnostic. Because I know it's not wrong.)
Hot Dogs where you throw me off mi amigo is your repeated use of "I know"... Sounds ludicrous and foolish. You can't say you know for a fact that pencil x is black yet go ahead and say BUT I may be wrong. You can't "know" about the existence of a being or beings that possibly exists outside the objective flow of time and matter. You said it best, what we know as reality is that we percieve, the incoming and surrounding stimuli in our environment. So don't go ahead and say you "know" jackshit about anything otherwise. "I know there's no god because the concept of a god is ridiculous" see how preposterous that sounds? You know there isn't not because you died and returned but because the idea is ridiculous... Seems legit. What POSSIBLY exists outside of time and matter is certainly ridiculous to process with a brain that IS subjected to time.I wasn't attacking you, if you had a brain you would realize how you started off by insulting agnostics which is a position of knowledge and the best position thereof if you ask me.
Finally? Other than the several dozens of other videos discussing Agnosticism? Other than the numerous articles and (*gasp*) source material on the subject?
Sort of.... What Neil clearly doesn't understand however is that the question of agnosticism is an entirely different question, it's a belief about knowledge at that's it. There are both agnostic theists and agnostics atheists so saying you're "just agnostic" doesn't cut it and doesn't answer the question. You either believe or don't believe. Most people regardless of what they believe are agnostic.
To be honest I think he got it slightly wrong. It's hard to think of a word that is more misused in the english language today than the word "agnostic". Huxley, who coined the term, described the agnostic position as not only not knowing if there is a God or not, but denying that knowledge of God and his existence is even possible. In other words, everyone who claims to know that there is a God or that there isn't a God is claiming to know more than they can know, from the agnostic viewpoint. Since we can't know anything about God, all we have is speculation that can't lead anywhere. So for the agnostic the question if there is a God or not is irrelevant.The agnostic is not open to new evidence, but holds as a principle that knowledge of God is IMPOSSIBLE. The agnostic doesn't believe in God and is in that sense passively an atheist, but doesn't actively deny the existence of God either. I hope this helped you a bit if you felt confused about agnosticism. Don't worry, you're not the first.
Don't listen to Ryan and dam... Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with athe-ism, the belief gods do not exist, or the-ism, the belief gods do exist. “I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may.” "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." He outright considered it "immoral" to form beliefs about objective truth claims without any objective evidence. So, no, not compatible with believing gods exist, or don't exist. "That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions." And, no, he didn't define it as some oxymoronic gnostic agnosticism that claims to know something is eternally unknowable or claims to know that nobody else knows either. "The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as “unknowable.” What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of uncertainty-the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities -is far more extensive than I could wish."
The Huxley Agnostic Your definition of Agnosticism is correct, and correctly sourced. Your definition of atheism (or athe-ism, to highlight your subjective choice of where to place the prefix and suffix) is presuppositional. The definition involving "doctrine" or "denial" has no clear objective origin; the term is historically and etymologically ambiguous, it was not notably coined (unlike Agnosticism), and seems to have begun as little more than an insult towards theists who rejected the "correct" god. We could argue as to which way the word "should" be defined, but that argument would be as pointless as the argument over "does god exist". The two more relevant points are: 1) Unlike the staunch materialists in the X Club and Royal Society that Huxley sought to differentiate from, the majority of atheists in the modern free world define their atheism in terms of disbelief and not denial. And there's evidence this isn't a "recent" phenomenon. Though in terms of history, it's only been relatively recently that it was at least somewhat socially acceptable to identify as an atheist... prior to that point the only people who use such a term publicly were the sort willing to attract controversy and argument given the irrational hatred and ignorance and cultural oppression that came standard with the majority worldview. 2) "The doctrine that knowledge of god is impossible" and "belief that we can't know anything beyond the material" are both considered alternate definitions of agnosticism. Often quoted as well, and not just by the ignorant. Can you acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy in your dismissing an alternate definition of agnosticism while simultaneously insisting (by implication of argument) that atheists conform to the one definition of atheism you feel most useful in demonstrating your distinction from it?
"I don't play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don't ski?" I'm dying here 😂
it's almost like the importance of whether someone believes in a god(s) is much more important than whether you play a particular sport or not. Not to mention the years of persecution and mistreatment of people who have dared to think differently - for example try being a non Catholic christian in Spain in the 16th century But no, yeah. great argument
Do you get rejected by your family if you don't play golf ? Do you get fired from your job if they find out you don't play golf ? Do people actively try to pass legislation that will require your children to play golf in school ? Are there countries in the world that would kill you if they found out that you don't play golf ?
@@Rahn127 you all have a point and you're right, i felt something was off in the argument, and here you are highlighting it, maybe Neil forgot the part of oppression and the wild discrimination that was and still being practiced on the non golf players!
It was not a great analogy from Neil. Religion is a much more important entity than golf in our world. Most of society is involved in religion compared to golf where most of society could care less. I am an avid golf fan however. Secondly, religion impacts the world much much more than golf. There are things that happen in the world due to religion or in the name of religion that many times need to be addressed. I'm talking about religious holidays being forced on people of other religions in some countries. I'm talking about wars fought over religion that might really be wars over land and power. Some key people involved in these wars might be driven by cruelty and wickedness. On a lighter note, people who are new to each other could find themselves in some kind of interaction where religion is involved, and either right at that moment, or eventually, it might be prudent for one person to tell the other person or group, that he or she is different and not part of a particular religious group. Think of a Jew being offered a slice of pizza with bacon on it. Think of marriage proposals. Think of people that do not appreciate the invention of electricity. People who are agnostic or atheist may have a good reason to gather and discuss the way they live, problems they encounter and solutions to those problems. Many people they meet may be part of a religious denomination, and be very decent people indeed. Therefore an atheist might want to let that other person know who they really are and where they stand out of respect for the other person. So, if your not a golfer...yes, just forget about a non golfer type of group supporting non golfers. Your life will not be impacted. However, If you are an Agnostic or an Athiest, there could be a number of good reasons for you to meet with debate, and converse with other people. That's just my take on it all. I can still appreciate Neil's video here.
You have an instrument that is shaped like a club, and called a club, but if you use it like a club, you will be unsuccessful, at best. Why would you expect NdGT to participate in such a "sport"?
What it comes down to is labels in society cause more problems then they aim to solve whether its sexuality, race, or religion people want to have a single word to describe those people but in reality people associated to those labels do not all have the same pattern of thinking. Everyone has their own opinions, beliefs, and moral values and no group has the authority to accuse any person's way of thinking as being "right" or "wrong".
@@fabianlindberg7051 The God and creator of everything, Allah Almighty, if you really search through the religions, you’ll find that most of the nations believed in the same God ( regardless of the name ), but some religions claim that God has a son ( like Christianity ), and some other claim that there are more gods with that God, even you’ll find the concept of hell,Adam, adultery punishments, demons.. etc before Judaism, so it is clear that the religion is the same one but people add their additions to it.. Today the only one religion that is still pure monotheistic, is Islam, I hope you got it.. May Allah guide your heart
@@14__16 I don’t believe that people from other religions would agree with you, that Allah is not god. Doesn’t really matter though since there is no god!
It's hilarious to me, the comments on this video and the article I found it in. The man flat out SAYS, "I am not an atheist" and people are still trying to claim he is! He changed his own Wiki page (a page NOT created by him) to reflect that he is not an atheist and every time he did, someone changed it back. Unbelievable. The man is intelligent, educated, well-spoken and well-versed in the subject. If he says he's not an atheist, HE'S NOT. Give it up, wtf?
I disagree here. I'm an agnostic myself, and the point is that we believe that there isn't enough proof one way or another as to whether or not God exists. That doesn't flat out mean that we don't believe he doesn't exist period. We're still waiting on the proof you see.
I love when people do that. "WHICH GOD DO YOU CLAIM???" It is a weapon they try to use against the religious. If someone is agnostic or otherwise not religious, that won't work. :)
Agnostics deserve 0 respect. They act in a way that makes them seem above the parts of the dispute. Their elevated and not-caring attitude is low key annoying and snob. Their slothfulness is very conceited
"At the end of the day, I'd rather there not be any category at all." Many people complain that categories enable division and tribalism, and this is a valid complaint. But let's not overlook the fact that categories and generalizations are perhaps the most useful tool in the cognition toolbox. For example, your beliefs about God can easily and accurately be summed up by the phrase "skeptical agnostic atheist," and then we wouldn't need a 4-minute video about it. Some generalizations can gloss over nuance, but that can easily be remedied by saying "but" and explaining the nuance. If you tell someone that you fall into a certain category, and they then presume to know everything about you, then that's their fault, not the category's. Even if you refrain from mentioning a category by name, the other person will just pigeonhole you into a category of their choice as soon as your explanation starts to resemble it. Categories aren't the problem. People are. Tribalists gonna tribe.
Anything can be used to control people: Politics, tv shows, sports, media, newspapers, economical theories, philosophical views (Marxism), universities, schools and so on. Many scientists are religious, it is insane to put effort to talk about something you don't believe. Non-golfer reunions are nonsense.
@@Alireza_farhoudi yes it is lmao. The whole point of laws is to try to prevent people from doing certain things. Those things may be harmful to themselves or others, so it's not bad to forbid it, but it's still a form of control
the sad thing is some people are not able to form their own views and opinions therefore they allign themselves with ideology/movement labels. Because of this they transform into "sheeps", accepting any ideas from an ideology/movement without much thought in it.
"I do not claim to *know*, where many ignorant men are *sure*. That is all that 'agnosticism' means to me." --Clarence Darrow. Neil does a fantastic job of explaining the difference between agnosticism and atheism. As an agnostic often marginalized or erased in such debates by both theists and atheists who believe there is no middle ground between their positions, it heartens me to see such a public figure as Neil explaining this so well.
Agnosticism and Atheism talk about two different things here which makes them not exclusive. Agnostic tells you what you don't know about this subject, atheism tells you what you don't believe about this subject. A person is either a theist or a atheist, you either hold a belief there is a god or you do not hold a belief there is a god, you also either know there is or is no god or you don't know if there is or is no god. Saying i don't believe in a god says nothing about what i might believe to the contrary, the same as saying i don't know says nothing about what i might know to the contrary. There really is no middle, a lot of people don't like to identify themselves as a atheist is all this is.
Replicators I don't think it's right to assert that belief, as a property rather than a concept, is binary. This is where atheism fails. It implies that you have to either believe or not. What if I don't choose to actively take a stance? Take someone like Neil. You ask him "do you believe in god?" and what is his response? Probably "I don't know, the subject isn't of interest to me". I believe that anybody interested in conducting their lives rationally ceases to hold any active position in the conversation, one way or another. It's sort of absurd to speculate on the existence of something that, by definition, is unknowable. This way, I assert that you can, in fact, be solely agnostic and not additionally "theist or atheist". Both belief and disbelief are essentially worthless, in a rational world, thus the "non-skier" and "non-golfer" example.
Matt Beckman Are you suggesting that I must either believe or disbelieve the existence of a god to post a comment on TH-cam or merely that I wouldn't bother if I didn't?
Adam, your guess about Tyson's attitudes was correct. He has stated in interviews that people trying to categorize or label him as an atheist, or scold him for not being a good enough atheist, annoy him. He doesn't want to be labelled period, he doesn't care about whether god exists or not, and he doesn't like to waste time thinking about it when he could be *doing science*. This naturally pisses off some zealous atheists who prefer to insist that there be no middle ground and keep trying to rope all agnostics into their bitter war against religion. They need to learn that some agnostics bear religion no particular ill will and feel we have better things to do with our lives than beat our heads against the brick wall of theism for eternity.
You can totally be a shy atheist. I am. I don’t really argue with anyone but I’m fully aware that god is nothing. I just keep it to myself because I don’t really see the point in failing to convince someone else to be reasonable and address their their imaginary delusions. It’s almost always going to result in that person holding onto their beliefs as I do mine. No one will ever convince me god is real and I understand it’s the same for those who choose to believe otherwise. Period.
I envy westerners who can publicly talk about their actual believes without getting harassed or even killed. I was born and raised in a conservative Muslim country, and I have to play along to avoid troubles, and sometimes get dragged to prayers that has a huge impact on my IQ, it was obvious for me how Islam is so wrong and violent since I was 8 years old during Islamic classes, tried to seek truth for a while but ended up being physically harmed by teachers just for asking, I wish I can leave this shit hole someday and save what's left of my IQ ... I wish I was born in Europe or US :(
+Dandal Ero This is so sad to read, but it's good to remember that there are many people who suffer in this way. Being someone who was raised in a Christian community in the US, I often think how grateful I am not to have been born during the inquisition, for even if the prison of dogma had not effectively restrained me (not a likely scenario without the internet and the ability to express doubts freely), I would have had to hide for fear of pain and death. Your comment is a sobering reminder that many people in the world today must live in a similarly nightmarish scenario. I sincerely hope that you are able to leave soon. At least you're able to think for yourself and don't have to live as a slave to harmful doctrine and a sadistic, imaginary being. Most people born into your situation can't even have that said of them.
+Dandal Ero i feel you bro, our story are totally the same.. the difference is i was raised as a "Muslim" in so-called Islamic moderate nation ( but it turn out to be bullshit, because the society i was raised in are conservative and our goverment administrated by some extreme religious person.. ).. thinking about getting US visa 5 or 6 years later
Some Christians go through the same thing dude . The Roman Catholic Church created christiniaty or corrupted it and they made Islam so Muslims will fight against each other Christians . ( I know that Christians , Jews and Muslims get along in morroco .And that a mosque is besides a church there in eithopia and they get along find . I am basically saying that even through that there are radical Christians and Muslims . And even thorough their are ppl from all 3 groups that get along the powers of that be fucked up everything . Go Watch the Islamic connection to Rome and whited out 3 on TH-cam . I will be praying for you .
I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I’m always very skeptical and am always wondering, but feel that at the end of the day heaven and god isn’t real. However I’m open to anything. I’ve had many conversations with friends, some saying my dad who committed suicide when I was 9 would go to hell because he was atheist. Was I offended? No, because I asked the question, expecting an honest answer. And I didn’t debate at all. I listened to so many peoples stories of what they believe, people from Christians to Bahai etc, some online some irl, and let them say their entire story, not debating them once. A person should always do this. Don’t debate, listen. If you debate you won’t learn anything. If you listen however, you will gain much knowledge potentially lost.
So true. If only we learned to listen to everyone for what they have to say, we would be better people. Most people listen only to counter on all points but what you did opens up the path to a bigger understanding. Thank you for sharing this.
@@noahhenderson3164 mathematically there is no difference.stats actually doesn't give a fuck whether you died riddled with bullets or a deadly virus.Human life at the end causes a tiny variation in the infinite scale of the universe.
@@OptimusDelta "empathy is useless cuz there is no meaning in the universe" "I refuse to abide by evolutionary adaptations while praying to the science of the lack of meaning of the universe" - very picking and choosing of you. Just like our friend Tyson. It's almost the same thing thiests do. Fancy that
+Johann Sebastian Bach Not "just like Dr. Tyson." That would imply that Dr. Tyson hasn't bothered to think about it. He is really atheist, but not the kind of atheist that people associate with the term. He isn't some fucker who goes out, as a comment on this video said, "Circle Jerking," because that completely ruins the point. Tyson will speak if someone asks his opinion, but he won't go out actively finding atheists to agree with him. He knows he's right. He doesn't need other people to tell him so.
Tiffany Weaver No, it's not harder to argue with them. That type of bullshit means that you haven't thought about it enough. Most atheists who come from religion go through a phase of agnosticism and/or deism. If you really believe that there *could* be a god, you must not understand the world around you very well. We have great explanations for all but the most complicated and far away things, so no god is needed. Yes, an athiest could always be wrong, and any smart atheist should admit that, but it's like saying: "There could be a teapot orbiting Jupiter. I cannot disprove this. Yet, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that there isn't one. It's so unlikely that we may as well not even consider the possibility." This is one reason that atheism is a more intelligent way of looking at it than agnosticism.
I don't think it matters what group you fit in spiritually, religiously, scientifically or whatever. What matter is that you continue to think and you're open to the possibilities to the universe.
But some will, not a majority. People who don't play golf or dislike golf will try to get people to not play golf and advocate against it. It's a two way street of the lesser populations of both categories.
1trueNRG The reason I said that is because he's insinuating that atheism is kind of useless like "a-golfer". The problem is that Christians are constantly trying to impose their beliefs/religion on others by trying to change the laws to suit their desires. Golfers aren't trying to impose anything on others. That's why there's no "a-golfer" movement. Golfers aren't trying to force the schools to teach kids golf in school, but Christians are constantly trying to force schools to teach intelligent design. Christians are constantly trying to ban things like gay marriage and abortion. Golfers usually want to stay to themselves and be left alone, and I have no problem with that. I've also never seen anyone try to force a golfer to not play golf.
You are generalizing Christians very wrongly. You know what Christians are constantly trying to do? Be faithful to God and themselves. You know what they aren't constantly trying to do? Change the way other people live to be more the way they want. And I'm positive there are golfers that one golf taught in schools and will attempt to give schools clubs and teams for golf and incorporate it into physical education. I also know a lot of people who think golf is stupid, not a sport and shouldn't be played especially not over other sports available. But much like Christians and Atheists, that isn't the majority. I know a lot of atheists who belittle, antagonize and ostracize religious people, and I know religious people who think it's their way or the hellway, but I don't stereotype them. Sure, there is a reason to be mad at the combination of church and state, but do you really think christian politicians are the best examples of christians? They're barely the best examples of human beings in a lot of cases.
Chris Thompson I don't think "preaching the gospel" has anything to do with 'forcing' your beliefs through law, which is what this conversation is discussing...
He has intellectual integrity. He admits that he doesn't know. That is humility. I admire him for his consistency. Even though I like the God hypothesis.
*Theist:* "I believe in a God or Gods." *Atheist:* "I do not believe in a God or Gods." *Agnostic Theist:* "I believe in a God & I don't think it can be known for certain." *Agnostic Atheist:* "I don't believe in a God & I don't think it can be known for certain." *Gnostic Theist:* "I believe in a God & I know it exists." *Gnostic Atheist:* "There is no God & I know for certain." Agnosticism only addresses knowledge, NOT belief. You either believe something or you don't.
Yes, correct. Why do people not understand this? I'm an agnostic atheist. That's a thing because of the different basis of each word. But Neil also makes a good point about just not having a label. I understand that people create labels and word associations to better organize and thus understand the world around them, but some things just don't need labels, like someone who doesn't ski. That's the Taoist and Buddhist ideology, to not have labels because categorizing things prevents seeing the oneness of everything.
Freshairkaboom Gaming No Deist believe in a higher power, not a god. There is a Difference I'm a Agnostic Deist... I don't believe in a god so I can't be a Theist Though technically if you think about it... Everybody is Agnostic... No body actually knows for sure. no one can know.
Forsaken Fenix It's a claim of knowledge. Gnostic people claim to know, and they do exist. Presuppositionalists, for instance. I think you need to simply google deism. It's the belief that a god exists and/or created everything, but does not interact with us in any way. There are a lot of atheists who believe in a higher power. As long as it's not a deity of any kind, they're still atheists.
This video perplexes me a bit. I think he just wants to move past the need for labels. But agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism and gnosticism are declarations of knowledge/certainty. It is possible to be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist, as it is possible to be an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist. Gnostic Theist = I know for a fact there is a god. Agnostic Theist = I believe there is a god but cannot be certain. Gnostic Atheist = I know for a fact there is no god. Agnostic Atheist = I do not believe in a god but cannot be certain.
He's basically saying that he's an agnostic atheist. He says he has seen no evidence of a god, or something like that. That's what an atheist is. He's an atheist, whether he likes it or not.
@@grizzkarizz2960 he literally said "if there is any evidence of god i am ready to accept it" that's not an atheist and believe it or not all scientists are like that, they think there is no god but they are ready to accept that there is.
@@haseeman5562 I'm an atheist who thinks exactly the same way. He says he's ready to accept the notion if any evidence is provided. Cool. That means he doesn't at this point of time believe that one exists. That's the definition of an atheist.
@@grizzkarizz2960 that's still not an atheist, atheist are annoying people who won't believe in a god even if we find actual evidence while neil on the hand just doesn't care, there is a difference.
@@haseeman5562 nope. That's a gnostic atheist. Neil's beliefs, or lack of, are exactly like mine. I will accept that there is a god if shown evidence. He is an agnostic atheist.
As much as I respect Neil, I somewhat disagree with his comparison to the "non-golf player". The term "atheist" exists as a response to religion, because it's prevalent enough to warrant a term to distantiate ourselves from believers. If golf was as prevalent, powerful and influential as religion, a similar term would exist for "non-golf players" and would likely see common usage. Religion is used in major decisions and politics, even in secular nations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was ever an actual golf war. A more apt (but still imperfect) comparison would be between liberals and conservatives. People range from being a full blown conservative to a full blown liberal and anywhere in between. Complete agnosticism is the middle ground between a theist and an atheist. Agnostic theism leans towards one end, agnostic atheism towards the other. With the scale being decided by the degree of our agnosticism. I'm reasonably confident in my belief that there is no god, but I can't possibly claim to be absolutely certain. I'm an agnostic first and an atheist second. I don't claim to have evidence against the existence of any god, but I do have a few decent arguments to disbelieve in any specific individual god. That is what makes me an atheist. Not a firm belief that no god could possibly exist. I don't think I will ever have the absolute knowledge required to make that kind of assessment. I do believe the world would fall into chaos, should any specific god ever be proven to exist and be the only real god. It would shift the spectrum from atheists and theists to followers and enemies of this god. It would lead to a religious war on a scale we can't even imagine. And no, I don't know where on that spectrum I would place. I don't think any of us realistically do until we get to that point. It would certainly see a rise in misotheism that could only be curbed by a tyrannical deity.
I didn't read your whole comment but i also disagreed with that point.. there are vegetarians and non vegetarians, and we definitely need a word to distinguish between both.. same goes with atheists and believers
I think it hilarious that even after Tyson just plainly explained his stance, there are people here trying to assign a certain (different) meaning to his explanation.
It's not the fact that he is smart that stands him out. It's the fact that he's able to communicate it understandable. There are possibly lots of smarter people around, but they may not be able to communicate it as accurately.
sorry dude, but since you're going for an intelligent declarative statement Imma have to point out your misuse of ample. You could use it to modify reason, but as it modifies "voice" it sounds like you're saying he's a good enough voice of reason that we don't need any other voices. you could also be referring to his girth, saying he is both ample in size and reasonable in voice.
tabularasa0606 damn, your grammar is trippin as well. Facts don't stand anything out, something stands out (or doesn't) due to facts. Also, since understandable modifies a verb, it has to be an adverb, understandably. I agree with you tho, Tyson's relateability is one of his best qualities.
I highly admire NDT. I just wanted to point out that when non-religious groups gather to discuss policy(political, legislative), it is very important because if laws are written by religious folks, it can sometimes go against everything that free humans deserve and have rights to. Combining religious dogma with secular human rights isn't always a great thing and needs oversight.
I personally am equally agnostic and atheist I am agnostic in the empirical sense by which I have not received a direct sign that, as proof, allows me to know the existence or nonexistence of God. I am an atheist in the sense of my lack of faith in a personal god and an organized religion, I abandoned the Catholic Church and its teachings. However, to simplify and avoid misunderstandings I identify myself as an "atheist and secular humanist." And that's it!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a movement, but it is definitely a resistance of sorts. Denying that is impossible. And maybe it's a good thing, although I do feel some atheists get rather obnoxious about the whole thing. Telling people how stupid they are is no way to win an argument. And since I realize that in this day and age the group you identify with is way more important than your individual beliefs, I'll just throw it in there that I'm an Atheist. Make of it what you will.
Sajad theism [thee-iz-uh m] noun 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). Basically, what atheism means is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. In other words, it cannot be a philosophy because the very definition of atheism is precisely not that. As I said, there is definitely a resistance these days. But saying atheism is a philosophy is an overstatement.
Im brazillian, we speak portuguese, but im very happy, that i learned english enought to undersand and talk in a basic way. Videos like that is the reason im soo happy to be able to understand your language. I wish the channel could have portuguese subtitles (i would gladly help if you want) so i could share it to all my friends and family. Idoubt you will read that, but thanks Neil, you trully are an educator!
I agree with Neil. In 80s when I was still in high school I came in contact with Marxism and considered my self a warrior for science. Along with my peer groups I used to debate with many Christian, Islamic, and Hindu clergies. I was hardcore atheist. It continued till my bachelor degree then one my classmate who was very good in physics but still he was hardcore Hindu gave me some books to read. After reading those books I came to know it was not the case that religious people are completely dumbass as we used to think. I wanted to know more about religions objectively. After my Master's in science and I diverted towards anthropology. Anthropology gave me different viewpoint. Today, myself call Buddhist agnostic.
The facts about sports analogy is that it is chosable and not forced into one another and no one is going to kill you for not loving any particular sport..I love his way of thinking though❤️🔥
Such a wise answer. I'm a Christian and I don't care about his religion or anybody else's. I just care about how we can contribute to make the world better.
There is hardly any possibility of going to heaven.there are thousands of confident religions on the planet. Each having their own versions of heaven and hell, god etc. So it will be a huge amount of luck for you to have been born into the right religion and go to heaven 😂
@@lc1777 with all the hundreds of religions out there that are all made up by humans, I feel like none of them would possibly be true and if there was only one true religion, let’s say Christianity, then all the other 6 billion people in the planet would be in hell for believing in something else or being an atheist/agnostic while the 1 billion so called Christians which not all of them are actually deeply religious and they just claim to be a Christian, go to heaven. That would mean about 14% would actually get in heaven while the other 86% stay in hell for an eternity and Satan would have a lot work to do dealing with 6 billion people in hell. And the whole concept of an afterlife just sounds like fiction to me meant to scare people so they can believe in god and even I was questioning this concept myself when I was a kid when I was more religious.
Sooo ... the "atheist" part is redundant. "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley
He was spot on... Atheist = someone who claims God does not exist. Agnostic = Someone who does not claim God exists, nor claims he exists, because there is no proof to his existence or non-existence, but would be willing to claim so if there existed un-deniable, un-questionable, and scientific proof (such as is the case with the existence of forces of gravity) that ever came to light.
***** I can't speak for all agnostics; but *for me*, agnosticism isn't about "middle ground of belief". I'm curious as to why you felt like you needed to assert that; you got any statistical data to back that claim up? An answer of "neither" isn't "middle ground" to either the god question or "Are you from Venus or Mars?" It's just simply a third possibility that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the question. You go on to mention that it is quite simple to accept or reject any proposition. You make it sound like agnostics haven't made one of those two choices. For me and others who follow the same reasoning, we have rejected that *our position* on the god question is "I know god exists". Ditto for "I know god doesn't exist". If we are clear on what we mean by the terms 'god', and 'exist', then god does/does not exist; it *is* one or the other. However, we haven't decided which it is yet until... wait for it... wait for it... WE KNOW. Which brings me to my last point about someone replying to the question "Do you _believe_ a god exists" with "I'm agnostic" or "I don't know". Again, *for me* ( _damn, I almost make it sound like this is my own personal opinion and one shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about a category of people_): 1) I recognize that it's an existential question. 2) I recognize that knowledge is the best means we have at our disposal to address existential questions and I choose this method to determine such things. I haven't got an answer yet with this method, but that's ok. I'm patient in that regard. That is all. Full stop. 3) Wait.. how did we get to #3? Oh, some _slackjaw mofo_ asked me what I *believed*. Fine. 3) I recognize that going with whatever makes me feel good (belief/speculation) to answer existential questions is about as good as using Pin-the-tail-on-the-jackass to determine such things; and as such, choose not to use this method. I am indeterminate in my belief on this matter. That answer your question? Or are you going to stay here and bitch about me using agnosticism as some kind of middle ground to questions of belief when I was trying to tell you that I don't use belief to determine such things? I don't care one way or the other. I'm going back to #2. Buh-bye.
Ataraxia6746 "I recognize that knowledge is the best means we have at our disposal to address existential questions and I choose this method to determine such things." Knowledge is the subset to belief, you have to believe something before you can claim to know anything about it. Belief's turn to knowledge because knowledge is the graduation point of belief, however knowledge never turns to belief. You have to be either a theist or a atheist before you can get to gnostic or agnostic, and that is why you are simply just being dishonest by skipping belief because belief's are what people act upon, not knowledge. Everybody "Should" be agnostic. I don;t care if people want to call themselves agnostic, to me it means they care more about what comforts them from social fears than what is actually true. That is fine, theists can be mean to those who don't agree with them, but atleast recognize that the reason atheists use atheist is because they are being honest with their position, and a lot of them have views they feel they need to express, even if you are apathetical about the subject, but you might be surprised to know that a lot of atheists also share the same view as you. It's fine to call yourself agnostic, just don't misdefine another label just because you don't want to be associated with them, and that is why atheists come down hard on agnostics.
Replicators Instead of requoting everything you typed, I'll just number my responses to each paragraph you wrote. I agree with some parts of what you said, in this and other posts you made; so I'm not completely disagreeable with you. However, you've made several erroneous assumptions I feel like I need to address. (rolls up sleeves) 1) _Knowledge is a subset of belief?_ Matt Dillahunty fan eh? Me too, but I think in this matter he has it wrong. The supposed logic goes: belief is something one holds to be true; and knowledge is that plus other criterion. I disagree that belief is nothing more than "something one holds to be true"; that definition sounds more apt for the word 'claim' or 'assertion'. As far as I can tell, knowledge and belief are the same thing except for one crucial difference: with knowledge, a person feels like all relevant factors have been accounted for in the reasoning behind the assertion; which they do not in the case of belief. So you can't have a characteristic of a subset contradicting a characteristic of the superset. _Knowledge never turns to belief?_ I guess that depends on if you're using the Justifed-True-Belief model for knowledge. There are other models for knowledge that philosophers debate. I don't agree with the JTB model. I don't think knowledge has to *be* true, but rather *thought* to be true under all conceived relevant inquiries. Justified-Reliable-Claim seems to be a better model. 2) _People act upon beliefs_ True story. People also act upon knowledge, coercion, desire, and intoxication to name a few. Also true story. Again, I pick knowledge out of these options as a personal favorite in regards to the god question. Call me crazy. 3 & 4) Not sure what this was all about. I never mentioned the word atheist in that post. I was addressing an assumption that all agnostics were using the label as some sort of middle ground of belief. Truth be told I wish atheist would simply mean indeterminate belief, instead of this tug of war between non-theism & anti-theism. Would bring the term more in line with agnosticism. I'm not afraid of being identified with the label, I just don't find it useful.
Ataraxia6746 I don't care if people want to use agnostic cause they feel more comfortable using it, trust me when i say i get it. I use both just because i am ethical and care about truth over comfort. Nobody is telling you to use atheist really, what we want you people to stop doing is misdefining OUR position just to make you feel more comfortable with YOURS. When someone tells you they are atheist, it only tells you one thing about them, that they do not actively believe there are any gods, it doesn't tell you anything more, and if you want to know more ask them instead of presupposing what they are based on a label they use. When someone tells you they are agnostic, it only tells you one thing about them, that they lack knowledge of any gods, it doesn;t say anymore than that, but if you want to know more then you should ask them. I will consider knowledge as a different form of belief when you can demonstrate knowledge forming into belief's. If you can't, then you really don't know what you are talking about. Knowledge requires justification, meaning evidence to support it, this usually happens with experience of the belief you have. No, people do not act on knowledge, knowledge is only what confirms your belief as true. Knowledge is justified true "Belief", meaning it is pretty much a attachment to belief which confirms it as true by means of justification. I know people try to make apologetics like you are doing to seperate yourselves from atheists, but if you cared at all about what is true, instead of building up apologetics, you should instead be honest.
Agnosticism, from the Greek root agnōstos (not knowing). Keep in mind there were the Gnostics back in the day that proclaimed they had knowledge that was incontrovertible. Agnosticism is the art of not knowing. To throw your ego to the side and admit maybe theres more to learn. "Those that say they know the nature of the universe, know not. Those that say they know not, know it, and are ready for further instruction." Some people define their entire personality on the basis that they have sacred knowledge, ineffable or infallible. Those same people fail to understand their own personal bias.
Theist - Someone who believes in a god Atheist - Someone who does not believe in god. An atheist is not necessarily someone who claims there is no god (though there are some that do) Agnostic is a truth claim, or rather a claim that you do not know if there is a god. You can be both an agnostic and an atheist. They are not exclusive terms since they are not about the same thing. You can also be an agnostic theist. (I know of a few myself). As far as I can tell, Neil does not believe in god, there for he is an atheist. However he does not know if there is no god, so he is also agnostic. I understand why Neil doesn't want to call himself an atheist, but based on the definition he is one whether he likes it or not.
I think the people who say that this disappoints them aren't seeing the bigger picture here. Namely that Neil advocates science and science literacy first and frankly, that's all we really need here. I *am* atheist but as long as people are taught *ACTUAL* science and how it applies to them, especially the young, then whatever else you believe is irrelevant.
Jordan Lazaro I don’t see how people chose atheism anyways. The only thing about being religious is that you are kept from practicing immoral improper behavior which according to the Bible, God grants eternal life to his subjects. With atheism you just say there is no God and therefore they’re not bound to any rules and therefore not really caring about their future. We all get old and die. It’s like they don’t think about that. Life is short here, now. With God there is the promise of the real life but then I guess to each their own. No one is forced to believe in God everyone has free will.
@@nsr5961 If you need a book to tell you that it's wrong to kill, rape or steal, then how moral of a person are you really? I don't need some book to tell me that certain things are just downright wrong to do in society. IMO the Atheist/Agnostic is actually more humble and honest than the theist because they are open minded enuff to accept the fact that this life may very well be the ONLY one we have, whereas the theist cannot accept that as a reality and lives their entire life based on rules from some bronze-aged primitive book that tells them to do good acts if they want go to the special place in the sky when they die. An act of kindness from an Atheist/Agnostic means so much more to me because they're not expecting some reward in their "afterlife", they're just doing it from the goodness of their heart, which is way more genuine.
He is simplifying a complex issue. He was in support of Atheist movements that "strategized" to stop creationism in schools, since it goes against science.
Atheists should really listen to this man's words of wisdom. And the religious who claim their way is the way or the only way, can also benefit from his wisdom.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Neil is wrong here but I guess that he hasn't really researched it. I can't blame him. He is a busy man. "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims- *are unknown or unknowable*." "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the *rejection of belief* in the existence of deities." So agnosticism deals with knowledge, which is a subset of belief, and atheism deals with belief or lack of belief. It's not my problem if people think that they know everything about me when they discover that I am an atheist. I just point out to them that they are wrong. The important part shouldn't be WHAT you believe, it's WHY you believe or don't believe. And this is the reason why atheism is such a big topic today. Religious propaganda tries to push through this 'us vs them' mentality. Not a single religious people have ever asked me the 'why' question. They just assume the lies that church leaders are feeding to them, like: - So you just believe in nothing. - You are just angry at god. - Some religious person did something bad to you. etc...
Bronze Spectre i cant tell if your agreeing with me that he is a douche or that your going against me saying my comment was bad. Either way, hope you do well
That's why I like this man. I also don't want to put forth the time and energy debating with Christians why I don't believe or want to go to their church.
halogod18 And I wish believers would stop going to my house almost every saturday to talk to me about god, even though they're aware that i'm an Atheist, but I guess it completely skips their mind!!
I agree with mr. Tyson. The most logical standpoint is to be agnostic. I don't "believe" anything in the emotional sense regarding divinity, so if I have to identify as anything at all I'll be taking the most logical option. There has never been concrete evidence either for or against the existence of the divine.
I prefer the term atheist to define myself. I do not believe in a god. I am an agnostic atheist, and I tend to tell people something along the lines of, "I don't believe, but I don't know." However, I will also say that everone is agnostic about a god, unless they have evidence. Because none of us truly "know", we are all agnostic. That is why I prefer the term atheist. Everyone should already understand that you are agnostic, or at least assume it, until you bring forth evidence.
DatedIntegral93 Nope. Theism is *belief in.* Atheism is *belief in not.* Agnosticism is to choose to not *believe in* nor *believe not.* It is a simple as that.
Dean Miller The structure of the word is a, meaning "not", and theist, which you know means "one who believes". I am "not one who believes". Ken Ham is "one who believes". This does not mean that i am "one who does not believe" that a god MIGHT exist. It simply means that i do not believe that a god exists. But one could. I believe one could. I do not know for sure, whether God is real or not, so i am an agnostic. However, agnosticism is irrelevant, because everyone on the planet Earth is agnostic. Agnostic being "one who does not know". Nobody knows for sure. So, I am an atheist. I doubt the existence of a god or god-like beings. So, you cannot choose to subscribe to neither theism nor atheism. If you think there is, you are theistic. If you think there isn't, you are atheistic. If you think there might be, and probably is, you are theistic. If you think there might be, but there probably isn't, then you are atheistic. If you think that there might be, but you don't know how likely it is, then you are theistic, because without evidence, you give the least likely scenario more credit than it deserves. Therefore, with the ideas placed before in mind, the idea that you cannot be neither atheistic nor theistic, and the idea that agnosticism is unrelated to atheism, because everyone is an agnostic, it is unnecessary to define oneself as an agnostic. Of course, it isn't necessary to completely regard any idea of a god as false, because it would be irresponsible to predispose it as such, but it would be even more irresponsible to give the idea of a god anymore credit that "possible, but likely not", without evidence to back it up.
Dean Miller In short: Agnosticism is not a choice. An agnostic is "one who doesn't know". Nobody knows, so everyone is agnostic. Therefore, it is unreasonable to define yourself as something that describes literally everyone else, just as much.
I find the term ‘agnostic atheism’ oxymoronic. How can you believe that the question of whether or not there is a God/gods is unanswerable, while at the same time believe that there is more than likely no God/gods?
Gary Buckley I am a billionaire. Is it true? Maybe. It is not definitely answerable. However, since I can't prove it to you, you should not believe it. Therefore, you are agnostic about this topic, but you would not believe that it was true. Same thing.
I think non-believers (ie Atheism) have a title because it was needed for people to differentiate themselves from the religious crowd. If a time comes where playing golf becomes an important part of life, we'll start hearing the term "Golfers" and "Golf-nots" being thrown around :p Anyone watch Avatar the Last Airbender? there wasn't a term for people who couldn't bend in the first series. Then in Legend of Korra we suddenly have the term "Non-bender" being thrown around because of the political and social issues of the time necessitated it.
This is why defining terms is important. I am in the same position as Neil and have the same feelings but would describe myself as atheist, as in a-theist. More accurately I'd describe myself as an agnostic atheist. Those atheists that engage in polemicals and debates against religion I'd tend to describe as anti-theist, as Christopher Hitchens described himself. But in the end it's all semantics and so long as we understand what we all mean by different labels, we can agree on what positions actually are even if we use different words to define them. I'd also agree with Neil that atheism doesn't really exist; or more truthfully, it can ONLY exist in contrast to theism
keep in mind thought that base on huxleys defintion which is the one neil uses here you cant be an agnostic atheist. huxley didnt separate knowledge and beleif. he said one shouldnt make claims or beleifs they had no evidence for. which is why you have a set of agnostics like say him or i that are strictly agnostic. is also why you see him give the explanation of why he bases what something is base on the actions of its community not just its defnition as people can define it in different ways.
I don't see merit to the "I don't play golf but I'm not an a-golfer" argument. We have lots of A- prefix words that just mean *not*-something. A theist is someone who believes in god(s). An atheist is someone who is *not* a theist. I agree it's a strange label to have, but it's a necessity due to the prevalence of religion. Everyone carries their own preconceptions of what labels mean, but that doesn't mean the labels themselves are wrong. You may not like the label for yourself, but I think by definition it fits you regardless.
Right. You don't have to believe in something. Which is what being an atheist means. From my understanding of their definitions, I would say agnostics are inherently atheist (which he even mentions in the video). It's really all very pedantic and semantic. Some people see atheism as an ideology. I don't think that fits the definition, but then again definitions change and words can have multiple meanings.
_"hes saying why is there a label at all?"_ But that's been answered a million times: because a majority of the population believes something, and it's therefore relevant and useful to make the distinction that you do not. The fact is, Tyson finds it acceptable to use a label that has an a- prefix, describes *something he does not do*, is accurate when defined properly, and is useful in distinguishing his thinking from the majority. That word is Agnostic. Yet this other word that has an a- prefix, describes *something you do not do*, is accurate when defined properly, and useful in identifying and distinguishing your position from the masses... that word being "Atheism"... and despite those similarities it's somehow so incredibly inappropriate and useless in some peoples eyes. Presupposition is not a strong basis for argument.
Ok, Rob Daniels obviously needs a hug. But I agree, A-Theist wouldn't need to be a label that even exists if God wasn't shoved everywhere possible including on our own currency (which wasn't always there for those familiar with history in particularly the Cold War, what if tennis was on our money instead I wonder?). If the default assumption is that we're a "Christian nation", I'm not trying to argue for or against that at all but it is what many other countries would probably say was our national religion if they had to guess. On the other hand this "Atheist Mold" he speaks of, as a self labeled atheist I have to agree with it at least partially, and I'm sorry to hear that some bad apples stand out as representative of atheism for him. But it's the opposite of a belief system, it's not a stance in anyway. There is no real movement in this country for atheism and freedom from religion right now. So it sucks to hear that people are talking badly about atheists as individuals only.
So the man gives the most logical, fair and level-headed speech regarding atheism ever witnessed on the internet, and there's still people raging about religious nonsense in the comments section. Wait, why am I surprised?
" So the man gives the most logical, fair and level-headed speech regarding atheism ever witnessed on the internet, and there's still people raging about religious nonsense in the comments section. Wait, why am I surprised?" Arguing for the sake of argument is a cornerstone of internet comments, so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a part of the majority of message board discussions. But then again, so is "here's the RIGHT opinion, you are obviously wrong and should immediately stop talking about the issue"..... ...and "I'm above these types of pointless arguments, so pardon me while I wade into this one". Both of which were implied by your comment. Welcome to the jungle.
Obviously you are reading more into this than exists. He's not making an argument for one side or the other; he's clearly trying to distance himself from the entire subject, taking a neutral stance. He all but plainly says atheism and religion do not interest him. This isn't even an argument, thus there is nothing to defend, and your picking apart of my comment only serves to prove my point of people finding and developing conflict where none originally exists. I'm baffled by everyone's insistence on jumping on their individual soapboxes over absolutely nothing. This video was not an atheism vs religion debate, argument or even discussion; it was an objective observation of others' misinterpretations with a very, very clear stance of neutrality. And as with this video, when reading my comment you clearly thought it contained an argument where in fact it did not. It was feigned surprise, at most.
I get that Neil doesn't want the atheist label attached to himself, but it is really no different than him calling him a scientist. He studies in fields of science, so he is a scientist, regardless if that is the label he generally applies to himself. In the same way, if he doesn't believe in god, he is an atheist. He doesn't have to call himself one. He doesn't ever have to use that label. But by definition, he is an atheist. You CAN be an agnostic atheist. Or a gnostic atheist. Or a gnostic/agnostic theist. Atheist/theist and Agnostic/gnostic are two different things and either or can be applied to each other.
+CReaper210 The agnostic position is generally taken to be distinct from atheism. "Atheist/theist and Agnostic/gnostic are two different things and either or can be applied to each other." Not in the context of the question of the existence of god, no. Also, knowledge is traditionally (and currently) taken to be a subset of belief, with knowledge being 'justified true belief'. Agnosticism is clearly a position unlike both theism and atheism. Theism: 'it is the case that god exists' Atheism: 'it is not the case that god exists' or 'it is the case that god does not exist' (different wording, same meaning) Agnosticism: 'I do not (or cannot) know about god's existence, therefore I cannot justify having a belief one way or the other, so I remain silent'. The position of 'agnostic atheism' would then explicitly entail lacking justification, and thus, renders itself utterly indefensible.
You Daymon I don't really understand your point. You CAN be as I said in my original comment, even in the context of the question. Do you believe in god? That is a yes or no question. You either believe or you don't, period. Now the question, do you know for sure if god exists, is an entirely different question and you can have different answers, regardless if you're an atheist OR theist. Your statement from each point of view is flawed. You don't maybe believe in something. You believe in something or you do NOT believe in something. I completely disagree with you, especially on your final statement. Being an agnostic would imply that he has taken in all the evidence and cannot come to a conclusion, which I think is realistic in the case of god, where god cannot be entirely disproven to begin with. In the same way I cannot definitively tell you that I am 100% sure that unicorns don't exist, so I'm technically in the same boat there too. If someone is an atheist because of a lack of evidence, but also considers himself an agnostic, I don't think he is lacking justification whatsoever and that statement just doesn't even make sense to me. I personally consider myself a gnostic atheist, as I'm about as sure that god doesn't exist as much as I am about unicorns. But realistically, I'm not 100% certain and would technically fit the description of being agnostic.
+CReaper210 "Do you believe in god? That is a yes or no question. You either believe or you don't, period." Well, no, not period. That isn't really the appropriate question. Rather, the question is: Does God exist? There is 'God exists' (theist position), 'God does not exist' (atheist position), or 'i can't say'/'i don't know' (agnostic position). The third position, withholding judgement, is clearly a valid answer to this question and we traditionally call people who give that answer agnostics. The terms are used to refer to the positions involved, not people's beliefs about the positions. Agnosticism has been the middle-ground position for quite a long time, which is why it is still being taught as such at universities. "do you know for sure if god exists" I don't understand why this would be asked. The only people who'd claim to know for sure would be theists. Atheists can't really claim to know with absolute certainty and they don't need to in order to be justified in their atheism. Asking "but are you 100% sure?" isn't necessary, which is why the traditional usage of these terms continues to be the dominant usage. "You believe in something or you do NOT believe in something." You are using a false dichotomy here. Both theism and atheism make positive claims. Theists believe it is the case that god exists, atheists believe it is the case that god does not exist (or believe it is not the case that god exists, which means the exact same thing, just worded differently), and agnostics simply remain undecided (they truly lack belief). Using the terms the way you suggest would just muddle the water. "Being an agnostic would imply that he has taken in all the evidence and cannot come to a conclusion, which I think is realistic in the case of god, where god cannot be entirely disproven to begin with." So, wait, are we now in agreement? You just pointed out why it makes sense to consider agnosticism as a distinct position apart from both atheism and theism. "If someone is an atheist because of a lack of evidence, but also considers himself an agnostic, I don't think he is lacking justification whatsoever and that statement just doesn't even make sense to me." If someone is an atheist then they shouldn't consider themselves an agnostic, because the atheist believes that god doesn't exist while the agnostic doesn't know what to believe. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this. If you aren't convinced enough (by the arguments against god's existence) to make the positive claim that atheism makes, then you are decisively NOT an atheist. The terms really are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism, not atheism, is the position that allows for varying degrees of certainty/uncertainty. If you are agnostic but lean more towards theism, you are still agnostic (not an agnostic theist), just as you would be if you leaned more towards atheism. "I personally consider myself a gnostic atheist [...] and would technically fit the description of being agnostic." Now, I'm confused. If you technically fit the description of agnostic, why not personally consider yourself to be an agnostic?
You Daymon Um no. That isn't a question that can be definitively answered. And your definition of an atheist is also wrong. An atheist doesn't necessarily mean he claims "god does not exist". It means they reject the idea of god, period. This is why I am saying it is possible to be an agnostic atheist/agnostic theist or whatever. Yes, agnosticism IS distinct from atheism. THAT IS WHY YOU CAN BE BOTH. Because they both mean different things and either or MUST be true for everyone. You either believe something or you don't(atheist/theist). You either have knowledge of something or you don't(agnostic/gnostic). If you're an agnostic theist, then you're an agnostic theist. You can label yourself as just a theist and that's fine. But you're still an agnostic theist. And I don't consider myself agnostic because there has to be some degree of leniency in the belief or disbelief in something that cannot be definitively proven. I'm about as sure god isn't real as I am about unicorns. But I cannot say for 100% certainty that they don't exist, because I simply don't know. Regardless if you think I'm justified in believing that it doesn't exist(and I agree, I do think someone is justified to actively disbelieve if there is zero good evidence), it is still true that I'm technically an agnostic. But your entire argument is flawed because it is assuming that atheism is making positive claims about god, when it isn't. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. I'm not claiming a single thing as an atheist. Fit this into your argument.
Sourabh S Nath "is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism." Well, not according to any field of philosophy, mostly because agnosticism and atheism are considered mutually exclusive categories. If one is a traditional agnostic, then one disagrees with the traditional atheist position that god doesn't exist, so it wouldn't make sense to be an agnostic atheist according to the traditional/current use and meaning of the words.
The way I see it is there are Atheists and Theists, and there are Agnostics and Gnostics. The first is a measure of faith, and the other is a measure of knowledge. I prefer to not make these measures binary, either yes of no. That is a bit too simplistic, (mind the pun). I think it would be better to place one measures on a X axis, and the other on the Y, and plot where one thinks you are. I suspect there are many religious people who are high in the faith category, but since they don't know for sure, would be low in the other. Just my opinion, and hope we try explore something higher than a person either is or isn't.
@@tnt_champ1002 Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. And it is not mutally exlcusive to agnosticsm. You can have the lack of knowledge based on factual evidence to support the existence of god through agnosticism and hence lack of belief in gods through atheism.
@@Noa...... "Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god." Yeah, it is. "And it is not mutally exlcusive to agnosticsm." Yes, it is. That's a fact. "You can have the lack of knowledge based on factual evidence to support the existence of god through agnosticism" Agnosticism is a belief position, not a knowledge position. :-P
@@americanliberal09 Agnosticism from greek origins (ἀ-γνῶσις) means without knowledge. Atheism (ἄθεος) means without God. They go in hand in hand to some.
@@Noa...... "Agnosticism from greek origins (ἀ-γνῶσις) means without knowledge. " Sorry, but definitions are not defined by its etymology. Just because the term "agnostic" has a greek root that doesn't define what the term actually is.
Thank you sir. I have been watching all kinds of debates and talk shows to find my place. Sir I completely agree with you. It is an utter waste of energy that could be driven to find out truth and science. This is the first agnostic page I pulled up. I do not wish to be put into any catigory either. I also believe all need to have there own ideas beliefs and feelings. Doesn't matter if I disagree or if they disagree with mine. Thank you so much for this tiny clip. Sincerely Sean C. Preston
The way I see it is to decouple both concepts. Therefore, you can be any combination of each: 1) Atheist Agnostic: don't believe in gods, but understand the lack of evidence; 2) Atheist Gnotisc: don't believe in gods and is sure that gods do not exists; 3) Theist Agnostic: believe in existence of gods, but understand the lack of evidence to support it; 4) Theist Gnostic: believe in god(s) and is sure that god(s) exists (e.g. arguing that some holy book is sufficient evidence to support that opinion) The way I see it is: a) Theist x Atheist: it is an opinion. Whether you belive (by guessing) if god(s) exists or not. If you do, you're a Theist. If not, you're atheist. b) Gnostic or Agnostic: it is a behaviour. How you behave given your beliefs. If you're "sure" about your belief (even with no evidence), you're gnostic, but if you are "I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, there's no way to know it" you're agnostic.
This just show the Power that religion still has! Someone like NDT feels the need to say that he does NOT call himself an Atheist. I bet he gets alot of Hate from religious people, so he feels the need to say he isn't atheist. Fact is, he does NOT believe in a god. The MAIN Sad point here is, he feels the need to separate himself from the Sane group of people that do not believe in a god. The sad world we live in........ But don't take my word for it, read some of his Great Quotes and you tell me -- “Science is a Philosophy of Discovery; “Intelligent Design” is a Philosophy of Ignorance.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson “Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson "If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he is all good, he cannot be all-powerful.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson "Every description of God that I've heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes and tornadoes and disease, childhood leukemia. I see all of this and I say 'I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good. He can't be both." - Neil deGrasse Tyson “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.......that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson, he said this is true if your claim for a god is “well, you can't explain how XXXX works, so God must have done it!” He sees no Real Evidence for a 'god', therefor he does not believe in a 'god'. That is an Atheist.
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
this man reminds me a lot about Einstein he says i am not a communist an internationalist ,he says i am a scientist fore the world not for a country (duringWW2)IMAGINE THAT NEIL IS LIKE EINSTEIN I feel like that idk why
@Astute Cingulus OK
Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
@ well the problem being that, while they are gods, the norse religion wouldnt coincide with the marvel version - maybe a branch of norse gods would exist in that universe. Granted, if you were teleported to the marvel universe id think a norse god would be the least of your worries
@Lalate Beautifully said, I tell my folks these words everyday. good to save money but most people don't understand the market moves and tend to be misled in facts like this and always depend on money in the bank.
Girl: so what are we?
Guy: i'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it.
Hey, that actually works out
What compels you to need to label what you two have? You hang around each other a lot and get closer day by day til you just realize you're partners without having to point it out
I'd say that guy's response is perfectly fine
Yup. That's honestly what I told a couple of girls in the past. It was true in what I felt.
GIRL : DID YOU CREATE THE UIVERSE ??? BOY-;; NO . GIRL¸::THEN YOU ARE JUST AS STUPID AS I AM
thats how my relationship ended you dont have to label anything at all. let it flow. names ruined it. she named it so did i so did others- expectations and the whole shebang. it didn't had to be that way unless i too wanted it to end that way.
Artistdini ooooooohhhhh hahahahaha! Good one!
so basically Neil doesn't give a sh*t.
Catota Precisely.
Lol no, it's that he hasn't seen evidence, so he won't waste his time with all the convolution, but at the same time is open to it, and mentally prepared, if it exists. People waste so much time on the unknown, they become out of touch with the now and known.
Damn straight.
Yep. Apatheism. Look it up!
Hi Catota, I think Neil gives a sh*t, he wants people not to use labels inaccurately.
He literally just described how I feel.
اذكر الله
نعم ، كانت لدي شكوك أيضًا ، لكن بمجرد أن تدرك مدى تعقيد العالم الذي نعيش فيه بالفعل ، أشعر أن الله يجب أن يوجد. هذا هو رأيي من فضلك لا تضايقني.
Me to
@Known4475543
Are you part of this religion? How do you personally define good and evil philosophically?
@Known4475543
I agree with you as far as "younger people" growing up and how their situation and environment can effect them, but this is relative up to the point that most people become mature enough to see past this and can use their freewill to choose to be good or evil. I think similar to your statement good and evil is synonymous to intelligence and non-intelligence. Are you yourself religious at all? I myself am a young Earth creation Christian Bible literalist.
" When one asks "Do you believe in God?", If I say yes or if I say no, you have learned absolutely nothing."
-Carl Sagan
They learned your religious or non religious beliefs. For what its worth they learned something that happened to concern you.
@@yankeesdoubleheader2375 people who ask that are in most cases are pretty dumb
They learned something quite valuable actually. If you are atheist, they can show you the truth.
@@ILoveLuhaidan Id say the other way around.
You’ve learned whether or not they believe in god.
Are there one or more gods?
*Theists:* Yes!
*Atheists:* No!
*Neil:* Who cares? I have _an amazing universe_ to study!
Psychosis Promo, yes, a religion founded on a love of science and knowledge! But we'd need a catchy name... hmm... how about "Scientology"?
Atheists: "Where is your evidence?" not "No!".
Jeff Smith, if that's the atheist position, then why do so many atheists whine at me for being stubbornly agnostic, and (correctly) noting that the answer to any question with no evidence is "I don't know, maybe"? Also, I don't care if a century ago you could technically call an agnostic an "agnostic atheist", the words are mutually exclusive in modern colloquial usage, and more importantly, in attitude.
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated I don't know what atheists you're speaking to. Our position is that we reject the idea of Supernatural god unless he can be shown, unequivocally that such a God exists.
What if I told you I had a cat named Smokey? Do you believe that I do?
Jeff Smith, from a purely scientific perspective I have no reason to believe or disbelieve that you have a cat named Smokey. I have no real data about whether you live with cats and what their names may be, and it's also not something that in any way affects my life. Similarly, I don't reject or accept what'd commonly be called "the supernatural" (a term I find silly, because if something is real and exists then it's part of nature), I have no data either way. My philosophy rests upon knowing that we are dumb, hairless, barely glorified monkeys. We're comparatively ignorant and stupid in understanding the infinite glory of reality.
"I don't associate with movements... I think for myself."
Beautiful... just beautifully spoken!
You can still support a movement based on your own conclusions. He’s so pretentious
@@NN-sp9tu aw, you must be that staunch atheist or theist he’s talking about. Not giving a shit doesn’t make one pretentious.
@@nikk5002 Nope, neither. But I also acknowledge that people can come to the same conclusions without being sheep
@@NN-sp9tu Why should I, forcefully, associate myself with a movement? Can I be free of labels or not? It is not being pretentious, it is just thinking by ourselves. Period.
@@FelipeCardoso_plus
I don’t recall saying anyone is pretentious for not being part of a movement
"Only "ist" i am is scientist" best answer ever
aaaaa I love it so much!
The best answer is when he said ''I think for myself''
@@yellowlightingbolt bruh I loved that too!
Not only because of his agnosticism - ism
It's an answer but doesn't answer the question, fortunately he does answer it shortly after.
beautifully said. Agnostic = "I don't know" could not be more perfect.
“I don’t play golf, is there a word for non golf players” 😂 best line I’ve heard all year no cap
Lmfao
Agolfer
I find this analogy flawed. Imagine a world where almost everyone played golf.. Some played golf on a sunday, some played golf 5 times every day. Since you were born, your parents kept insisting that you play golf. If you don't, you are going to hell. You don't like playing golf. You don't even know if playing golf is going to positively impact you.. There is no evidence that playing golf helps you yet everyone around you wants you to play it. Why? Because when they were young, everyone around them insisted them to play it and so on. This is when you'll start finding groups talking about why they don't want to play golf and create anti-golf associations
@@bhaveshdhirwani3140 Yeah you are right
@@bhaveshdhirwani3140 i was about to type this, but you beat me and worded it perfectly.
I'm an insomniac, dyslexic agnostic. I constantly find myself awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
Conleibs I have one.... now go get some sleep
This is an underrated comment.
Underrated because not everyone gets it. I didn't at first. It was like what? ..... hahaha
I've never had a yt comment make me laugh, nice
Conleibs Now that's funny xD
Interview: Are you atheist or theist
Neil: why do you care?
Because theism is nonsensical and he should be standing up to rational thought?
@@kentonian Religion has literally nothing to do with his career as an astrophysicist, let alone the fact that religious views one way or the other are highly personal and subjective. I'm an atheist myself, but honestly, I wish every fucking person on earth just kept their religious views _to themselves._ It shouldn't ever BE anyone else's business.
@@ember-brandt I'm afraid it's not religious views. Its facts, there is no scientific evidence for any of the claims of religion. Allow this brainwashing to propagate and it causes wars, segregation and an inability to use critical thinking. No human should be abused with that nonsense.
@@kentonian I'm not relgious but the problem is not relgious people nor Athiest it's just the people.
Yes there are wars and riots cause by relgious traditions but there are also wars and riots that were Led by atheist to.
Their are relgious people who actually take care of the World and animals and feed the poor and there are Athiest who loves life and the Earth and help people know their value.
So you see the problem is not unbelievers or relgious people it's the condition of are heart
Jevon Frost you might be pointing out those whom use beliefs for their own gain like the prosperity Gospel televangelist, and other extreme religious groups.
What he calls "atheism", I would rather call "anti-theism".
His whole talk is nosense he doesnt know the terms. Sry for bad manchester united
What would be the difference?
@@osmq4287 one simply doesn't believe (Atheist) and the other actively attacks others for believing in a god. Most Atheist I know are usually just that untill some theist attacks them first but are otherwise non caring of what you believe as long as you leave them alone.
@@grayfox6930
So.. When i think about it, i am an atheist. As soon as i tell you, about it, i become an anti-theist?
To me your answer makes as much sense as the believe in gods - Non at all.
.. How would you call a theist who actively attacks others for not believing in the same god, he was indoctrinated to believe in?
@@osmq4287 no your not an anti theist for telling someone your atheist, your an anti theist when you actively seek out fights with theist about their beliefs with the goal of harming theism its self. For the second question I don't know if their is an official modern title but I'd refer to those kind of people as Crusaders.
its simple:
religious: god
atheist: no god
agnostic : i dont know
No its not.
Religious: Belief that there is a god without any evidence. and not willing to change that perspective by rational arguments or evidence.
Atheist: Disbelief in god because there is no evidence to suggest there is one, but if evidence becomes available is willing to change their minds.
Agnostic: wimping out not willing to take a proper stand on your position because you don't want to piss the religious people off and have a smaller audience base in the case of Neil.
Neil is a scientist and science is based on evidence and not on maybe so for him to apply this to everything in his life except for god is just weak.
Roberto Zadra or agnostics don't care because they realise in the fallacy and pointless attitude and conviction people put into their belief theist or atheist
hazel eyes No it's as simple as the original poster said. No reason to elaborate.
hazel eyes Moron
Nope its not.
"Real knowledge is knowing the extent of one's ignorance"- Confucius
Explains the Dunning Kruger Effect...
@Mimi is back
I really loved what you had to say and I feel that I have a very similar train of thought to you. So you are a believer but you think there is no logical or scientific way to prove God? Did I get that right?
Or as Socrates said "I know that I know nothing"
@@dan78789
Would you like to know if there is one for sure? Do you label yourself an atheist?
@@dan78789
Would you like to know if there is one for sure? Do you label yourself an atheist?
I'm notgiveashitist
Nice ! I'm pro notgiveashitistanityism
It's called apatheism.
That's an "apathetic"... To me Agnostic simply means not committing to anything lol.
hahahahaha... you are being the sterotyping person that he spoke AGAINST. You put tubestick into a box so that you could look down on him. Pfft
lmao....me too
"I don't associate with movements... I think for myself."
This should be a movement, so inspiring.
Pretty much atheism. I think the term atheism has just gotten such a bad reputation. It just means that one doesn't belief in god.
@@coredeadman5980 you are totally wrong, but you won't realise that for now.
@@Eskimoso Nah atheism is just a disbelief in god. That's the definition of atheism.
@@Eskimoso they arent. atheism isn't a movement all. the movement being pushed by *certain* proclaimed atheist's is actually called anti-theism.
Christian's will go out and look for fights and ways to convert others to Christ because that's what God ordered them to do. Anti-theists will do the same, go out and look for fights to express their opposition towards the belief of god, except they do it because they are against theism as a concept.
Atheists on the other hand? They just don't believe in god. No rules they need to follow, no fights they inherently need to be entered into either.
This is always how I've explained what agnostic is. I've been agnostic for as long as I can remember. I think I want to believe there's something else after we die only because of losing my mother and sister. I don't like thinking that they're just "nothing" now You know? But there is no proof of a "God" or "Higher Being" or whatever. So maybe there just isn't anything, maybe we just die and that's it. I'm willing to accept both of these possibilities but hell for all we know when we die we turn into insects or aliens. No one really knows until they're gone. But just know that I will respect your beliefs if you respect mine. Just because you believe in something and I may not believe in the same thing doesn't make me a bad person, just like it's doesn't make you a bad person. Be open minded people, be kind and be respectful.
Buggie Marie Just remembered that we can't comprehend everything as humans. And that everything is how we perceive it. And that it's possible that we are conscious beings experiencing what it's like to be human. Not humans experiencing a consciousness. I'm not pushing anything on you and I'm not religious. But just think, if there is consciousness and a higher consciousness, you think us as young as humans are would be able to explain it all through science? Not happening. We can only sense with our eyes, nose, etc. You ever realize that we could be missing things in space or maybe directly in front of us because we can't experience it? It's not only possible but likely. We don't even understand why gravity exists. Or how life started. Or how we have a consciousness. There are things that very very Intelligent people have seen and experienced that they can't explain and that have changed their minds about the meaning or start of things. Again no pushing you, as I'm not even sure what I believe, but I know we don't have close to all the answers. Not close.
Buggie Marie II
Electronic Adventures - That's depressing.
Buggie Marie - Agreed. But, a lot of people are just too....
Corvus that's maybe depressing, but thats how it is.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a perfect example of figuring out things as they go with life, your beliefs should change as you learn
Yes, but he's not being 100% truthful or accurate here. First if all, I am an atheist, but I do not believe in shoving that down other people's throats UNLESS they are pushing destructive policy or pushing their own rigid set of "values" or extremist beliefs on others including hatred of certain sections of the population. Second, Tyson, when he gets very upset in interviews or debates with fundamentalists, becomes a very vocal atheist, so I can see why there are those who view him as such as he is highly critical of evangelicalism. An agnostic is someone who does not believe in a god but also does not deny the existence of a "God" should evidence ever present itself that a god exists (which has never occurred). Good scientists value facts, and facts are the foundations of theories. Theories might change over time when new facts are discovered, but the old facts do not change (the theories simply shift with the new facts). A scientist must be open to new facts, but never willing to ignore them as a fact remains a fact -- always.
@@adolphsanchez1429I understand what you're saying, and as someone who goes to a maths and science specialty school. Though, I think what Neil is saying is that human knowledge is so limited and we don't know what there is in store for this universe. Confining in something as close to facts in my opinion is still very close minded, you may not open yourself to the doors of possibility. I think he's saying that labels are useless to something you don't know about
I joined a chat group :atheism . I joined because I thought Neil was moderating it. He is not.
Tough group to join. I had to back out. I'm looking for help. I'm from the Philippines and we have a religious war in the south. We now also have another war with China. Difficult time for us.
Indeed you to know this war is not just about Philippines vs China. The Americans are bringing in the big guns as they watch the Bashi Channel. The European Envoy was here. There will be a war. Bigger than the Ukrainian war. I think we Philippines little small nation has a role to play. I guess I'm just telling you to be ready.
even if the word agnostic isn't the correct word to use
his point still stands, he's not stupid enough to claim he knows everything about anything, he explained it pretty well
He just doesn't want to belong to any of the 2 major circlejerk clubs
TheSilverazo Most people are agnostic, but agnostic isnt mutually exclusive to being an atheist or a theist. Its an entirely different category that addresses knowledge. You can be a agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.
Agnostic simply means "without knowledge" and gnostic, with relevance to Agnosticism, is "having knowledge".
Most people are actually agnostic as I've said. The only ones that aren't agnostic are those who've been thinking about the topic for a very long time i.e. their whole lives or they are simply really delusional.
The main point is that Agnosticism should be a non issue. It should be taken for-granted that people are agnostics, since everyone is just human and no one has any secret or grand knowledge of existence that everyone else is not aware of. So the main issue is not whether theism is correct or atheism is correct, but which is more likely to be correct and therefore more is a more reasonable belief.
TheSilverazo You don't have to be in either club to share one of their core values.
A black guy doesn't have to join panthers to be black. A white guy doesn't have to join KKK to be white.
ssuuppeerrbbooyy he's still right not to call himself anything
TheSilverazo He isn't just not calling himself anything, he is actively stating that he is not an atheist. There is a difference between not saying anything and saying the opposite.
ssuuppeerrbbooyy so you're telling me he's doing exactly what I said he was doing?
that's interesting
Tyson never really fails to amuse me by his authenticity as well as his articulation. I love how precise and articulate his message is. As for this matter, as a then "Christian" I can now say that I am an AGNOSTIC.
I was first an Athiest, but then I became Agnostic, because I feel like I am not smart enough to understand anything really. I don't believe in God, but neither do I say "he doesn't exist"
I am not hiding. I am not afraid to be an athiest. I just don't see myself as one. All you athiests in the comment section... I thought athiests was objective. Reasonable. Now, you're annoyed because someone is "wrong" in your opinion. I always thought:
Christians: "If you do not agree, I will dislike you"
Athiests: "I am fine with whatever you believe, but if you want, I would like to discuss it"
That seems to be a lie. For both parts.
Judging an entire group of people from what you see on a TH-cam comment section is a bit short sighted. In my experience the people you've described are typical of the TH-cam community so it's natural that a lot of atheists in this comment section would also fit the bill.
As with being an atheist or not, (note: I'm not trying to force any labels or anything, just trying to be informative as you seem to be a bit confused as what an atheist actually is) atheism is a belief claim and agnosticism is a knowledge claim. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most people who claim to be atheist or agnostic actually fall under the same category: "soft" atheism, or agnostic atheism (agnostic because they do not *know* if a god exists, and atheism because they *lack* a *belief* that a god exists).
Note I said lack of a belief, not a belief that a god does not exist. This is a key distinction that a lot of people do not make. A person who does not believe a god exists and / or who makes the claim to know that a god does not exist is a "hard" atheist, or gnostic atheist (gnostic because they claim to know a god does not exist).
Dan C I am sorry if my comment sounded judgemental to all atheists; that was not my intention. My point is, that I used to think that atheists were generally smart, but as society evolves, more people start to associate themself as atheists and as the "group" grows, so does the possibility of more "bad apples" I feel like I am well aware of the terms, but a good point with the "agnostic atheist" hope I didn't/don't sound like I wanted to offend people directly.
do you believe in god? no? you are an atheist. atheists do not say "there is for certain no god" that is a ridiculous claim. atheists claim "until you provide evidence i do not believe in your god theory", if you ever find a theory of god you do think is plausible.....you are no longer an atheist
If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. Agnostic is not halfway between theist and atheist, because theist and atheist are statements of belief, whereas agnostic is on the scale of existence.
shit content enjoy I can understand that, but then I rather refer myself as an agnostic-atheist. From what I have gathered; atheists basically deny the existence of God (until proven otherwise). If you ask them, whether there is a God or not, they will say "No" where I would say "I don't know"
Honestly, I don't really care what I am associated at. All I'm saying is that I do not know if there is a God or not and therefore I will choose to not believe in God nor deny his existence.
Everyone, by definition, is an agnostic, meaning no one can know whether a god or gods exist.
Atheism, on the other hand, is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Then there are those who claim to know for certain that their god exists, or those that claim to know that gods do not exist. These are the true fools.
Bertrand Russell had it right when he said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
I recently watched a great video that explained that Atheism and Agnostic are not different points on the same spectrum, but they are actually different dimensions/spectrums. Agnosticism is about knowledge, whereas atheism is about belief. So technically we are all agnostics because none of us can know for sure. But if you don't actively believe in a God, you are an atheist. But it's like we shouldn't even need a word for that anymore than we need a word for someone who doesn't believe in fairies or ghosts. A disbelief in a God is not a religion or a belief system, it's merely an absence of a belief. Sure, there are certain aggressive atheists who take their disbelief in God to more aggressive levels, but one can have no belief in God without needing to be part of that aggressive atheism movement. But even Richard Dawkins, as outspoken as he is against God and religion, admits that he is an agnostic atheist because it's impossible to know for sure.
Terry Peterson *Some people like to say any old stupid shit just so they can draw attention to themselves. You are drawing attention to yourself, but it is the wrong kind of attention. God is the devil who resides inside of the Sun with all the rest of those who have died. This Creation is Nature's Garden. A partial list of what Nature contains has been listed on the Periodic Table of Elements which has been around for about 250 years. Your dead hero Lord Russell could not make out his ass from his elbow in this life either, which is he did not make it long term in this life and is frying inside of the Sun for all times. Happy Maturity TP!!!*
Which of thousands of gods you're talking about and are you saying the ones that became mythologies we aren't certain of their existent
Why it's hard for humans to overcome the idea of the god yes it's only exist as idea not a real thing .fuck the evolution played with human minds like this
Libya's philosopher *Not sure what you're askin'. The world worships the hermaphrodite A'bel as god. A'bel was the first person to make slaves and claim to be the creator of all things and also the first person to die. The gods you are referring to are merely surrogates of The Lord god A'bel, who you now know is the devil.*
Am agnostic. Continuously amazed by the Miracle of life and its interconnectedness!
Just don't study the quantum realm.
What kind of agnostic are you? Do you believe it is possible to know for sure if there is a God or not?
Can a person be agnostic and at the same time a pantheist?
@@simpleguy38
I don't think you can be both because "believing" is a sub category below "knowing", you can't believe in something and know it is real at the same time necessarily because they are related and "knowing" is a higher category than "belief". Are you a pantheist or agnostic yourself? I guess you can be agnostic toward a particular God and keep the pantheistic view, but not all Gods because your pantheistic view is a type of God......
@@j0hncon5tantine I am not into any religion and I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, I think myself as an agnostic, but I keep wondering about the nature and its laws (specially Energy) which has no beginning nor end, here comes my pantheistic (scientific pantheism) view of the universe. I love science because it's the only methodology to know the truth, I found out that even the great Albert Einstein had the same position as me.
he has grace, charm, humor, and intelligence. One of the few people that never disappoints.
He, as most people, adheres to dogmas and paradigms, whether he admits it or not. He has a very materialistic & reductionist world view. There are two -isms already.
How can you even begin to understand the universe, if you close your eyes from all the possibilities that are out there... what if you can't measure them all, don't they exist then?
@@prince-solomon The only reliable way to test our hypothesis is science. We only talk about things that can be independently verified because if they're not, then there exists no difference between an experience a single person had and a delusion.
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?"
-Epicurus
Lnathang Why does any of that matter? A religion's idea of what God might be has zero influence on whether or not there actually is one (or 2 etc.). Plus, that argument is overused and useless. If there was a God, and also eternal life, who cares if you experience evil for a short period on earth. Heck, even if your whole life was misery, that's a small price to pay for eternal happiness(if that's one's belief).
It's not unlike arriving at the conclusion of an afterlife, because one believes in God. The two are mutually exclusive. There could be God, and no afterlife, or afterlife and no God, or both.
If God removed all the evil himself, then what would us humans do? God is the creator and deity, not a baby sitter. He is like a parent, he won't prevent us from doing anything, but if we do something wrong, then there will be consequences. If God stopped all evil and revealed all secrets, then there would be no purpose for humanity. Pure heart and knowledge would be nothing. Truth is, He is both able and willing, but there is a little gap called "time" between the two. He is able now, but willing to judge later.
Alpha Papa a similar argument can be used. If there is no God and afterlife, then why bother maintaining a guideline in this world? We can do whatever the fuck we want, kill people, lie and cheat etc. Escaping from the law is easy, but escaping from conscience isn't. And that conscience is God.
TheMatrix1101 Are you saying that if tomorrow, you found out there was no afterlife or God, you would disregard all values and morals you currently have? I will ask another point: If killing someone sends them to eternal happiness in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor by saving them from the misery and suffering of human life, to replace it with eternal life in Heaven?
I view "Evil" as subjective as well. Is a hunter not evil to the deer? By your choice of words, I'm guessing your idea of evil is derived from a very old book, written by humans with similar ideas. If you can demonstrate that "Evil" is a mutually exclusive property in nature, without appealing to aforementioned human-consrtucted writings, I will listen.
Interesting thought: When you code a game, you don't want it to be all positive and good. You add bad guys, some of them even kill the good ones, to show people how they ultimately fail.
Very respectful answer from him
MikeAvenger08 Very dodgy answer from him. It's not respectful to associate all the baggage of the word atheist (as he mentions himself earlier on) to atheists by suggesting they're all activists.
ThePharphis
คำหล้า บุนทองสุก Your reply is blank
Of course it was. Both Tyson and Nye are losing popularity for pissing off both religious followers as well as other scientists who believe it's a complete waste of time arguing about someone's religious faith. People want positive science; not perpetual wars over "I'm right - you're wrong" childish antics. I could care less if someone believes in God or not, if they're cool people and my friend, well, that's all that counts.
Mike Shearman Except our beliefs inform our actions and we can see that religious beliefs are used to justify bigotry on a daily basis. Challenging the beliefs directly (or any other woo, such as homeopathy) protects people in the future from such harm. It's not all or nothing. Some people can address religion while some address science and others address both. It's disingenuous for NDT to pretend that religious beliefs have no impact on others, however, and to also claim he doesn't like labels because they have baggage attached while simultaneously attaching baggage to a label (atheist).
I'm agnostic too and I'm really happy to see that this person thinks just like me.😊
Me toooo
Respect
No. You think like him.
@@davedurosier it's the same
@@davedurosier Imagine being entitled to another man's words who CLEARLY said that he is an educator and likes getting people to think for themselves. People who like to have evidence before standing firm on a belief is not a rare trait to only one person.
Neil is why I became an agnostic instead of an atheist. Thanks Neil.
you can be agnostic atheist, that’s the majority of atheists, lacking a belief in god but can easily change your position with proof
They are not mutually exclusive fyi but who cares. Stay curious
You can be both. They ask different questions.
@@Mark-Wilson depends how you define the word huxley the one who created the term did not split belief and knowledge. he literaly says in matters of intellect one shouldnt make claims or hold beliefs they have no evidence for. it was george smith who later on split the two into knowledge and belief. personally i myself i take huxlyes definition so to me saying agnostic atheist is cognitively dissonant as one shouldnt hold any beleif or claim without evidence.
A true wise man. He only gives a shit about something important, immediate and beneficial for the society. Just like Elon Musk as inventor helping scientist also, and other great inventors and scientists.
Think like inventors and scientists, not like great debaters.
Thinking about important things can get you killed.
@@calvinthestormfreak wat u even Saying.?
Your name tho😂😂😂
This is not the real Peterson. What do you think professors that talk about shit all day do..
@@mikevic9366 of course it's not jordan peterson.
Read his channel name again, but this time sloooooowly...
Noticed anything?
I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I don't actively believe in a God and I don't see any evidence to believe in one. But I acknowledge that I do not know everything and I could be wrong.
JustAnotherSunny Any other form of thinking is cancerous.
+Jayo Caine Lol true that
+Jayo Caine My problem with agnostics is that their mentality is completely retarded, because it can be put to anything. "Are unicorns real, but just really, really good at hiding?" No, of course not. That's ludicrous. But I can't 100% prove it, so therefor I won't say that it's not true. It's fucking stupid. If everyone had that mentality, we'd never grow as a race. I mean... leprechauns could be real, hell, sjulkdsfsiss could be real - they are a creature I just made up then, that are invisible gremlins that live in hair and are made from a substance that humans don't have the technology to detect. I mean, you can't prove 100% that sjulkdsfsiss aren't real, can you? Therefor, you won't say, "They are not real." Even though I clearly just made them up. It's so silly. There is no God. I know there is no God. Could I be wrong? Of course. But labeling myself something that gives myself an out to something that makes literally zero sense is, in my opinion, stupid. As stupid, if not more so, than religious people. At least they have the balls to stand by their beliefs.
Curtis Kings Heh, it's pretty funny how you completely miss the point of my post, yet are arrogant enough to call me an imbecile.
I said very clearly, I could be wrong. But I still know there is no God. I mean, I know that I am writing on a computer right now, just as you know you are reading what I wrote. I could be wrong, though. I could be in a mental institute pushing my fingers on a padded wall and your vitriolic response could merely be me making up an asshole out of some insecurities I have. I could be in a jar somewhere living in virtual reality. I could be dying, and all this is simply the memories of my life 'flashing before my eyes', yet as it's a memory I perceive it as reality. I don't know anything I just said isn't true, fuck, it could all be true - my brain could be dying, flashing its life before its eyes of me in a mental institute imagining this ridiculous conversation...
...but I know none of that is true. I could be wrong! But I still know that none of that is true... get that? Understand that point? Understand how anything we 'know' is really just our perception of reality which we accept, and we know it's true, even if there's a tiny, minuscule chance it's not true? Well, asshole, that's atheism. I know there's no God, because the concept of a God is fucking ridiculous. Any conscious deity which has control over the universe is a joke. I know it's a joke. Anyone who is intelligent knows its a joke. It's simply not true. But it could be true! It very well may be. But it's so fucking unlikely, so completely crazy and delusional, that we know it's not true, we live our lives as it's not true, and the chance is so strong we are correct, that our knowledge is a truth, as anything is a truth judged by conscious perception.
That was clearly my point, which you skewed in an attempt to attack me - ironic, or perhaps fitting, considering you're trying to prove the existence of a God. lol. But yes, I hope you understand my very clear point now I made it even clearer for you.
(Note: I am no way inferring that there's not powerful beings in the universe, or perhaps beings that exist of pure conscious or of another dimension. Perhaps to us they'd even be Gods. I am saying there's no all powerful God who gives a flying fuck about humans and what we do. There simply isn't. I could be wrong! But that doesn't make me agnostic. Because I know it's not wrong.)
Hot Dogs where you throw me off mi amigo is your repeated use of "I know"... Sounds ludicrous and foolish. You can't say you know for a fact that pencil x is black yet go ahead and say BUT I may be wrong. You can't "know" about the existence of a being or beings that possibly exists outside the objective flow of time and matter. You said it best, what we know as reality is that we percieve, the incoming and surrounding stimuli in our environment. So don't go ahead and say you "know" jackshit about anything otherwise.
"I know there's no god because the concept of a god is ridiculous" see how preposterous that sounds? You know there isn't not because you died and returned but because the idea is ridiculous... Seems legit. What POSSIBLY exists outside of time and matter is certainly ridiculous to process with a brain that IS subjected to time.I wasn't attacking you, if you had a brain you would realize how you started off by insulting agnostics which is a position of knowledge and the best position thereof if you ask me.
Finally a video that explains what an agnostic really is. I love this.
Finally? Other than the several dozens of other videos discussing Agnosticism? Other than the numerous articles and (*gasp*) source material on the subject?
Sort of....
What Neil clearly doesn't understand however is that the question of agnosticism is an entirely different question, it's a belief about knowledge at that's it. There are both agnostic theists and agnostics atheists so saying you're "just agnostic" doesn't cut it and doesn't answer the question. You either believe or don't believe. Most people regardless of what they believe are agnostic.
To be honest I think he got it slightly wrong. It's hard to think of a word that is more misused in the english language today than the word "agnostic". Huxley, who coined the term, described the agnostic position as not only not knowing if there is a God or not, but denying that knowledge of God and his existence is even possible. In other words, everyone who claims to know that there is a God or that there isn't a God is claiming to know more than they can know, from the agnostic viewpoint. Since we can't know anything about God, all we have is speculation that can't lead anywhere. So for the agnostic the question if there is a God or not is irrelevant.The agnostic is not open to new evidence, but holds as a principle that knowledge of God is IMPOSSIBLE.
The agnostic doesn't believe in God and is in that sense passively an atheist, but doesn't actively deny the existence of God either. I hope this helped you a bit if you felt confused about agnosticism. Don't worry, you're not the first.
Don't listen to Ryan and dam...
Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with athe-ism, the belief gods do not exist, or the-ism, the belief gods do exist.
“I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may.”
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
He outright considered it "immoral" to form beliefs about objective truth claims without any objective evidence. So, no, not compatible with believing gods exist, or don't exist.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."
And, no, he didn't define it as some oxymoronic gnostic agnosticism that claims to know something is eternally unknowable or claims to know that nobody else knows either.
"The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as “unknowable.” What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of uncertainty-the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities -is far more extensive than I could wish."
The Huxley Agnostic Your definition of Agnosticism is correct, and correctly sourced. Your definition of atheism (or athe-ism, to highlight your subjective choice of where to place the prefix and suffix) is presuppositional. The definition involving "doctrine" or "denial" has no clear objective origin; the term is historically and etymologically ambiguous, it was not notably coined (unlike Agnosticism), and seems to have begun as little more than an insult towards theists who rejected the "correct" god.
We could argue as to which way the word "should" be defined, but that argument would be as pointless as the argument over "does god exist". The two more relevant points are:
1) Unlike the staunch materialists in the X Club and Royal Society that Huxley sought to differentiate from, the majority of atheists in the modern free world define their atheism in terms of disbelief and not denial. And there's evidence this isn't a "recent" phenomenon. Though in terms of history, it's only been relatively recently that it was at least somewhat socially acceptable to identify as an atheist... prior to that point the only people who use such a term publicly were the sort willing to attract controversy and argument given the irrational hatred and ignorance and cultural oppression that came standard with the majority worldview.
2) "The doctrine that knowledge of god is impossible" and "belief that we can't know anything beyond the material" are both considered alternate definitions of agnosticism. Often quoted as well, and not just by the ignorant. Can you acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy in your dismissing an alternate definition of agnosticism while simultaneously insisting (by implication of argument) that atheists conform to the one definition of atheism you feel most useful in demonstrating your distinction from it?
I love how subtly and meaningfully he mentioned how people should communicate.
"I don't play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don't ski?"
I'm dying here 😂
it's almost like the importance of whether someone believes in a god(s) is much more important than whether you play a particular sport or not. Not to mention the years of persecution and mistreatment of people who have dared to think differently - for example try being a non Catholic christian in Spain in the 16th century
But no, yeah. great argument
Do you get rejected by your family if you don't play golf ? Do you get fired from your job if they find out you don't play golf ? Do people actively try to pass legislation that will require your children to play golf in school ? Are there countries in the world that would kill you if they found out that you don't play golf ?
They're called ateeists and their community is at /r/nongolfers 🙃
@@Rahn127 you all have a point and you're right, i felt something was off in the argument, and here you are highlighting it, maybe Neil forgot the part of oppression and the wild discrimination that was and still being practiced on the non golf players!
It was not a great analogy from Neil. Religion is a much more important entity than golf in our world. Most of society is involved in religion compared to golf where most of society could care less. I am an avid golf fan however. Secondly, religion impacts the world much much more than golf. There are things that happen in the world due to religion or in the name of religion that many times need to be addressed. I'm talking about religious holidays being forced on people of other religions in some countries. I'm talking about wars fought over religion that might really be wars over land and power. Some key people involved in these wars might be driven by cruelty and wickedness. On a lighter note, people who are new to each other could find themselves in some kind of interaction where religion is involved, and either right at that moment, or eventually, it might be prudent for one person to tell the other person or group, that he or she is different and not part of a particular religious group. Think of a Jew being offered a slice of pizza with bacon on it. Think of marriage proposals. Think of people that do not appreciate the invention of electricity. People who are agnostic or atheist may have a good reason to gather and discuss the way they live, problems they encounter and solutions to those problems. Many people they meet may be part of a religious denomination, and be very decent people indeed. Therefore an atheist might want to let that other person know who they really are and where they stand out of respect for the other person. So, if your not a golfer...yes, just forget about a non golfer type of group supporting non golfers. Your life will not be impacted. However, If you are an Agnostic or an Athiest, there could be a number of good reasons for you to meet with debate, and converse with other people. That's just my take on it all. I can still appreciate Neil's video here.
I'm so disappointed.
He doesn't play golf.
You have an instrument that is shaped like a club, and called a club, but if you use it like a club, you will be unsuccessful, at best. Why would you expect NdGT to participate in such a "sport"?
believe in god, your be more disappointed!
hes a golfeist
Bill Skinner Nice
Richard Minter degreaser head is a paid actor just like bill nye..real science proves there's a God..
What it comes down to is labels in society cause more problems then they aim to solve whether its sexuality, race, or religion people want to have a single word to describe those people but in reality people associated to those labels do not all have the same pattern of thinking. Everyone has their own opinions, beliefs, and moral values and no group has the authority to accuse any person's way of thinking as being "right" or "wrong".
this statement is the best description.
If people stopped inventing Gods I wouldn’t have to deny them. -Ricky Gervais
Love this
God is real
@@14__16 Which god?
@@fabianlindberg7051
The God and creator of everything, Allah Almighty,
if you really search through the religions, you’ll find that most of the nations believed in the same God ( regardless of the name ), but some religions claim that God has a son ( like Christianity ), and some other claim that there are more gods with that God, even you’ll find the concept of hell,Adam, adultery punishments, demons.. etc before Judaism, so it is clear that the religion is the same one but people add their additions to it..
Today the only one religion that is still pure monotheistic, is Islam, I hope you got it..
May Allah guide your heart
@@14__16 I don’t believe that people from other religions would agree with you, that Allah is not god.
Doesn’t really matter though since there is no god!
It's hilarious to me, the comments on this video and the article I found it in. The man flat out SAYS, "I am not an atheist" and people are still trying to claim he is! He changed his own Wiki page (a page NOT created by him) to reflect that he is not an atheist and every time he did, someone changed it back. Unbelievable.
The man is intelligent, educated, well-spoken and well-versed in the subject. If he says he's not an atheist, HE'S NOT. Give it up, wtf?
***** PS: I find that comment hilarious because I SERIOUSLY doubt most atheists would rather wear the label "philosopher" than "scientist." LOL
He can say that he es nos black, never the less he is...
I disagree here. I'm an agnostic myself, and the point is that we believe that there isn't enough proof one way or another as to whether or not God exists. That doesn't flat out mean that we don't believe he doesn't exist period. We're still waiting on the proof you see.
rougerum Are you agnostic about Jehovah, Allah or Zeus? I think NDT is agnostic about a sort of "Higher Power", an "Absolute" or a Deist God. IMHO.
I love when people do that. "WHICH GOD DO YOU CLAIM???" It is a weapon they try to use against the religious. If someone is agnostic or otherwise not religious, that won't work. :)
As a Protestant, I have gained a massive amount of respect towards Agnostics over the years. This upped the ante.
I was baptized Catholic and raised Presbyterian. A whole lot of confusion ensued.
So why then?
same situation for me too.@@marysalisbury9270
Agnostics deserve 0 respect. They act in a way that makes them seem above the parts of the dispute. Their elevated and not-caring attitude is low key annoying and snob. Their slothfulness is very conceited
"At the end of the day, I'd rather there not be any category at all."
Many people complain that categories enable division and tribalism, and this is a valid complaint. But let's not overlook the fact that categories and generalizations are perhaps the most useful tool in the cognition toolbox. For example, your beliefs about God can easily and accurately be summed up by the phrase "skeptical agnostic atheist," and then we wouldn't need a 4-minute video about it. Some generalizations can gloss over nuance, but that can easily be remedied by saying "but" and explaining the nuance. If you tell someone that you fall into a certain category, and they then presume to know everything about you, then that's their fault, not the category's. Even if you refrain from mentioning a category by name, the other person will just pigeonhole you into a category of their choice as soon as your explanation starts to resemble it. Categories aren't the problem. People are. Tribalists gonna tribe.
Exactly. So, in ways, he isn't so much voicing against the idea of labels as the of problem of how people misunderstand labels.
The energy to push back against religions that aim to control others should always be found.
Anything can be used to control people: Politics, tv shows, sports, media, newspapers, economical theories, philosophical views (Marxism), universities, schools and so on.
Many scientists are religious, it is insane to put effort to talk about something you don't believe. Non-golfer reunions are nonsense.
laws also seek to control others. controlling other is not inherently evil.
@@Ausar0not true.
@@Alireza_farhoudi yes it is lmao.
The whole point of laws is to try to prevent people from doing certain things. Those things may be harmful to themselves or others, so it's not bad to forbid it, but it's still a form of control
Laws are messy religion is fiction
I am agnostic about the Easter bunny. I really can't prove or know whether he's there or not. But I am prepared to believe if proof is provided.
😁😁😁
@Tor:
Gimmie some of those Easter Eggs hehehehehehe
what degree of probability do you belief in the easter bunny? coin toss? 1/100? 1/1,000,000?
@@Jeff-tj4tx
1/(10^12) (read as 1/(10 to the 12th))
@@tor9273 wow you're more credulous than I am. My belief in the Easter Bunny is around 1 / 10 to the 18th
the sad thing is some people are not able to form their own views and opinions therefore they allign themselves with ideology/movement labels. Because of this they transform into "sheeps", accepting any ideas from an ideology/movement without much thought in it.
That ^
like christianity
Sadly/surprisingly, more and more subgroups of atheists are falling into this as well.
"sheeps"😂😂😂 It's sheep
Thomas Ellis thanks lol
"I do not claim to *know*, where many ignorant men are *sure*. That is all that 'agnosticism' means to me." --Clarence Darrow.
Neil does a fantastic job of explaining the difference between agnosticism and atheism. As an agnostic often marginalized or erased in such debates by both theists and atheists who believe there is no middle ground between their positions, it heartens me to see such a public figure as Neil explaining this so well.
Agnosticism and Atheism talk about two different things here which makes them not exclusive. Agnostic tells you what you don't know about this subject, atheism tells you what you don't believe about this subject.
A person is either a theist or a atheist, you either hold a belief there is a god or you do not hold a belief there is a god, you also either know there is or is no god or you don't know if there is or is no god.
Saying i don't believe in a god says nothing about what i might believe to the contrary, the same as saying i don't know says nothing about what i might know to the contrary.
There really is no middle, a lot of people don't like to identify themselves as a atheist is all this is.
Replicators I don't think it's right to assert that belief, as a property rather than a concept, is binary. This is where atheism fails. It implies that you have to either believe or not. What if I don't choose to actively take a stance? Take someone like Neil. You ask him "do you believe in god?" and what is his response? Probably "I don't know, the subject isn't of interest to me". I believe that anybody interested in conducting their lives rationally ceases to hold any active position in the conversation, one way or another.
It's sort of absurd to speculate on the existence of something that, by definition, is unknowable. This way, I assert that you can, in fact, be solely agnostic and not additionally "theist or atheist". Both belief and disbelief are essentially worthless, in a rational world, thus the "non-skier" and "non-golfer" example.
Adam Younis If you chose to not take a stance you wouldn't be commenting on TH-cam...
Matt Beckman Are you suggesting that I must either believe or disbelieve the existence of a god to post a comment on TH-cam or merely that I wouldn't bother if I didn't?
Adam, your guess about Tyson's attitudes was correct. He has stated in interviews that people trying to categorize or label him as an atheist, or scold him for not being a good enough atheist, annoy him. He doesn't want to be labelled period, he doesn't care about whether god exists or not, and he doesn't like to waste time thinking about it when he could be *doing science*.
This naturally pisses off some zealous atheists who prefer to insist that there be no middle ground and keep trying to rope all agnostics into their bitter war against religion. They need to learn that some agnostics bear religion no particular ill will and feel we have better things to do with our lives than beat our heads against the brick wall of theism for eternity.
You can totally be a shy atheist. I am. I don’t really argue with anyone but I’m fully aware that god is nothing. I just keep it to myself because I don’t really see the point in failing to convince someone else to be reasonable and address their their imaginary delusions. It’s almost always going to result in that person holding onto their beliefs as I do mine. No one will ever convince me god is real and I understand it’s the same for those who choose to believe otherwise. Period.
I envy westerners who can publicly talk about their actual believes without getting harassed or even killed. I was born and raised in a conservative Muslim country, and I have to play along to avoid troubles, and sometimes get dragged to prayers that has a huge impact on my IQ, it was obvious for me how Islam is so wrong and violent since I was 8 years old during Islamic classes, tried to seek truth for a while but ended up being physically harmed by teachers just for asking, I wish I can leave this shit hole someday and save what's left of my IQ ... I wish I was born in Europe or US :(
+Dandal Ero This is so sad to read, but it's good to remember that there are many people who suffer in this way. Being someone who was raised in a Christian community in the US, I often think how grateful I am not to have been born during the inquisition, for even if the prison of dogma had not effectively restrained me (not a likely scenario without the internet and the ability to express doubts freely), I would have had to hide for fear of pain and death. Your comment is a sobering reminder that many people in the world today must live in a similarly nightmarish scenario.
I sincerely hope that you are able to leave soon. At least you're able to think for yourself and don't have to live as a slave to harmful doctrine and a sadistic, imaginary being. Most people born into your situation can't even have that said of them.
+Dandal Ero i feel you bro, our story are totally the same.. the difference is i was raised as a "Muslim" in so-called Islamic moderate nation ( but it turn out to be bullshit, because the society i was raised in are conservative and our goverment administrated by some extreme religious person.. ).. thinking about getting US visa 5 or 6 years later
Some Christians go through the same thing dude . The Roman Catholic Church created christiniaty or corrupted it and they made Islam so Muslims will fight against each other Christians . ( I know that Christians , Jews and Muslims get along in morroco .And that a mosque is besides a church there in eithopia and they get along find . I am basically saying that even through that there are radical Christians and Muslims . And even thorough their are ppl from all 3 groups that get along the powers of that be fucked up everything . Go Watch the Islamic connection to Rome and whited out 3 on TH-cam . I will be praying for you .
+FatDuckBeak good luck mate. I hope it turns out well for you and that your family can understand
+FatDuckBeak good luck mate. I hope it turns out well for you and that your family can understand
Me when I find out Neil deGrasse Tyson identifies as Agnostic: 😃 Me when I find out Neil dGrasse Tyson doesn’t play Golf: 😭
I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I’m always very skeptical and am always wondering, but feel that at the end of the day heaven and god isn’t real. However I’m open to anything.
I’ve had many conversations with friends, some saying my dad who committed suicide when I was 9 would go to hell because he was atheist. Was I offended? No, because I asked the question, expecting an honest answer. And I didn’t debate at all. I listened to so many peoples stories of what they believe, people from Christians to Bahai etc, some online some irl, and let them say their entire story, not debating them once.
A person should always do this. Don’t debate, listen. If you debate you won’t learn anything. If you listen however, you will gain much knowledge potentially lost.
Thank you for your insight.
Good insight bro
So true. If only we learned to listen to everyone for what they have to say, we would be better people. Most people listen only to counter on all points but what you did opens up the path to a bigger understanding. Thank you for sharing this.
Brother have read about Islam ??
@@rashednehri3630 no one cares What you think
"I think for myself"
Tyson is pur gold
and a true thinker
?
this just makes me like him even more
oh yes the man that told people "caring about mass shooting victims is nonsensical cuz stats bro". Good man to like even more
@@noahhenderson3164 mathematically there is no difference.stats actually doesn't give a fuck whether you died riddled with bullets or a deadly virus.Human life at the end causes a tiny variation in the infinite scale of the universe.
@@OptimusDelta "empathy is useless cuz there is no meaning in the universe" "I refuse to abide by evolutionary adaptations while praying to the science of the lack of meaning of the universe"
- very picking and choosing of you. Just like our friend Tyson. It's almost the same thing thiests do. Fancy that
@@OptimusDelta that way of thinking takes away what makes us human
@@noahhenderson3164 you took words out of your ass
What am I if i just don't give a shit?
+SparklyFeces Apathetic!
+Johann Sebastian Bach Not "just like Dr. Tyson." That would imply that Dr. Tyson hasn't bothered to think about it. He is really atheist, but not the kind of atheist that people associate with the term. He isn't some fucker who goes out, as a comment on this video said, "Circle Jerking," because that completely ruins the point. Tyson will speak if someone asks his opinion, but he won't go out actively finding atheists to agree with him. He knows he's right. He doesn't need other people to tell him so.
+Tzadeck Nice! That's what I was looking for.
Tiffany Weaver No, it's not harder to argue with them. That type of bullshit means that you haven't thought about it enough. Most atheists who come from religion go through a phase of agnosticism and/or deism. If you really believe that there *could* be a god, you must not understand the world around you very well. We have great explanations for all but the most complicated and far away things, so no god is needed. Yes, an athiest could always be wrong, and any smart atheist should admit that, but it's like saying:
"There could be a teapot orbiting Jupiter. I cannot disprove this. Yet, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that there isn't one. It's so unlikely that we may as well not even consider the possibility."
This is one reason that atheism is a more intelligent way of looking at it than agnosticism.
+SparklyFeces Irrelevantist.
I don't think it matters what group you fit in spiritually, religiously, scientifically or whatever. What matter is that you continue to think and you're open to the possibilities to the universe.
Agnostic is about knowledge. Theist or atheist is about belief.
He gave a half ass answer that panders more to theists.
Golfers aren't going around trying to force other people to play golf.
But some will, not a majority. People who don't play golf or dislike golf will try to get people to not play golf and advocate against it. It's a two way street of the lesser populations of both categories.
1trueNRG The reason I said that is because he's insinuating that atheism is kind of useless like "a-golfer". The problem is that Christians are constantly trying to impose their beliefs/religion on others by trying to change the laws to suit their desires. Golfers aren't trying to impose anything on others. That's why there's no "a-golfer" movement. Golfers aren't trying to force the schools to teach kids golf in school, but Christians are constantly trying to force schools to teach intelligent design. Christians are constantly trying to ban things like gay marriage and abortion. Golfers usually want to stay to themselves and be left alone, and I have no problem with that. I've also never seen anyone try to force a golfer to not play golf.
You are generalizing Christians very wrongly. You know what Christians are constantly trying to do? Be faithful to God and themselves. You know what they aren't constantly trying to do? Change the way other people live to be more the way they want. And I'm positive there are golfers that one golf taught in schools and will attempt to give schools clubs and teams for golf and incorporate it into physical education. I also know a lot of people who think golf is stupid, not a sport and shouldn't be played especially not over other sports available. But much like Christians and Atheists, that isn't the majority. I know a lot of atheists who belittle, antagonize and ostracize religious people, and I know religious people who think it's their way or the hellway, but I don't stereotype them. Sure, there is a reason to be mad at the combination of church and state, but do you really think christian politicians are the best examples of christians? They're barely the best examples of human beings in a lot of cases.
1trueNRG Christians who do not are disobeying Mark 16:15
Chris Thompson I don't think "preaching the gospel" has anything to do with 'forcing' your beliefs through law, which is what this conversation is discussing...
He has intellectual integrity. He admits that he doesn't know.
That is humility.
I admire him for his consistency.
Even though I like the God hypothesis.
Doc Holiday Say when 😎
@@joesmoke9624
When
Doc Holiday Ya got me
@@joesmoke9624 🤠👍
Doc Holiday 😁
@ 00.17 "I think for myself." End of story.
*Theist:* "I believe in a God or Gods."
*Atheist:* "I do not believe in a God or Gods."
*Agnostic Theist:* "I believe in a God & I don't think it can be known for certain."
*Agnostic Atheist:* "I don't believe in a God & I don't think it can be known for certain."
*Gnostic Theist:* "I believe in a God & I know it exists."
*Gnostic Atheist:* "There is no God & I know for certain."
Agnosticism only addresses knowledge, NOT belief. You either believe something or you don't.
How is this not top comment, it explained everything so clearly
You know ball
Gnotic/agnostic=position of knowledge
Theist/deist/athiest=position of belief/disbelief
Daniel Stevens A deist is also a theist. It's just the generalized, non dogmatic version.
Yes, correct. Why do people not understand this? I'm an agnostic atheist. That's a thing because of the different basis of each word. But Neil also makes a good point about just not having a label. I understand that people create labels and word associations to better organize and thus understand the world around them, but some things just don't need labels, like someone who doesn't ski. That's the Taoist and Buddhist ideology, to not have labels because categorizing things prevents seeing the oneness of everything.
Freshairkaboom Gaming
No
Deist believe in a higher power, not a god. There is a Difference
I'm a Agnostic Deist... I don't believe in a god so I can't be a Theist
Though technically if you think about it...
Everybody is Agnostic...
No body actually knows for sure.
no one can know.
Forsaken Fenix It's a claim of knowledge. Gnostic people claim to know, and they do exist. Presuppositionalists, for instance.
I think you need to simply google deism. It's the belief that a god exists and/or created everything, but does not interact with us in any way. There are a lot of atheists who believe in a higher power. As long as it's not a deity of any kind, they're still atheists.
Freshairkaboom Gaming
Really depends on the Deist interpretation of Deism really.
This just boils down to Symantecs
"i think for myself", quite rare in todays world to see that.
This video perplexes me a bit. I think he just wants to move past the need for labels. But agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism and gnosticism are declarations of knowledge/certainty. It is possible to be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist, as it is possible to be an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist.
Gnostic Theist = I know for a fact there is a god.
Agnostic Theist = I believe there is a god but cannot be certain.
Gnostic Atheist = I know for a fact there is no god.
Agnostic Atheist = I do not believe in a god but cannot be certain.
He's basically saying that he's an agnostic atheist. He says he has seen no evidence of a god, or something like that. That's what an atheist is. He's an atheist, whether he likes it or not.
@@grizzkarizz2960 he literally said "if there is any evidence of god i am ready to accept it" that's not an atheist and believe it or not all scientists are like that, they think there is no god but they are ready to accept that there is.
@@haseeman5562 I'm an atheist who thinks exactly the same way. He says he's ready to accept the notion if any evidence is provided. Cool. That means he doesn't at this point of time believe that one exists. That's the definition of an atheist.
@@grizzkarizz2960 that's still not an atheist, atheist are annoying people who won't believe in a god even if we find actual evidence while neil on the hand just doesn't care, there is a difference.
@@haseeman5562 nope. That's a gnostic atheist. Neil's beliefs, or lack of, are exactly like mine. I will accept that there is a god if shown evidence. He is an agnostic atheist.
As much as I respect Neil, I somewhat disagree with his comparison to the "non-golf player". The term "atheist" exists as a response to religion, because it's prevalent enough to warrant a term to distantiate ourselves from believers. If golf was as prevalent, powerful and influential as religion, a similar term would exist for "non-golf players" and would likely see common usage. Religion is used in major decisions and politics, even in secular nations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was ever an actual golf war. A more apt (but still imperfect) comparison would be between liberals and conservatives. People range from being a full blown conservative to a full blown liberal and anywhere in between. Complete agnosticism is the middle ground between a theist and an atheist. Agnostic theism leans towards one end, agnostic atheism towards the other. With the scale being decided by the degree of our agnosticism. I'm reasonably confident in my belief that there is no god, but I can't possibly claim to be absolutely certain.
I'm an agnostic first and an atheist second. I don't claim to have evidence against the existence of any god, but I do have a few decent arguments to disbelieve in any specific individual god. That is what makes me an atheist. Not a firm belief that no god could possibly exist. I don't think I will ever have the absolute knowledge required to make that kind of assessment. I do believe the world would fall into chaos, should any specific god ever be proven to exist and be the only real god. It would shift the spectrum from atheists and theists to followers and enemies of this god. It would lead to a religious war on a scale we can't even imagine. And no, I don't know where on that spectrum I would place. I don't think any of us realistically do until we get to that point. It would certainly see a rise in misotheism that could only be curbed by a tyrannical deity.
I didn't read your whole comment but i also disagreed with that point.. there are vegetarians and non vegetarians, and we definitely need a word to distinguish between both.. same goes with atheists and believers
I think it hilarious that even after Tyson just plainly explained his stance, there are people here trying to assign a certain (different) meaning to his explanation.
One of the greatest minds of all time. Tyson is an ample voice of reason in an age of extreme ignorance.
It's not the fact that he is smart that stands him out. It's the fact that he's able to communicate it understandable. There are possibly lots of smarter people around, but they may not be able to communicate it as accurately.
sorry dude, but since you're going for an intelligent declarative statement Imma have to point out your misuse of ample. You could use it to modify reason, but as it modifies "voice" it sounds like you're saying he's a good enough voice of reason that we don't need any other voices. you could also be referring to his girth, saying he is both ample in size and reasonable in voice.
tabularasa0606 damn, your grammar is trippin as well. Facts don't stand anything out, something stands out (or doesn't) due to facts. Also, since understandable modifies a verb, it has to be an adverb, understandably. I agree with you tho, Tyson's relateability is one of his best qualities.
One of the greatest minds of all
time?? Hardly. He is a decent physics populizer.
I highly admire NDT. I just wanted to point out that when non-religious groups gather to discuss policy(political, legislative), it is very important because if laws are written by religious folks, it can sometimes go against everything that free humans deserve and have rights to. Combining religious dogma with secular human rights isn't always a great thing and needs oversight.
I personally am equally agnostic and atheist
I am agnostic in the empirical sense by which I have not received a direct sign that, as proof, allows me to know the existence or nonexistence of God.
I am an atheist in the sense of my lack of faith in a personal god and an organized religion, I abandoned the Catholic Church and its teachings.
However, to simplify and avoid misunderstandings I identify myself as an "atheist and secular humanist."
And that's it!
But atheism isn't a "philosophy" or a "movement". It's just lack of belief in god(s).
TH-camr27 actually it is a movement look into it
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a movement, but it is definitely a resistance of sorts. Denying that is impossible. And maybe it's a good thing, although I do feel some atheists get rather obnoxious about the whole thing. Telling people how stupid they are is no way to win an argument.
And since I realize that in this day and age the group you identify with is way more important than your individual beliefs, I'll just throw it in there that I'm an Atheist. Make of it what you will.
TH-camr27 It is kind of a philosophy. At least a way of thinking when it comes to God.
Sajad
theism
[thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
Basically, what atheism means is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. In other words, it cannot be a philosophy because the very definition of atheism is precisely not that. As I said, there is definitely a resistance these days. But saying atheism is a philosophy is an overstatement.
New Atheism is a movement. Atheism+ is a movement. Atheism itself, is not a movement
Im brazillian, we speak portuguese, but im very happy, that i learned english enought to undersand and talk in a basic way. Videos like that is the reason im soo happy to be able to understand your language. I wish the channel could have portuguese subtitles (i would gladly help if you want) so i could share it to all my friends and family. Idoubt you will read that, but thanks Neil, you trully are an educator!
Congrats man...
I agree with Neil. In 80s when I was still in high school I came in contact with Marxism and considered my self a warrior for science. Along with my peer groups I used to debate with many Christian, Islamic, and Hindu clergies. I was hardcore atheist. It continued till my bachelor degree then one my classmate who was very good in physics but still he was hardcore Hindu gave me some books to read. After reading those books I came to know it was not the case that religious people are completely dumbass as we used to think. I wanted to know more about religions objectively. After my Master's in science and I diverted towards anthropology. Anthropology gave me different viewpoint. Today, myself call Buddhist agnostic.
So..a stoic?
Fuck Marxism
Bah
Coming on this server just to be suffered and dying uwu
@@getunedvell5955 it do be like that
The facts about sports analogy is that it is chosable and not forced into one another and no one is going to kill you for not loving any particular sport..I love his way of thinking though❤️🔥
Such a wise answer. I'm a Christian and I don't care about his religion or anybody else's. I just care about how we can contribute to make the world better.
Don't you think he's going to hell?
@@w.8424 i think of hell as a place where you regret not being with God
There is hardly any possibility of going to heaven.there are thousands of confident religions on the planet. Each having their own versions of heaven and hell, god etc. So it will be a huge amount of luck for you to have been born into the right religion and go to heaven 😂
@@lc1777 with all the hundreds of religions out there that are all made up by humans, I feel like none of them would possibly be true and if there was only one true religion, let’s say Christianity, then all the other 6 billion people in the planet would be in hell for believing in something else or being an atheist/agnostic while the 1 billion so called Christians which not all of them are actually deeply religious and they just claim to be a Christian, go to heaven. That would mean about 14% would actually get in heaven while the other 86% stay in hell for an eternity and Satan would have a lot work to do dealing with 6 billion people in hell. And the whole concept of an afterlife just sounds like fiction to me meant to scare people so they can believe in god and even I was questioning this concept myself when I was a kid when I was more religious.
@@EduardoSalamanca1960 agreed
Im a agnostic atheist i don't believe a god exists but im not saying its not possible
Thats not a thing. Thats called being a soft agnostic.
+evan mann No it's called being smart
you dont get to redefine words and ideals that outdate you many times over.
Sooo ... the "atheist" part is redundant.
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley
Hi Chefi, you deserve credit for saying you don't believe a god exists but it could be possible.
He was spot on...
Atheist = someone who claims God does not exist.
Agnostic = Someone who does not claim God exists, nor claims he exists, because there is no proof to his existence or non-existence, but would be willing to claim so if there existed un-deniable, un-questionable, and scientific proof (such as is the case with the existence of forces of gravity) that ever came to light.
Exactly.
***** I can't speak for all agnostics; but *for me*, agnosticism isn't about "middle ground of belief". I'm curious as to why you felt like you needed to assert that; you got any statistical data to back that claim up? An answer of "neither" isn't "middle ground" to either the god question or "Are you from Venus or Mars?" It's just simply a third possibility that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the question.
You go on to mention that it is quite simple to accept or reject any proposition. You make it sound like agnostics haven't made one of those two choices. For me and others who follow the same reasoning, we have rejected that *our position* on the god question is "I know god exists". Ditto for "I know god doesn't exist". If we are clear on what we mean by the terms 'god', and 'exist', then god does/does not exist; it *is* one or the other. However, we haven't decided which it is yet until... wait for it... wait for it... WE KNOW.
Which brings me to my last point about someone replying to the question "Do you _believe_ a god exists" with "I'm agnostic" or "I don't know". Again, *for me* ( _damn, I almost make it sound like this is my own personal opinion and one shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about a category of people_):
1) I recognize that it's an existential question.
2) I recognize that knowledge is the best means we have at our disposal to address existential questions and I choose this method to determine such things. I haven't got an answer yet with this method, but that's ok. I'm patient in that regard. That is all. Full stop.
3) Wait.. how did we get to #3? Oh, some _slackjaw mofo_ asked me what I *believed*. Fine.
3) I recognize that going with whatever makes me feel good (belief/speculation) to answer existential questions is about as good as using Pin-the-tail-on-the-jackass to determine such things; and as such, choose not to use this method. I am indeterminate in my belief on this matter. That answer your question? Or are you going to stay here and bitch about me using agnosticism as some kind of middle ground to questions of belief when I was trying to tell you that I don't use belief to determine such things? I don't care one way or the other. I'm going back to #2. Buh-bye.
Ataraxia6746
"I recognize that knowledge is the best means we have at our disposal to address existential questions and I choose this method to determine such things."
Knowledge is the subset to belief, you have to believe something before you can claim to know anything about it. Belief's turn to knowledge because knowledge is the graduation point of belief, however knowledge never turns to belief.
You have to be either a theist or a atheist before you can get to gnostic or agnostic, and that is why you are simply just being dishonest by skipping belief because belief's are what people act upon, not knowledge. Everybody "Should" be agnostic.
I don;t care if people want to call themselves agnostic, to me it means they care more about what comforts them from social fears than what is actually true. That is fine, theists can be mean to those who don't agree with them, but atleast recognize that the reason atheists use atheist is because they are being honest with their position, and a lot of them have views they feel they need to express, even if you are apathetical about the subject, but you might be surprised to know that a lot of atheists also share the same view as you.
It's fine to call yourself agnostic, just don't misdefine another label just because you don't want to be associated with them, and that is why atheists come down hard on agnostics.
Replicators Instead of requoting everything you typed, I'll just number my responses to each paragraph you wrote. I agree with some parts of what you said, in this and other posts you made; so I'm not completely disagreeable with you. However, you've made several erroneous assumptions I feel like I need to address. (rolls up sleeves)
1) _Knowledge is a subset of belief?_ Matt Dillahunty fan eh? Me too, but I think in this matter he has it wrong. The supposed logic goes: belief is something one holds to be true; and knowledge is that plus other criterion. I disagree that belief is nothing more than "something one holds to be true"; that definition sounds more apt for the word 'claim' or 'assertion'. As far as I can tell, knowledge and belief are the same thing except for one crucial difference: with knowledge, a person feels like all relevant factors have been accounted for in the reasoning behind the assertion; which they do not in the case of belief. So you can't have a characteristic of a subset contradicting a characteristic of the superset. _Knowledge never turns to belief?_ I guess that depends on if you're using the Justifed-True-Belief model for knowledge. There are other models for knowledge that philosophers debate. I don't agree with the JTB model. I don't think knowledge has to *be* true, but rather *thought* to be true under all conceived relevant inquiries. Justified-Reliable-Claim seems to be a better model.
2) _People act upon beliefs_ True story. People also act upon knowledge, coercion, desire, and intoxication to name a few. Also true story. Again, I pick knowledge out of these options as a personal favorite in regards to the god question. Call me crazy.
3 & 4) Not sure what this was all about. I never mentioned the word atheist in that post. I was addressing an assumption that all agnostics were using the label as some sort of middle ground of belief. Truth be told I wish atheist would simply mean indeterminate belief, instead of this tug of war between non-theism & anti-theism. Would bring the term more in line with agnosticism. I'm not afraid of being identified with the label, I just don't find it useful.
Ataraxia6746
I don't care if people want to use agnostic cause they feel more comfortable using it, trust me when i say i get it. I use both just because i am ethical and care about truth over comfort.
Nobody is telling you to use atheist really, what we want you people to stop doing is misdefining OUR position just to make you feel more comfortable with YOURS.
When someone tells you they are atheist, it only tells you one thing about them, that they do not actively believe there are any gods, it doesn't tell you anything more, and if you want to know more ask them instead of presupposing what they are based on a label they use.
When someone tells you they are agnostic, it only tells you one thing about them, that they lack knowledge of any gods, it doesn;t say anymore than that, but if you want to know more then you should ask them.
I will consider knowledge as a different form of belief when you can demonstrate knowledge forming into belief's. If you can't, then you really don't know what you are talking about. Knowledge requires justification, meaning evidence to support it, this usually happens with experience of the belief you have.
No, people do not act on knowledge, knowledge is only what confirms your belief as true. Knowledge is justified true "Belief", meaning it is pretty much a attachment to belief which confirms it as true by means of justification. I know people try to make apologetics like you are doing to seperate yourselves from atheists, but if you cared at all about what is true, instead of building up apologetics, you should instead be honest.
Agnosticism, from the Greek root agnōstos (not knowing). Keep in mind there were the Gnostics back in the day that proclaimed they had knowledge that was incontrovertible. Agnosticism is the art of not knowing. To throw your ego to the side and admit maybe theres more to learn. "Those that say they know the nature of the universe, know not. Those that say they know not, know it, and are ready for further instruction." Some people define their entire personality on the basis that they have sacred knowledge, ineffable or infallible. Those same people fail to understand their own personal bias.
Theist - Someone who believes in a god
Atheist - Someone who does not believe in god.
An atheist is not necessarily someone who claims there is no god (though there are some that do)
Agnostic is a truth claim, or rather a claim that you do not know if there is a god.
You can be both an agnostic and an atheist. They are not exclusive terms since they are not about the same thing.
You can also be an agnostic theist. (I know of a few myself).
As far as I can tell, Neil does not believe in god, there for he is an atheist. However he does not know if there is no god, so he is also agnostic.
I understand why Neil doesn't want to call himself an atheist, but based on the definition he is one whether he likes it or not.
I think the people who say that this disappoints them aren't seeing the bigger picture here. Namely that Neil advocates science and science literacy first and frankly, that's all we really need here. I *am* atheist but as long as people are taught *ACTUAL* science and how it applies to them, especially the young, then whatever else you believe is irrelevant.
Well said.
As a christian, I respect him and he inspires me :)
Jordan Lazaro I don’t see how people chose atheism anyways. The only thing about being religious is that you are kept from practicing immoral improper behavior which according to the Bible, God grants eternal life to his subjects. With atheism you just say there is no God and therefore they’re not bound to any rules and therefore not really caring about their future. We all get old and die. It’s like they don’t think about that. Life is short here, now. With God there is the promise of the real life but then I guess to each their own. No one is forced to believe in God everyone has free will.
@@nsr5961 If you need a book to tell you that it's wrong to kill, rape or steal, then how moral of a person are you really? I don't need some book to tell me that certain things are just downright wrong to do in society. IMO the Atheist/Agnostic is actually more humble and honest than the theist because they are open minded enuff to accept the fact that this life may very well be the ONLY one we have, whereas the theist cannot accept that as a reality and lives their entire life based on rules from some bronze-aged primitive book that tells them to do good acts if they want go to the special place in the sky when they die. An act of kindness from an Atheist/Agnostic means so much more to me because they're not expecting some reward in their "afterlife", they're just doing it from the goodness of their heart, which is way more genuine.
@@thevulture5750 Humans are selfish pieces of shit. Don't you ever compare ME to them again. Do I make myself clear?
@@thevulture5750 Someone better than you.
@@thevulture5750 At knowing the world better and not being bigoted, yes, that person is better than you.
"Do non golfers come together, and strategize" Neil is out here clowning on these guys lmao
Actually, he was clowning on the idiocy of having to be labeled atheist. So it was more of an insult to our global society.
He is simplifying a complex issue. He was in support of Atheist movements that "strategized" to stop creationism in schools, since it goes against science.
Atheists should really listen to this man's words of wisdom. And the religious who claim their way is the way or the only way, can also benefit from his wisdom.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Neil is wrong here but I guess that he hasn't really researched it. I can't blame him. He is a busy man.
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims- *are unknown or unknowable*."
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the *rejection of belief* in the existence of deities."
So agnosticism deals with knowledge, which is a subset of belief, and atheism deals with belief or lack of belief. It's not my problem if people think that they know everything about me when they discover that I am an atheist. I just point out to them that they are wrong.
The important part shouldn't be WHAT you believe, it's WHY you believe or don't believe. And this is the reason why atheism is such a big topic today. Religious propaganda tries to push through this 'us vs them' mentality. Not a single religious people have ever asked me the 'why' question. They just assume the lies that church leaders are feeding to them, like:
- So you just believe in nothing.
- You are just angry at god.
- Some religious person did something bad to you.
etc...
Mr Vegiita, please read my comment, 2 above your comment.
VJScope Hurray. ¡Finally someone get the diference between agnosticism and theism/atheism. Thanks.
Neil “I think for myself” degrasse
oh def. otherwise he wouldn't be telling people how Friday the 13th is stupid cuz days like Thursday the 12th are just as rare
God made the big bang athiests love denying it as a half christian half deist, fuck you
Bronze Spectre sorry for what
Bronze Spectre i cant tell if your agreeing with me that he is a douche or that your going against me saying my comment was bad. Either way, hope you do well
Bronze Spectre lol now were confusing each other. I am with you, were cool
That's why I like this man. I also don't want to put forth the time and energy debating with Christians why I don't believe or want to go to their church.
I like Neil and I like that he is in Cosmos.
I'm an agnostic in general, but I'm an atheist when it comes to the God of the Bible, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, or other man-made gods.
I miss Carl.
RIP
Clevername he is playing it safe and you better God is mighty
God is an atheist.
Who ??
Why did people just give up on the idea of multiple gods like Zeus and whatever the water god is and stuff. Just wondering
I'm an Atheist but I'm totally down with being a Theist if he shows himself. The point of an opinion is that it's flexible and adaptable.
I wish more people were like you, not forcing your opinions on people. What this world needs, is everyone to be open minded.
halogod18 And I wish believers would stop going to my house almost every saturday to talk to me about god, even though they're aware that i'm an Atheist, but I guess it completely skips their mind!!
This is my first piece of media that I've seen Tyson on, and I got to say that Mr. Tyson really seems like a nice guy.
I agree with mr. Tyson. The most logical standpoint is to be agnostic. I don't "believe" anything in the emotional sense regarding divinity, so if I have to identify as anything at all I'll be taking the most logical option. There has never been concrete evidence either for or against the existence of the divine.
My thought
When he says "i am an educator"
Well you're my best teacher
I prefer the term atheist to define myself. I do not believe in a god. I am an agnostic atheist, and I tend to tell people something along the lines of, "I don't believe, but I don't know." However, I will also say that everone is agnostic about a god, unless they have evidence. Because none of us truly "know", we are all agnostic. That is why I prefer the term atheist. Everyone should already understand that you are agnostic, or at least assume it, until you bring forth evidence.
DatedIntegral93 Nope. Theism is *belief in.* Atheism is *belief in not.*
Agnosticism is to choose to not *believe in* nor *believe not.*
It is a simple as that.
Dean Miller
The structure of the word is a, meaning "not", and theist, which you know means "one who believes". I am "not one who believes". Ken Ham is "one who believes". This does not mean that i am "one who does not believe" that a god MIGHT exist. It simply means that i do not believe that a god exists. But one could. I believe one could. I do not know for sure, whether God is real or not, so i am an agnostic. However, agnosticism is irrelevant, because everyone on the planet Earth is agnostic. Agnostic being "one who does not know". Nobody knows for sure. So, I am an atheist. I doubt the existence of a god or god-like beings. So, you cannot choose to subscribe to neither theism nor atheism. If you think there is, you are theistic. If you think there isn't, you are atheistic. If you think there might be, and probably is, you are theistic. If you think there might be, but there probably isn't, then you are atheistic. If you think that there might be, but you don't know how likely it is, then you are theistic, because without evidence, you give the least likely scenario more credit than it deserves. Therefore, with the ideas placed before in mind, the idea that you cannot be neither atheistic nor theistic, and the idea that agnosticism is unrelated to atheism, because everyone is an agnostic, it is unnecessary to define oneself as an agnostic. Of course, it isn't necessary to completely regard any idea of a god as false, because it would be irresponsible to predispose it as such, but it would be even more irresponsible to give the idea of a god anymore credit that "possible, but likely not", without evidence to back it up.
Dean Miller
In short:
Agnosticism is not a choice. An agnostic is "one who doesn't know". Nobody knows, so everyone is agnostic. Therefore, it is unreasonable to define yourself as something that describes literally everyone else, just as much.
I find the term ‘agnostic atheism’ oxymoronic. How can you believe that the question of whether or not there is a God/gods is unanswerable, while at the same time believe that there is more than likely no God/gods?
Gary Buckley
I am a billionaire. Is it true? Maybe. It is not definitely answerable. However, since I can't prove it to you, you should not believe it. Therefore, you are agnostic about this topic, but you would not believe that it was true. Same thing.
But Mr. Tyson it doesn't say "In golf we trust" on my currency.
Are you joking? Please be joking.
Porcum Means Pig Yeah, mine says that.
So was he joking?............ I wanna know.
I think non-believers (ie Atheism) have a title because it was needed for people to differentiate themselves from the religious crowd. If a time comes where playing golf becomes an important part of life, we'll start hearing the term "Golfers" and "Golf-nots" being thrown around :p
Anyone watch Avatar the Last Airbender? there wasn't a term for people who couldn't bend in the first series. Then in Legend of Korra we suddenly have the term "Non-bender" being thrown around because of the political and social issues of the time necessitated it.
It didn't say it on paper money until 1957.
This is why defining terms is important. I am in the same position as Neil and have the same feelings but would describe myself as atheist, as in a-theist. More accurately I'd describe myself as an agnostic atheist. Those atheists that engage in polemicals and debates against religion I'd tend to describe as anti-theist, as Christopher Hitchens described himself.
But in the end it's all semantics and so long as we understand what we all mean by different labels, we can agree on what positions actually are even if we use different words to define them.
I'd also agree with Neil that atheism doesn't really exist; or more truthfully, it can ONLY exist in contrast to theism
keep in mind thought that base on huxleys defintion which is the one neil uses here you cant be an agnostic atheist. huxley didnt separate knowledge and beleif. he said one shouldnt make claims or beleifs they had no evidence for. which is why you have a set of agnostics like say him or i that are strictly agnostic. is also why you see him give the explanation of why he bases what something is base on the actions of its community not just its defnition as people can define it in different ways.
I don't see merit to the "I don't play golf but I'm not an a-golfer" argument. We have lots of A- prefix words that just mean *not*-something. A theist is someone who believes in god(s). An atheist is someone who is *not* a theist.
I agree it's a strange label to have, but it's a necessity due to the prevalence of religion.
Everyone carries their own preconceptions of what labels mean, but that doesn't mean the labels themselves are wrong. You may not like the label for yourself, but I think by definition it fits you regardless.
hes saying why is there a label at all? Why do you have to believe in something? that's his question
Right. You don't have to believe in something. Which is what being an atheist means.
From my understanding of their definitions, I would say agnostics are inherently atheist (which he even mentions in the video).
It's really all very pedantic and semantic.
Some people see atheism as an ideology. I don't think that fits the definition, but then again definitions change and words can have multiple meanings.
_"hes saying why is there a label at all?"_
But that's been answered a million times: because a majority of the population believes something, and it's therefore relevant and useful to make the distinction that you do not.
The fact is, Tyson finds it acceptable to use a label that has an a- prefix, describes *something he does not do*, is accurate when defined properly, and is useful in distinguishing his thinking from the majority. That word is Agnostic. Yet this other word that has an a- prefix, describes *something you do not do*, is accurate when defined properly, and useful in identifying and distinguishing your position from the masses... that word being "Atheism"... and despite those similarities it's somehow so incredibly inappropriate and useless in some peoples eyes.
Presupposition is not a strong basis for argument.
Shut the fuck up.
Ok, Rob Daniels obviously needs a hug.
But I agree, A-Theist wouldn't need to be a label that even exists if God wasn't shoved everywhere possible including on our own currency (which wasn't always there for those familiar with history in particularly the Cold War, what if tennis was on our money instead I wonder?). If the default assumption is that we're a "Christian nation", I'm not trying to argue for or against that at all but it is what many other countries would probably say was our national religion if they had to guess.
On the other hand this "Atheist Mold" he speaks of, as a self labeled atheist I have to agree with it at least partially, and I'm sorry to hear that some bad apples stand out as representative of atheism for him. But it's the opposite of a belief system, it's not a stance in anyway. There is no real movement in this country for atheism and freedom from religion right now. So it sucks to hear that people are talking badly about atheists as individuals only.
So the man gives the most logical, fair and level-headed speech regarding atheism ever witnessed on the internet, and there's still people raging about religious nonsense in the comments section.
Wait, why am I surprised?
" So the man gives the most logical, fair and level-headed speech regarding atheism ever witnessed on the internet, and there's still people raging about religious nonsense in the comments section.
Wait, why am I surprised?"
Arguing for the sake of argument is a cornerstone of internet comments, so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a part of the majority of message board discussions.
But then again, so is "here's the RIGHT opinion, you are obviously wrong and should immediately stop talking about the issue".....
...and "I'm above these types of pointless arguments, so pardon me while I wade into this one".
Both of which were implied by your comment.
Welcome to the jungle.
Obviously you are reading more into this than exists. He's not making an argument for one side or the other; he's clearly trying to distance himself from the entire subject, taking a neutral stance.
He all but plainly says atheism and religion do not interest him. This isn't even an argument, thus there is nothing to defend, and your picking apart of my comment only serves to prove my point of people finding and developing conflict where none originally exists. I'm baffled by everyone's insistence on jumping on their individual soapboxes over absolutely nothing.
This video was not an atheism vs religion debate, argument or even discussion; it was an objective observation of others' misinterpretations with a very, very clear stance of neutrality. And as with this video, when reading my comment you clearly thought it contained an argument where in fact it did not. It was feigned surprise, at most.
I get that Neil doesn't want the atheist label attached to himself, but it is really no different than him calling him a scientist. He studies in fields of science, so he is a scientist, regardless if that is the label he generally applies to himself. In the same way, if he doesn't believe in god, he is an atheist. He doesn't have to call himself one. He doesn't ever have to use that label. But by definition, he is an atheist.
You CAN be an agnostic atheist. Or a gnostic atheist. Or a gnostic/agnostic theist.
Atheist/theist and Agnostic/gnostic are two different things and either or can be applied to each other.
+CReaper210 The agnostic position is generally taken to be distinct from atheism.
"Atheist/theist and Agnostic/gnostic are two different things and either or can be applied to each other."
Not in the context of the question of the existence of god, no. Also, knowledge is traditionally (and currently) taken to be a subset of belief, with knowledge being 'justified true belief'.
Agnosticism is clearly a position unlike both theism and atheism.
Theism: 'it is the case that god exists'
Atheism: 'it is not the case that god exists' or 'it is the case that god does not exist' (different wording, same meaning)
Agnosticism: 'I do not (or cannot) know about god's existence, therefore I cannot justify having a belief one way or the other, so I remain silent'.
The position of 'agnostic atheism' would then explicitly entail lacking justification, and thus, renders itself utterly indefensible.
You Daymon
I don't really understand your point. You CAN be as I said in my original comment, even in the context of the question.
Do you believe in god? That is a yes or no question. You either believe or you don't, period.
Now the question, do you know for sure if god exists, is an entirely different question and you can have different answers, regardless if you're an atheist OR theist.
Your statement from each point of view is flawed. You don't maybe believe in something. You believe in something or you do NOT believe in something.
I completely disagree with you, especially on your final statement. Being an agnostic would imply that he has taken in all the evidence and cannot come to a conclusion, which I think is realistic in the case of god, where god cannot be entirely disproven to begin with. In the same way I cannot definitively tell you that I am 100% sure that unicorns don't exist, so I'm technically in the same boat there too.
If someone is an atheist because of a lack of evidence, but also considers himself an agnostic, I don't think he is lacking justification whatsoever and that statement just doesn't even make sense to me.
I personally consider myself a gnostic atheist, as I'm about as sure that god doesn't exist as much as I am about unicorns. But realistically, I'm not 100% certain and would technically fit the description of being agnostic.
+CReaper210 "Do you believe in god? That is a yes or no question. You either believe or you don't, period."
Well, no, not period. That isn't really the appropriate question. Rather, the question is: Does God exist? There is 'God exists' (theist position), 'God does not exist' (atheist position), or 'i can't say'/'i don't know' (agnostic position). The third position, withholding judgement, is clearly a valid answer to this question and we traditionally call people who give that answer agnostics. The terms are used to refer to the positions involved, not people's beliefs about the positions. Agnosticism has been the middle-ground position for quite a long time, which is why it is still being taught as such at universities.
"do you know for sure if god exists"
I don't understand why this would be asked. The only people who'd claim to know for sure would be theists. Atheists can't really claim to know with absolute certainty and they don't need to in order to be justified in their atheism. Asking "but are you 100% sure?" isn't necessary, which is why the traditional usage of these terms continues to be the dominant usage.
"You believe in something or you do NOT believe in something."
You are using a false dichotomy here. Both theism and atheism make positive claims. Theists believe it is the case that god exists, atheists believe it is the case that god does not exist (or believe it is not the case that god exists, which means the exact same thing, just worded differently), and agnostics simply remain undecided (they truly lack belief). Using the terms the way you suggest would just muddle the water.
"Being an agnostic would imply that he has taken in all the evidence and cannot come to a conclusion, which I think is realistic in the case of god, where god cannot be entirely disproven to begin with."
So, wait, are we now in agreement? You just pointed out why it makes sense to consider agnosticism as a distinct position apart from both atheism and theism.
"If someone is an atheist because of a lack of evidence, but also considers himself an agnostic, I don't think he is lacking justification whatsoever and that statement just doesn't even make sense to me."
If someone is an atheist then they shouldn't consider themselves an agnostic, because the atheist believes that god doesn't exist while the agnostic doesn't know what to believe. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this. If you aren't convinced enough (by the arguments against god's existence) to make the positive claim that atheism makes, then you are decisively NOT an atheist. The terms really are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism, not atheism, is the position that allows for varying degrees of certainty/uncertainty. If you are agnostic but lean more towards theism, you are still agnostic (not an agnostic theist), just as you would be if you leaned more towards atheism.
"I personally consider myself a gnostic atheist [...] and would technically fit the description of being agnostic."
Now, I'm confused. If you technically fit the description of agnostic, why not personally consider yourself to be an agnostic?
You Daymon
Um no. That isn't a question that can be definitively answered. And your definition of an atheist is also wrong. An atheist doesn't necessarily mean he claims "god does not exist". It means they reject the idea of god, period. This is why I am saying it is possible to be an agnostic atheist/agnostic theist or whatever.
Yes, agnosticism IS distinct from atheism. THAT IS WHY YOU CAN BE BOTH. Because they both mean different things and either or MUST be true for everyone. You either believe something or you don't(atheist/theist). You either have knowledge of something or you don't(agnostic/gnostic).
If you're an agnostic theist, then you're an agnostic theist. You can label yourself as just a theist and that's fine. But you're still an agnostic theist.
And I don't consider myself agnostic because there has to be some degree of leniency in the belief or disbelief in something that cannot be definitively proven. I'm about as sure god isn't real as I am about unicorns. But I cannot say for 100% certainty that they don't exist, because I simply don't know. Regardless if you think I'm justified in believing that it doesn't exist(and I agree, I do think someone is justified to actively disbelieve if there is zero good evidence), it is still true that I'm technically an agnostic.
But your entire argument is flawed because it is assuming that atheism is making positive claims about god, when it isn't. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. I'm not claiming a single thing as an atheist. Fit this into your argument.
Sourabh S Nath "is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism."
Well, not according to any field of philosophy, mostly because agnosticism and atheism are considered mutually exclusive categories. If one is a traditional agnostic, then one disagrees with the traditional atheist position that god doesn't exist, so it wouldn't make sense to be an agnostic atheist according to the traditional/current use and meaning of the words.
The way I see it is there are Atheists and Theists, and there are Agnostics and Gnostics. The first is a measure of faith, and the other is a measure of knowledge. I prefer to not make these measures binary, either yes of no. That is a bit too simplistic, (mind the pun). I think it would be better to place one measures on a X axis, and the other on the Y, and plot where one thinks you are. I suspect there are many religious people who are high in the faith category, but since they don't know for sure, would be low in the other. Just my opinion, and hope we try explore something higher than a person either is or isn't.
1:03 Agnostic is not a word from the 19th century it is Greek and dates older and any other English word.
Agnosto = Unknown!
religious: there IS god
atheist: NO god
agnostic : I dont know/I don't care
@@WolfeTone66I know that's why I put a "/"
@@tnt_champ1002 Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. And it is not mutally exlcusive to agnosticsm. You can have the lack of knowledge based on factual evidence to support the existence of god through agnosticism and hence lack of belief in gods through atheism.
@@Noa...... "Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god."
Yeah, it is.
"And it is not mutally exlcusive to agnosticsm."
Yes, it is. That's a fact.
"You can have the lack of knowledge based on factual evidence to support the existence of god through agnosticism"
Agnosticism is a belief position, not a knowledge position. :-P
@@americanliberal09 Agnosticism from greek origins (ἀ-γνῶσις) means without knowledge. Atheism (ἄθεος) means without God. They go in hand in hand to some.
@@Noa...... "Agnosticism from greek origins (ἀ-γνῶσις) means without knowledge. "
Sorry, but definitions are not defined by its etymology. Just because the term "agnostic" has a greek root that doesn't define what the term actually is.
Thank you sir. I have been watching all kinds of debates and talk shows to find my place. Sir I completely agree with you. It is an utter waste of energy that could be driven to find out truth and science. This is the first agnostic page I pulled up. I do not wish to be put into any catigory either.
I also believe all need to have there own ideas beliefs and feelings. Doesn't matter if I disagree or if they disagree with mine.
Thank you so much for this tiny clip.
Sincerely
Sean C. Preston
The way I see it is to decouple both concepts. Therefore, you can be any combination of each:
1) Atheist Agnostic: don't believe in gods, but understand the lack of evidence;
2) Atheist Gnotisc: don't believe in gods and is sure that gods do not exists;
3) Theist Agnostic: believe in existence of gods, but understand the lack of evidence to support it;
4) Theist Gnostic: believe in god(s) and is sure that god(s) exists (e.g. arguing that some holy book is sufficient evidence to support that opinion)
The way I see it is:
a) Theist x Atheist: it is an opinion.
Whether you belive (by guessing) if god(s) exists or not. If you do, you're a Theist. If not, you're atheist.
b) Gnostic or Agnostic: it is a behaviour.
How you behave given your beliefs. If you're "sure" about your belief (even with no evidence), you're gnostic, but if you are "I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, there's no way to know it" you're agnostic.
Yep, pretty much. 👍
"Do non-skiers have a word and come together to talk about how they don't ski?"
Yes we call ourselves snowboarders. And we call them Jerry's
Are you assuming that everyone who don't ski are "snowboarders" ? I would conclude after reading this, you would get the point.
LOL! Dude! He was just making a joke! XD
I play soccer. Ion do no snowboarding. That's for white people
This just show the Power that religion still has! Someone like NDT feels the need to say that he does NOT call himself an Atheist. I bet he gets alot of Hate from religious people, so he feels the need to say he isn't atheist. Fact is, he does NOT believe in a god. The MAIN Sad point here is, he feels the need to separate himself from the Sane group of people that do not believe in a god. The sad world we live in........
But don't take my word for it, read some of his Great Quotes and you tell me --
“Science is a Philosophy of Discovery; “Intelligent Design” is a Philosophy of Ignorance.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson
“Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he is all good, he cannot be all-powerful.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Every description of God that I've heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes and tornadoes and disease, childhood leukemia. I see all of this and I say 'I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good. He can't be both." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.......that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson, he said this is true if your claim for a god is “well, you can't explain how XXXX works, so God must have done it!”
He sees no Real Evidence for a 'god', therefor he does not believe in a 'god'. That is an Atheist.
Master Spade I think he wants to emphasize that he is agnostic.
My thoughts on homework: 2:36 - 2:42
Lol mood
Lmao