Religion

What kind of sense does it make to say that you’re holding open the door to the possibility that something truly impossible will ever occur? That sort of thing is nonsense, and an abuse of language.




Of course the whole point of the word “agnostic” is that one can use it to avoid the bogey word “atheist”. If you read Huxley’s writings on this, it’s clear that that’s why he originally coined the word.

Those who opt for this cop-out should have more courage. Take a blank bit of paper and write on it all the names (or a description) of god/s that you believe exist (note the word “believe” not “know”). If the paper remains blank then you’re an atheist. End of story.

And if someone doesn’t have the courage to ask themselves this question and report accurately whether they would write on the paper is being intellectually cowardly. The only way the word “atheist” will stop being demonized is if people stop looking for excuses to avoid adopting it.


I’m growing increasingly disappointed by Tyson and this video is the worst that I’ve heard from him yet.

He defines the word agnostic to mean “someone who doesn’t know [whether there is a god], hasn’t yet seen any evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it is there, but if it is not then they won’t be forced to think something that isn’t otherwise supported.” That’s about as a clear an example of throwing atheists under the bus as I can think of. It quite clearly implies that atheists unreasonably think that they know to a certainty that no gods exist and would be unwilling to accept any evidence. Fuck that! I agree with others who have commented that Tyson doesn’t have to be an outspoken critic of religion. But the hell does he have to play into the hands of a religious fascists?!

I think it’s fair to question philosophically whether there could even in principle be evidence for a god. And, as we know, some argue that there couldn’t. But that’s a (more or less) well-reasoned stance on the possibility of evidence and definitely not an irrational unwillingness to consider evidence. Personally, I haven’t come to a conclusion about the possibility of evidence for a god.

All credit to NdGT for the marvelous contributions science education he has made. May he continue to make them. But shame on him for engaging in make-believe regarding the fact that he is, in fact, an atheist.




You are compounding your error by insisting I made the claim “there is no such thing as god” or “I know god does not exist” and that I am a “Gnostic atheist.” I do not stipulate the term “Gnostic atheist” and decline your attempt to conscript me into that group, whatever it is. I have long maintained that anyone calling themselves atheistic and attempting the claim “i can prove that god does not exist” (or any variant) is a dangerous fool.

a-theistic means: without god, or absent god. All you know from my self-label as an atheist is that my convictions of what is true and what exists does not include god. That I am a-theistic tells you nothing about the judgment of my intellect as to what exists and how truth is validated.

Of course.  I'm rational.  I'm not a believer. But, I wouldn't mess with the issue of probability and certainty. I'd make enemies.  I don't believe in god. No evidence. Do I believe there's no god? Of course. But it's a belief. I believe there's no god. I said that already. Can I prove it? No. I don't have to. Something for which there is no evidence probably doesn't exist. End,of story. I won't believe in something without evidence. That's common sense. But, I'm not going to say evidence may someday happen.  It may. I'm sure it wont and I will conduct my day to day events and choices with the certainty I have about the non existence of the supernatural. Alright?  Ok?  But I don't need any further discussion to bring me to some point where I act according to a belief in the supernatural because I can't DISPROVE it. I can't disprove it. Ok?  I agree. I have to allow for some minuscule possibility, but I cannot, CANNOT conduct my life differently because supernaturalism MIGHT BE TRUE. Rather, I will conduct my life knowing, KNOWING, that supernaturalism is so highly unlikely, not certain, but so highly unlikely, that it's simply does not EFFECT me. And degrasse Tyson certainly couldn't dispute it. Shame on him for trying.

The absence of evidence for the elephant in your ‘fridge is proof of the nonexistence of your ‘fridge elephant.



A classic theist move is to say: “I know that god exists. Prove me wrong.” That is an example of making a claim and then expecting someone else to disprove it, rather than taking the rational approach of expecting the person making the claim to provide evidence for it.



The rational stance is that if someone claims to know something (for example, the existence  of something), then we should expect them to be provide evidence for the claim to that knowledge.



Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, and it becomes proof when the evidence is required for existence and the search is sufficiently thorough.




Atheists have no god, see no god, speak no god. They do not need to be labeled “Gnostic” or “agnostic” because there is nothing to know or not know. People who attempt to prove that god does not exist do not need your terms either: they are not atheists.

And your entire project in this thread, in my opinion, is indeed an attempt to shift the burden of proof.



That’s why Tyson’s comments are so insulting. He seems to be accusing us of dogmatism, insensitivity to evidence/reason, and irrational certainty.


I sincerely doubt and very much hope you’re not agnostic about Superman. But, if you are, then you should not be permitted a checkbook, let alone a driver’s license.

My own attitude could be variously construed as “sympathy” or “condescension”, but either way, my claim is that they do not understand their own beliefs. Either they’ve never taken the time to examine them, or they are simply too emotionally invested in certain combinations of words to recognize their incoherence.

No one believes the impossible is possible (given one consistent definition of “possible”). Anybody who says they do does not understand their own words. As you said somewhere else in this thread, it’s merely an abuse of language.



even if, beyond reason, some unnatural entity(s) did exist there is no basis for referencing it as a god, for it would certainly, by necessity of the known facts of reality, be evil.

The construction of a hedge concept “agnostic” is not only unnecessary, it is very damaging; in order to “comfort” the agnostic in his hideout, it shoves a rude elbow in the face of the fully consistent and powerful Rational/atheist. “Rational” states his full paradigm of reason as an absolute and “atheist” is a very minor codicil that would be completely unnecessary to even speak, but is useful when theists go flailing about: you let them know you have no god.



No need for evidence for non-existence in the absence of evidence for existence. Agnosticism skips this step.