Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I am not an atheist!"

Ross Dolan said:
I doubt that very much. I suspect the reason you use "atheist" as a self-descriptor is because you believe there are no gods...or because you believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Click to expand...
Right. I don't believe there are any gods because there is insufficient evidence to believe there is.
 
ZenMode said:
Atheism just means that you don’t believe in any gods, not just the God of Christianity. That’s really all that means. Do I think people of all religions are foolish for structuring their lives around God? Yes, But I’m not hostile to Christians at all.
Click to expand...
I don't know what 'structure your life around god' really means in a tangible sense.

Having read most of the primary scriptures of all the major world religions, I did not come away with the notion that a human's primary function in life is to worship or venerate gods.

The way I read them, these scriptures provide the basis for organizing one's life around a rational morality, a system of values, a cultivation of right action and thought, a guidepost for spiritual liberation.

There does happen to be a strongly transcendental aspect to these scriptures, because they believe mortality and right action come from universal imperatives emanating from an eternal logos, a universal spirit, etc.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I can agree with just about everything you have said here, Zen.

But that does not negate my comment that atheism is the result of belief...just as theism is the result of belief.

Many atheists attempt to paint their atheism as being the result of LACK OF BELIEF. I say they are kidding themselves. The reason they use "atheist" as a self-descriptor (or part of a self-descriptor) is because they BELIEVE that there are no gods or because they BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists are making the same blind guesses about the REALITY of existence as theists...except in the other direction.

It is possible to see that there is no unambiguous evidence that there is a GOD...and still not have to BELIEVE there are no gods. It is possible to see that there is no unambiguous evidence that there is a GOD...and still not have to BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Click to expand...
"Atheists are making the same blind guesses about the REALITY of existence as theists...except in the other direction."

Two of my favorite phrases come to mind here:
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

We aren't born believing in gods any more than we are born believing in astrology or Santa Claus. When extraordinary claims are made, like there is an all-powerful being in the sky, that is watching you 24/7 and is awkwardly interested in what you do while naked, the default SHOULD be disbelief until convinced with extraordinary evidence. Religious people seem to work the opposite. They believe the extraordinary claims, on insufficient evidence, and defy you to prove them wrong.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I don't know what 'structure your life around god' really means in a tangible sense.

Having read most of the primary scriptures of all the major world religions, I did not come away with the notion that a human's primary function in life is to worship or venerate gods.

The way I read them, these scriptures provide the basis for organizing one's life around a rational morality, a system of values, a cultivation of right action and thought, a guidepost for spiritual liberation.

There does happen to be a strongly transcendental aspect to these scriptures, because they believe mortality and right action come from universal imperatives emanating from an eternal logos, a universal spirit, etc.
Click to expand...

When you said "organizing one's life" you probably meant the same as my "structure one's life".

You don't need books with made up stories and non-existent beings to have morality and spirituality. Morality is probably the more important of the two, of course. A discussion about morality was what I tried to have with Hume, but he suddenly got "confused" when the conversation went in a way he didn't like.
 
ZenMode said:
Right. I don't believe there are any gods because there is insufficient evidence to believe there is.
Click to expand...
I do not believe there are any gods, either.

I also do not believe there are no gods.

And I do not believe that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

MINE is the reasonable, logical position.
 
ZenMode said:
"Atheists are making the same blind guesses about the REALITY of existence as theists...except in the other direction."

Two of my favorite phrases come to mind here:
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

We aren't born believing in gods any more than we are born believing in astrology or Santa Claus. When extraordinary claims are made, like there is an all-powerful being in the sky, that is watching you 24/7 and is awkwardly interested in what you do while naked, the default SHOULD be disbelief until convinced with extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...

No, the default position should be simply lacking a belief that any gods exist. But what you are doing is to BELIEVE that no gods exist...or to BELIEVE that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

That is not logical or scientific.

ZenMode said:
Religious people seem to work the opposite. They believe the extraordinary claims, on insufficient evidence, and defy you to prove them wrong.
Click to expand...
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

What atheists do is also to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

They do the same thing...except in opposite directions.

But atheists then want to pretend something further. That their blind guesses are somehow more logical, reasonable, and scientific than the blind guesses of theists.

It is amusing.
 
ZenMode said:
When you said "organizing one's life" you probably meant the same as my "structure one's life".

You don't need books with made up stories and non-existent beings to have morality and spirituality. Morality is probably the more important of the two, of course. A discussion about morality was what I tried to have with Hume, but he suddenly got "confused" when the conversation went in a way he didn't like.
Click to expand...
You didn't wake up one morning at random with a clear vision of a rational values system in your mind. Whatever your parents taught you, they didn't randomly and independently come up with a value system on their own.

There is no universal canonical atheist book that rationalizes universal moral expectations. Almost nobody outside of college classrooms read the moral philosophy of Plato and Immanuel Kant.

You got, at least indirectly and through osmosis, your sense of a moral framework through western civilization's two thousand year experience of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That's even what the premminent 20th century German philosopher and noted atheist Jurgen Habermas thought:

Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.

Jurgen Habermas
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You didn't wake up one morning at random with a clear vision of a rational values system in your mind. Whatever your parents taught you, they didn't randomly and independently come up with a value system on their own.

There is no universal canonical atheist book that rationalizes universal moral expectations. Almost nobody outside of college classrooms read the moral philosophy of Plato and Immanuel Kant.

You got, at least indirectly and through osmosis, your sense of a moral framework through western civilization's two thousand year experience of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That's even what the premminent 20th century German philosopher and noted atheist Jurgen Habermas thought:

Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.

Jurgen Habermas
Click to expand...
Why do you insist on not giving citation for your source material? Only you refuse to do this.
 
Ross Dolan said:
No, the default position should be simply lacking a belief that any gods exist. But what you are doing is to BELIEVE that no gods exist...or to BELIEVE that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

That is not logical or scientific.
Click to expand...
We disagree. If someone came up to you, today, and tried to convince you that there were invisible creatures living in your coffee and they are slowly killing you, your default position wouldn't be "well maybe, maybe not" It would be, "no, and you need to convince me otherwise."

[/QUOTE]
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.[/QUOTE] Right. A blind guess, not based on solid evidence.
What atheists do is also to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

They do the same thing...except in opposite directions.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned above (invisible creatures in your coffee), you are equating a position for and against the existence of gods as equal. I think that is flawed reasoning. We shouldn't take a neutral position about every claim.
But atheists then want to pretend something further. That their blind guesses are somehow more logical, reasonable, and scientific than the blind guesses of theists.

It is amusing.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I come home and my front door is open and my neighbor says "I was sitting outside this morning and I saw a leprechaun walk up to your door, pick the lock and open it", I'm not going to take a position of "well... maybe, maybe not". Apply that same reasoning to a belief in gods and religion all but disappears.
 
ZenMode said:
We disagree. If someone came up to you, today, and tried to convince you that there were invisible creatures living in your coffee and they are slowly killing you, your default position wouldn't be "well maybe, maybe not" It would be, "no, and you need to convince me otherwise."
Click to expand...
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.[/QUOTE] Right. A blind guess, not based on solid evidence. Like I mentioned above (invisible creatures in your coffee), you are equating a position for and against the existence of gods as equal. I think that is flawed reasoning. We shouldn't take a neutral position about every claim.

As I mentioned... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I come home and my front door is open and my neighbor says "I was sitting outside this morning and I saw a leprechaun walk up to your door, pick the lock and open it", I'm not going to take a position of "well... maybe, maybe not". Apply that same reasoning to a belief in gods and religion all but disappears.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you blindly guess there are no gods...and you want to pretend you are motivated by something else.

No problem.

Lots of atheists do that same thing.

And I happen to find that amusing.

We're both doing our thing.
 
Ross Dolan said:
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.
Click to expand...
Right. A blind guess, not based on solid evidence. Like I mentioned above (invisible creatures in your coffee), you are equating a position for and against the existence of gods as equal. I think that is flawed reasoning. We shouldn't take a neutral position about every claim.

As I mentioned... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I come home and my front door is open and my neighbor says "I was sitting outside this morning and I saw a leprechaun walk up to your door, pick the lock and open it", I'm not going to take a position of "well... maybe, maybe not". Apply that same reasoning to a belief in gods and religion all but disappears.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you blindly guess there are no gods...and you want to pretend you are motivated by something else.

No problem.

Lots of atheists do that same thing.

And I happen to find that amusing.

We're both doing our thing.
[/QUOTE]
Ross Dolan said:
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.
Click to expand...
Right. A blind guess, not based on solid evidence. Like I mentioned above (invisible creatures in your coffee), you are equating a position for and against the existence of gods as equal. I think that is flawed reasoning. We shouldn't take a neutral position about every claim.

As I mentioned... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I come home and my front door is open and my neighbor says "I was sitting outside this morning and I saw a leprechaun walk up to your door, pick the lock and open it", I'm not going to take a position of "well... maybe, maybe not". Apply that same reasoning to a belief in gods and religion all but disappears.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you blindly guess there are no gods...and you want to pretend you are motivated by something else.

No problem.

Lots of atheists do that same thing.

And I happen to find that amusing.

We're both doing our thing.
[/QUOTE]

You keep writing "blind guess." You really should not spend your time pretending to debate.
 
Hume said:
Where does Habermas call himself an atheist?
Click to expand...
I thought you claimed to be a philosophy expert?

Jurgen Habermas is one of the most well known philosophers of the 20th century.

From what I read he started out a a Marxist with conventional Marxist views on religion, evolving later in life to seeing some positive social aspects religion had on society.
 
Cypress said:
I thought you claimed to be a philosophy expert?

Jurgen Habermas is one of the most well known philosophers of the 20th century.

From what I read he started out a a Marxist with conventional Marxist views on religion, evolving later in life to seeing some positive social aspects religion had on society.
Click to expand...
I am a philosophy expert. I've actually read Habermas. You can't even be ETHICAL and cite the source of a quote.
 
Hume said:
Thanks. Can you make an effort to follow standards all people are expected to follow and not quote people if you refuse to give the citation.
Click to expand...
Only if you follow your own advice. You routinely make claims about what Aristotle, Nietzsche, etc. thought without providing confirming citation
 
Cypress said:
Only if you follow your own advice. You routinely make claims about what Aristotle, Nietzsche, etc. thought without providing confirming citation
Click to expand...
I see.

You do not understand that using a quote of someone requires the citation for it.

You do not know the difference between discussion of what someone talked about and direct quotation.

You are far less educated than I realized.
 
Ross Dolan said:
What "religious people" do is to make a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

Okay, so you blindly guess there are no gods...and you want to pretend you are motivated by something else.

No problem.

Lots of atheists do that same thing.

And I happen to find that amusing.

We're both doing our thing.
Click to expand...
Do you take a neutral position on everything you hear and read? When Alex Jones said that the Sandy Hook shooting was all fake, the people involved were actors and the kids were still alive, was your first thought "Well maybe... maybe not"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top