It’s OK To Use the Word ‘Atheist’

Yep. Okay. She’s great.

nailed it.

Labels are limiting. Full stop.

“Terminally stupid” – excellent phrase (that i will steal). Because it’s people being stupid about a term.

I take a slightly different take on this whole Neil deGrasse Tyson debacle: http://youtu.be/U6djDsTk_oU

He’s definitely not doing the atheist community any favors with this video, and I hope he someday comes out publicly as an atheist, but at the same time, he’s done a lot to expose the dangers of religious doctrine and promote the scientific method. Nobody’s perfect.

 no, you are wrong.

The question is if you believe, not if you know. Those who do not believe are atheists. I’m so tired of this.

Atheism means not believing in a god. That is not the same as believing there is no god.

The biggest mistake people make is treating agnosticism as if it existed on some sort of scale between theism and atheism. It doesn’t. It means something else completely. Using the examples in the video, agnosticism is the same as evolutionist or humanist or skeptic. It tells you nothing about whether the person is a theist or an atheist.

An atheist may be a humanist, or not. She may be an evolutionist, or not. She may be a skeptic, or not. She may be an agnostic, or not. And the same applies to theists.

You can both think the word “atheist” is silly, and believe it is useful and necessary. I have no problem calling myself an atheist (sometimes I say “not a theist”, because it can make whomever I’m addressing think a little harder). I certainly don’t advocate replacing it with another word meaning the same thing (let alone something like “skeptic” or “humanist”, which already have different, useful meanings).

I simply think it’s unfortunate we need the word. I’d feel the same way if superstitions shifted and we suddenly needed to coin “aunicornist” or “aleprechaunist”. But if such a shift occurred, we would need those words, and they would be useful… even if they were also a bit silly.

 It is odd that we have a word for people who don’t believe in a god. It’s just that that oddity helps us to understand the difference between this topic and playing golf, etc.

Yeah, we should just eliminate all those pesky nouns from the English language. Think how much freer we could be in expressing ourselves without their limits.

I’m not an Asupermanist because I don’t think Superman exists.  To publicly define myself as an Asupermanist would, of course, be silly, as others have pointed out. 

The other, bigger, reason that it’s silly is that there is quite simply no end of things I can choose to define myself as being against or opposed to, irrespective of how dominant the alternate perspective is.  I find it embarrassing and more than a little demeaning to use a label that defines me as being “not in the majority,” to say nothing of the fact that it is fundamentally idiotic to define oneself as against something that doesn’t exist in the first place.

And while I’m on the topic, can we please dispense with the awful notion that absolute belief is the same as absolute disbelief?  We should all be firm 7s on the Dawkins scale, period.  I get very annoyed when people equivocate on this–yes, absolutism is ugly, but the god notion is beyond the need to refute.  To use Sagan’s analogy, there is no floating, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon in the garage, so let’s stop pretending that to allow for the possibility of its existence out of some requisite scientific humily is appropriate.  It’s not.  Let’s move on.

Thank you Tyson!!!  A theist believes that a god or creator exists.  An Atheist believes that a god or creator does not exist.  The Theists cannot show evidence that a creator produced matter from nothing which then expanded into a finely tuned universe required for life of any kind to exist, and the atheist cannot show evidence that it all came about by chance.  An Agnostic admits he doesn’t know the answer.  Makes sense to me.

 “He’s definitely not doing the atheist community any favors with this video”

I think it is about time someone of his powerful scientific background says it like it is.  Since atheists have no evidence for how our finely tuned universe started, I have gotten a lot of flack in the past from atheists when I suggested that, since both atheists and theists have no evidence to support their view, both are basing their beliefs on faith.  Until one or the other view comes up with evidence to support their claim, it makes sense to be an agnostic.

 I think it’s admirable that the intellectually challenged are allowed to participate here. How proud you must be stand amongst the big kids.

 Actually, there is objective evidence which helps us understand how the Universe came about and developed (and most especially, how life came about and developed) without any need for design (what you call “chance”, although that is an inaccurate characterization). The case for a creator is unsupported by any evidence at all.

An agnostic is not somebody who doesn’t know the answer. We already have a word for that: skeptic. An agnostic is a person who believes the question is unanswerable. That’s not an entirely unreasonable position, but it has nothing to do with whether somebody is an atheist or a theist. Either one can be agnostic, or not.

Atheism is the position any rational person must take. A properly skeptical atheist doesn’t know if their position is correct, but they have good objective reasons to believe so. There can’t be many properly skeptical theists, of course, because skepticism will turn one into an atheist.

Tyson was either waffling, or he doesn’t understand what an agnostic is. Either way, his statement wasn’t very respectable. He either should have answered the question and said he was an atheist (almost certainly the case) or not, or he should have said it was personal and declined to answer at all.

Words evolve.

You must be jolly fun at a party.

 Not exactly. Defining a word and labeling an idea are two entirely different things. I was referring to the latter. Either he lacked the comprehension ability to recognize that or he was intentionally misinterpreting my words. Either way it demonstrates the main problem with language, words do not promote clarity much of the time. Witness the ongoing debate here about what the word atheism means. Fuck the dictionary, to me an atheist is a person who recognizes that there is not one shred of evidence that any god or gods exist. It’s not a “belief” or a “non-belief”. Belief needed come into it.

I don’t think there is much dispute amongst scholars at all.

To Jaspers I’d say, simply stringing together some words to make a grammatically correct sentence does not mean that sentence has any meaning, and “God is transcendence” is typical of so much of the rubbish that comes from philosophers. It is empty of content. If that’s the best he can do, he’s not worth further study.

To Campbell I’d say, wrong. He can arbitrarily create such a definition, but it certainly isn’t how the overwhelming majority of theists interpret the word. He’s playing word games to try and escape the absurdity of an actual super being.

I don’t think there’s anything complex in defining a deity at all. It’s an entity capable of manipulating the Universe outside the laws of nature.

 That would be your definition.  I would say Jaspers and Campbell were both non-theists.  It’s an interesting situation which demands one think through their personal view of what is beyond knowing unless they think everything is within knowing which I do not, neither individually nor collectively.

 Yes we have evidence that matter came from nothing and expanded into our universe in the big bang, but we don’t have evidence of how this matter came from nothing by itself and then expanded into a universe finely tuned for life.  According to the anthropic principle, there are a number of parameters which must be finely tuned.  For example, if gravity had been 1% stronger, the big bang would have collapsed on itself.  If it had been 1% weaker, no stars nor planets could have formed, i.e., we would have ended up with cosmic dust.  If the nuclear weak force had been a hair stronger, atoms would have been held to tightly to form compounds and if a hair weaker, and those atoms would  not hold together for long and would fall apart.  This is only two, and both have to be within this very fine range or life of any kind could not have formed.  And there are more parameters than this.  I argue then that this leaves open the possibility that a creator was necessary.

And the definition of an agnostic  is someone who admits he doesn’t know the answer. Since neither the theist nor the atheist can prove their position for lack of evidence, being an agnostic is the only rational position to take. 

I argue then that this leaves open the possibility that a creator was necessary.

No it doesn’t. If whatever was 1% more or less, that would have been equally unlikely, but if it happened, then that’s what would have happened. In a range of possible outcomes, only one could happen, and one did, and they are all as unlikely. You are choosing one outcome because it’s the only outcome you can see as more unlikely than any other, if only because you can see it. Since your logical conclusion is based on a false premise, it’s not as rational to be an agnostic.

Leave Tyson alone and appreciate him for what he is, one of the leading scientific minds in the world today. Does it fucking matter one iota if he labels himself an atheist or not? Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.

It doesn’t matter if we can’t explain the original “cause” of the Big Bang. Whatever explanation exists, it must be simpler and more likely than the original cause of an intelligent creator. And the Anthropic principle changes nothing.

The bottom line is that nothing exists for which the existence of a creator provides a better explanation than natural processes. And nearly everything we observe can be explained very well without resorting to supernatural explanations or intelligent creators.

You do not understand what an agnostic is. It is not somebody who does not know the answer. It is somebody who believes that the question of the existence of a deity is inherently unknowable. Either a theist or an atheist may take that position. It’s not unreasonable- we could posit, for instance, that the Universe was created by a deity, and that deity set up the rules so its existence could never be confirmed. But neither is it unreasonable to not be agnostic, since one could believe that we might ultimately demonstrate how the Universe came into existence, or might actually find a creator (making the answer knowable).

A skeptic admits that we don’t know. But not knowing does not mean that the likelihood of either choice being correct is the same. The evidence (and lack of evidence) very strongly supports the atheist position. A rational person will always be an atheist, whether or not they happen to be agnostic.

 Sounds pretty much what I’ve been saying.  The agnostic believes that the question cannot be answered, but that doesn’t stop the agnostic from using reason, in spite of no evidence, for one view or the other. Being an agnostic, admitting that you don’t know, makes more sense for the very reason that neither side can show the evidence to prove their stance.

 ” Fuck the dictionary, to me an atheist is a person who recognizes that
there is not one shred of evidence that any god or gods exist.”

You are completely ignoring one important thing, and that is that neither does the atheist have evidence of matter coming from nothing by it self and expanding into a finely tuned universe capable of supporting life of any kind.  Agnosticism makes more sense because it admits that we can’t know for sure.

Sorry, you can screw the dictionary all you want, but that still does not allow you to make up your own definition.  Like I said earlier, if anyone can simply make up their own definitions, we would be left with chaos.  The dictionary prevents this chaos from happening.

Being skeptical is admitting you don’t know. Being agnostic is admitting you can’t know. An agnostic who is predisposed to the rational analysis of evidence will almost certainly be an atheist (meaning he thinks it likely there are no gods). An agnostic who is predisposed to favoring internal feelings over evidence may be a theist.

There is evidence of matter coming from nothing. Not proof, but evidence, for sure.

 There are many of these parameters which have extremely low tolerances and make it very unlikely to have happened by chance.  Therefore, it opens the door to the possibility that a creator was necessary.

Dictionaries don’t dictate the meaning of a word, they document it, and thus will trail the usage of words that are changing.

Being an agnostic, admitting that you don’t know, makes more sense for the very reason that neither side can show the evidence to prove their stance.

Amazing how stupid all those atheists are, thinking they can disprove all gods.  Good thing you chose the label that makes the most sense.  Someday I’m sure we’ll all follow, and we can scratch atheist from books for anything but historical reasons.

All of those questions are ego generated and, like the rest of this, is merely mental masterbation. 

It only happened once. With a sample of one, it is meaningless to say how likely or unlikely it is. All we know is that given any other parameters, we’d not be here to question things. So really, the chance is 100%. No creator required.

 It’s just as likely as any other outcome.

 “It doesn’t matter if we can’t explain the original “cause” of the Big
Bang. Whatever explanation exists, it must be simpler and more likely
than the original cause of an intelligent creator.”

I’m quite aware of the usual atheist argument that simple is better, but that doesn’t necessarily eliminate the possible requirement for a creator,  however, that said, physicist Paul Davies addresses the belief that multiple universes explain how we are able to end up with a finally tuned universe by chance.  He concludes that the many-universe can at best explain only a limited range of features, and then only if one appends some metaphysical assumptions that seem no less extravagant than design.  In the end, Occam’s razor compels him to put his money on design.

“You do not understand what an agnostic is. It is not somebody who does
not know the answer. It is somebody who believes that the question of
the existence of a deity is inherently unknowable.”

Are you sure this is what you wanted to say, because you appear to have contradicted yourself.  You say agnostic is somebody who believes that the question of the existence of a deity is inherently unknowable.  If this is true than he also does not know the answer as to whether not a deity exists.  It’s the same thing.

“. The evidence (and
lack of evidence) very strongly supports the atheist position”The problem is that neither side has evidence for their position.  The theist has no evidence that a creator started everything and the atheist has no evidence that it happened by chance by itself with no guidance.Therefore, a reasonable person would admit this and realize that they do not know the answer and therefore should label himself an agnostic. 

 “”Do not know” is really not a valid position for most people to make”

I don’t understand why you say this.  If you have no evidence one way or another, then saying you do not know makes sense.

How do you figure? The definition you give (disposition to incredulity) EXACTLY means saying you don’t know.

And certainly, there is no credible definition for atheism that means a belief that gods don’t exist.

And also certainly, an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist; in fact, an agnostic MUST be one or the other, because every person must be one or the other.

Terminally means it’s at the very end, the very extreme. Terminally stupid then means that they are at the very end of the stupidity scale. I.e. they are the stupidest people there are.

 An agnostic believes the question is unknowable. And yes, that means he does not know the answer as to whether a deity exists. Nobody does. That doesn’t stop an agnostic from believing that there’s a very high probability of a deity either existing or not, and operating based on that assumption.

I don’t know that the Universe was created in the Big Bang, and it’s possible that we can never know that for sure. But it doesn’t stop me from considering the Big Bang to be the best and most likely explanation for the creation of the Universe, and to operate as if it were truth.

I don’t know if the Universe was created by a god, and maybe we can never know for sure. But that doesn’t stop me from observing that there is no evidence of such a god, and nothing that appears to require one, so I rationally consider the existence of gods to be unlikely, and operate as if there are none.

 That is only if it happened by chance, which you have no evidence.  Since you have no evidence, you need to consider the probability.  With numerous constants which, if they are off by only 1%, means the probability that it came about by chance is close to impossible.  Therefore, that increases the odds considerably that a creator was necessary.

 So long as the atheist has no evidence then they should be honest and say “I don’t know” .  What is left?  Speculation.  That is not evidence, and certainly not valid scientific evidence.

 “Atheism means not believing in a god. That is not the same as believing there is no god.”

Yes it is the same thing. 

“The biggest mistake people make is treating agnosticism as if it existed
on some sort of scale between theism and atheism. It doesn’t.”

Not a mistake at all.  An agnostic states that they do not know whether or not a god exists, why, because there is no evidence one way or another.  There are agnostics who stop here, but there are other agnostics who, in spite of not knowing, can use reason why a god or some natural means caused our universe to begin, but this is based on speculation, not evidence, which does not negate their belief that they don’t know the answer, and it certainly does not make these agnostics atheists or theists.