"I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing.
In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn't create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said,
"Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist."
I said, "Well that's not really true."
I said, "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic."

I went back a week later it had been rewritten and it said
"Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." – again within a week – and

I said, "What's up with that?"

so I said "Alright, I have to word it a little differently."

So I said, okay "Neil deGrasse Tyson, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Why I am an agnostic - NdGT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnHY1cC9a4A

The same behavior is exhibited on this forum by atheists,insisting NdGT is an atheist, when he has said, repeatedly, that he is not.

The same goes for Sagan and Einstein, both of whom really didn't like it when atheists or theists claimed them as one of their own, when they clearly didn't want to be associated with atheists or theists.

People here insist I am an atheist, when I have repeatedly said I believe in Sagan's god, "The immutable laws that govern the universe."

"An atheist would have to know a lot more than me about the universe." Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 03:14PM by koriwhore.

Know and believe. Even Sagan is misusing the terms in your quote above.

Many people speak sloppily and think sloppily, without precision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 03:25PM by dogblogger.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Know and believe. Even Sagan is misusing the terms
> in your quote above.
>
> Many people speak sloppily and think sloppily,
> without precision.

That doesn't answer my question, why do atheists feel a need to claim agnostics are really atheists, when they say they're not atheists, they're agnostics?

Isn't that kind of like somebody who identifies as gay and people tell her she's really straight, even after she corrects them, over and over again?

After the first time, isn't that exactly the kind of rude behavior that makes people not want to associate with rude people?

"Isn't that kind of like somebody who identifies as gay and people tell her she's really straight, even after she corrects them, over and over again?"

Not a good analogy.

What about bisexuals? You seem to think this is a crusade or a hill to die on.

This whole thread is starting with a false assumption as far as I can tell.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole thread is starting with a false
> assumption as far as I can tell.

Again, not answering the question, why do atheists feel a need to claim agnostics are really atheists, when they say they're not atheists, they're agnostics?

Because they want to be the fastest growing religion.

How do you know what Atheists feel and why do you care? The biggest problem with Atheism is that they can’t get their definitions straight. It’s like nailing green Jello to a wall. That’s why NdGT doesn’t like to be called Atheist even though he might be.

I don’t see the point in torturing semantics. Some of the best people I know are Atheists. If God is dead, do you think the Atheists killed him? If so, why are Christians holding the smoking gun?

Why do people who like peas hate those who like corn?

Questions based on false assumptions have no place among those who use logic in their discussions.

Answer such questions? No, that would be silly.

Yes, Cheryl. A bit of a straw man, methinks ;-)

As far as I'm concerned, people can call themselves what they want.

Personally, I'm an apatheist, meaning (for me at least ;-) I don't believe in god(s), but I don't really care, either.

Living my only guaranteed life is taking up all my time :-)

Tom in Paris

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Cheryl. A bit of a straw man, methinks ;-)
>
> As far as I'm concerned, people can call
> themselves what they want.
>
> Personally, I'm an apatheist, meaning (for me at
> least ;-) I don't believe in god(s), but I don't
> really care, either.
>
> Living my only guaranteed life is taking up all my
> time :-)
>
> Tom in Paris

How is it a strawman?
The guy thinks atheists are rude and doesn't want to be associated with them. So did Einstein and Sagan. Can you blame them?

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

“An atheist is someone who is certain that God doesn't exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.” Carl Sagan

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How is it a strawman?
> The guy thinks atheists are rude and doesn't want
> to be associated with them. So did Einstein and
> Sagan. Can you blame them?

Because that's not what you asked, and it's not the issue.
Not wanting to be associated with a group/label is not the same is not being something.

We know they don't want to use the label.
We don't care. They can use it or not.
That has nothing to do with whether or not they believe in god-things. It has to do with labeling and PR.

NgDT doesn't believe in god-things. He's said so numerous times. That makes him an atheist.
If he doesn't want to be called one, I won't call him one.
That doesn't change the fact that he doesn't believe in god-things, does it?

The title of the thread is a straw man. I am a self-designated atheist, living in a strongly atheist country which enables me to know a lot of other atheists, none of whom even know who Niel de Grasse Tyson is (as is generally the case outside the US). None of the atheists I know "feel a need to claim agnostics are really atheists".

So it's a straw man.

Koriwhore,

This is a topic on which you seem to post a lot, usually with some sort of straw man argument in the subject line or as the theme of the post. One of the big problems with arguing the nature of "atheism", "agnosticism" and "theism" is that different people have different definitions of those terms. Also, cherry-picking of quotes and references has little utility in logical discourse.

In the interests of civil discussion, I'd like to ask you to try a different tack in your posts:

* Please do share you personal experiences and feelings, and tell us the reasons you believe what you do. This is very valuable.
* Please do not attack others for their beliefs, ascribe motives to them, tell them what they believe, or play definition games with the words they may use to describe themselves. That only starts fights.

The personal beliefs of Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous people are important for them, but they are not important for RfM.

Arguing with Mormons, especially missionaries, is unlikely to bear any sort of fruit. They speak from a position of belief, rather than a position of education and rational discourse. Trying to get them to admit damaging things about the church will neither help your position or change their opinion. They have too many cult-ingrained thought stopping techniques to be persuaded by your argumentation.

Please try what I suggested above when you post here. See if you feel any different.

Thanks,

CZ (admin)

Concrete Zipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Koriwhore,
>
> This is a topic on which you seem to post a lot,
> usually with some sort of straw man argument in
> the subject line or as the theme of the post. One
> of the big problems with arguing the nature of
> "atheism", "agnosticism" and "theism" is that
> different people have different definitions of
> those terms. Also, cherry-picking of quotes and
> references has little utility in logical
> discourse.
>
> In the interests of civil discussion, I'd like to
> ask you to try a different tack in your posts:
>
> * Please do share you personal experiences and
> feelings, and tell us the reasons you believe what
> you do. This is very valuable.
> * Please do not attack others for their beliefs,
> ascribe motives to them, tell them what they
> believe, or play definition games with the words
> they may use to describe themselves. That only
> starts fights.
>
> The personal beliefs of Neil deGrasse Tyson and
> other famous people are important for them, but
> they are not important for RfM.
>
> Arguing with Mormons, especially missionaries, is
> unlikely to bear any sort of fruit. They speak
> from a position of belief, rather than a position
> of education and rational discourse. Trying to get
> them to admit damaging things about the church
> will neither help your position or change their
> opinion. They have too many cult-ingrained thought
> stopping techniques to be persuaded by your
> argumentation.
>
> Please try what I suggested above when you post
> here. See if you feel any different.
>
> Thanks,
>
> CZ (admin)

Again, not answering the question, why do atheists feel a need to claim agnostics are really atheists, when they say they're not atheists, they're agnostics?

Megalomania goeth before the fall.

Koriwhore,

It appears that you decided to ignore what I wrote. My note was reasonable and clearly not intended to participate in a debate. And yet your reply, that I hadn't answered your question, appears to be an invitation to continue your straw man based argument. That is disappointing.

Ignoring the board admin is never a good choice. Please pay attention to what I wrote and mend your ways, or I will have to put you on a time out. I'd prefer not to do that, so think about this seriously.

Thanks,

CZ (admin)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 04:30PM by Concrete Zipper.

Dude, WTF?

OPie, you don’t want to be stuck in the zipper.

agnostic: the position that one does not know if there is a god/gods that exist.

atheist: a lack of belief in a god/gods.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
And the simple fact is *everyone* is agnostic (nobody knows if a god/gods exist or not).

Some people believe god-things do exist -- they're theists.
Some people don't believe god-things do exist -- they're atheists.

NdGT doesn't believe god-things exist.
So he's an atheist.

Whether he wants to use the term or not.

I personally don't give a crap about the PR issues of famous people (or non-famous people), or what terms they do or don't want to use for themselves. That's up to them.

I do care about accuracy. And to be accurate, NdGT is agnostic and an atheist.

Because they (the scientists you cite) use the term "agnostic" incorrectly. Agnosticism is not specific to the god question. It is a general epistemic question about the nature of knowledge. Atheism/Theism are statements of "belief."

T.H. Huxley is credited for coining the term. It essentially means to assess certainty about a concept in relation to facts, reason, and evidence.

So you can be an Atheistic agnostic and a Theistic Agnostic. There is some overlap, but they do not pertain to the same things per se.


You are welcome.

HH =)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 03:45PM by Soft Machine.

I guess I could ask:

Why do you feel a need to cherry-pick quotes from famous people, misrepresent what words actually mean, and keep harping on the same mis-characterizations over and over again?

Why does it matter what NdGT calls himself? Does what he calls himself (theist,atheist,agnostic, all of the above, none of the above) add *any* evidence of any kind to the question of whether or not there are god-things that exist?

No, it doesn't.

So...why do you care?

Again, megalomania goeth before the fall.

So...he can come in handy whenever one wants to make an appeal to authority. Hence the tug of war for NdGT as authority figure poster boy. But he's too fleshy to be a strawman, so he's only good as a vehicle for one...maybe two at the most...logical fallacies.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess I could ask:
>
> Why do you feel a need to cherry-pick quotes from
> famous people, misrepresent what words actually
> mean, and keep harping on the same
> mis-characterizations over and over again?
>
> Why does it matter what NdGT calls himself? Does
> what he calls himself (theist,atheist,agnostic,
> all of the above, none of the above) add *any*
> evidence of any kind to the question of whether or
> not there are god-things that exist?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> So...why do you care?

I care because he makes a really good argument for not identifying ones self as an atheist, just because you don't subscribe to the notion of Santa Claus for adults.
Once I lost my belief in God I had a real identity crisis. I didnt fit in anywhere. Everybody I knew was either super religious or atheist. I tried meeting up with the local atheist meetup group, but it was a bunch of seditious old white dudes who couldn't accept that the word, "evil" had any meaning whatsoever. To me that seemed absurd. If the word "evil" cant be applied to Hitler and other genocidal tyrants, then what word would apply? Really realy Bad? Isnt evil a word that means, really, really bad? So why not just use the word, evil? Too many religious connotations.
Great. Like Tyson says, what it means to be an atheist is defined by how atheists behave. If this is how they behave, I am not one of them.
Which leaves me without a community.
Its good to know I am not alone.
At least there are a few on this board who are like me, spiritual, but not religious and not atheist.
Its for them that I present arguments by prominent scientists and philosophers who appreciate spirituality, but dont see any need to label themselves as anything other than scientists and human beings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2018 09:53AM by koriwhore.

Ignore what they say. Watch what they do.

That applies to all three groups. Even theists are atheistic about all other gods. You haven't heard a lot of exMos say they think they now believe in Ganesha and Krishna and the gang, or Allah, or Gautama Buddha. That thought probably never even crossed their mind.

Religious belief is largely tribal. You believe what your parents and neighbors believe, if you believe religious claims at all.

Based on nominal Christians' behavior, often even their allegiance to the Christian god is suspect. Their allegiance to other gods is nil.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2018 03:51PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I see a connection between Koriwhore's insistence that Mormons accept that Joseph Smith was a sexual predator, and his insistence that Atheists accept that they are so disliked that famous people don't want to be associated with that term.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see a connection between Koriwhore's insistence
> that Mormons accept that Joseph Smith was a sexual
> predator, and his insistence that Atheists accept
> that they are so disliked that famous people don't
> want to be associated with that term.

I don't. Atheistic people have had a long terrible history of hatred. That is a fact.

Joe's predations are circumstantial and third-party confirmed.

koriwhore must be fueled in some way by attempting to control his labels and taking offense at any other interpretations. That seems like the connection if there is any.

I only meant that the insistence is the connection. How many posts did we see of him trolling the online missionaries about Joe Smith sexual behavior? How many posts have we seen about NdGT not being an atheist?

True. NdGT is a true messenger and JSj is The Devil.

I think that’s what they call the righteous mind. Mormonism taught us to judgmental pricks. Maybe koriwhore is just a little slow on the transition.

And around and around we goooooooooooooooo.....

This is #2 in a cycle of 5 topics koriwhore posts over and over again. You can set your watch by it.

I'm only away of three topics: 1) attacking missionaries, 2) JS the cuckolding head of a doomsday cult, and 3) atheists suck.

What are the two others?

4) God Particles

I can't think of the fifth, though.

How could I have forgotten the God Particle/Tao/Logos/Yin-yang/Singularity/E=MC^2 threads?

You are correct.

Is he talking about the arrival of our robot overlords? Cuz those bastids are here.

So we can sign them up for The Atheist Army! Coming soon to an area near you!

Uncle Atheist Wants YOU!

SMDH

A few years ago, on a board far, far away, Koriwhore was banned because of just exactly the same megalomania. It was a board/bored which required posters to register. So when he continually ignored the requests and then instructions of the mods and the board/bored owner, he was banned. Of course to hear him tell it, it was persecution...

He'll be along to tell you about it, no doubt.

Which gods are agnostics agnostic about ?
Please tell us.

label machine. One keeps putting the "couch" label on a particular item of furniture and the other keeps ripping that off and replacing it with the "sofa" label.

As for answering the OP's question, it's really impossible to answer a "why" question that requires getting into the heads of all atheists who do the thing in question in order to confirm or ascertain what their motivation for doing so is.

I can't say with any certainty why some people who call themselves atheists prefer to attach that label to people who prefer to call themselves agnostics instead.

I suspect that many atheists see the agnostic vs. atheist distinction as being a pointless distinction. You either believe or you don't believe. If you don't believe, then you're an atheist. If you do believe you're a theist at least with respect to your preferred brand of deity.

OTOH, I suspect that most agnostics who reject the atheist label feel like the atheists whom they know are too adamant in their disbelief and seem to insist too strongly that the absence of any deity worth being called a deity is a given, a proven fact, an incontrovertible truth. The self-identifying "agnostic" prefers to appear more open to continuing examination and evidence, while simply saying that they have not YET been persuaded by any arguments or evidence presented thus far. It's also a more diplomatic approach vis-a-vis theists, as it suggests a willingness to accept the existence of a deity IF, but only IF solid evidence can be supplied. It gives theists something to work with, so the door is open for continuing engagement.

This illustrates the main problem I have with the organized Atheist community (being an agnostic myself.)

They're right in pointing out that one of the main problems with religion is that it can be very tribal, often (but not always!) promoting an us-against-them mentality.

But the problem with Organized Atheism is that they've set themselves up as "just another tribe". They're making the problem worse, not better.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

I want to hear more about this "Organised Atheism" and also santa clause.

Somebody has to organize atheist conventions, book speakers like Richard Dawkins specifically about atheist topics, etc.

If there's no organized atheist movement then what are those people doing?

Tell us about these "Atheist conventions" of which you speak.

Here's one which happened earlier this year in Oklahoma City:

https://www.atheists.org/convention2018/



Here's another one which generated a shitload of controversy several years ago:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate

But you still haven't told us what an Atheist is.
Please do so.

I never claimed to. Besides this:

An atheist is a person who claims the atheist label.

What is the "Atheist label" ?

"If lost, please return this Atheist to her parents at . . ."

You must be really smart.

I looked at NdGT's Wiki page. As far as I can determine, the complaint that he made above was originally made in 2009. I looked a the edits on his page from 2005 through 2009, and from what I can see the editors appeared to have made a sincere effort to accurately portray his views on spirituality, using words such as "agnostic,", "non-religious," "free-thinker" and so on, relying on NdGT's own quotes as reference. One editor specifically stated that he could not use the word "atheist" because there were no NdGT quotes that said he was atheist.

So my conclusion based on some quick research is that if there was a tug of war at some point over the word, "athiest," it was a small skirmish in a much larger discussion. From what I can see, most people have tried their best to portray his views as accurately as possible. There have been a few thousand edits to his Wiki page since it started, and most edits are in areas other than his views on spirituality.