atheism is just not beleiving in a god, if you do not beleive in a god you are atheist, what neil is talking is militant atheist. if you dont beleive in a god you are an atheist if you arent sure then you are a agnostic atheist sorry neil im a fan of your work but you are an atheist agnostic that dont like militant atheists.
i love Neil deGrasse Tyson, he's an awesome guy, he lacks the culturally elitist judgmental intolerance for others rationalists like Richard Dawkins display so commonly. and yet stands the fact no matter how unpleasant they may be. i like how he shows his passion to his profession. although i'm not a scientific person i received allot from his Nova science now, for me he is to astrophysics documentary broadcasting what David Attenborough was to natural history documentary broadcasting.
As an astrophysicist he has a much easier deal of trying to eplain what he is doing than many other scientists. One of the hardest fields to relate to the general public in my opinion is chemistry, I have spent day trying to figure out how to explain to people what I do in the lab but I have had very limited success in trying to get others to understand. Astrophysics has a great edge there, everyone is facinated about space!
I like this man very much, but at some point, when he talks about science programs on TV and the science channels, showing how happy he is... well, maybe because we have more to choose, we have better technology and more knowledge to explain things... but haven't you watched science channels? For crying out loud. Most of the programs is pure crap: explosions of the universe, deadly attacks, horrific accidents and survivals, profecies, freaks, etc., etc. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!
great interview. the world needs more intelligent people like this. And Tyson is anything but a douche, he's completely open to all kinds of thought and educates uninformed people all over America, that doesnt sound like a fucking douche to me.
I would classify myself as an atheist but I also have Mass in Minor and Handel's Messiah on my iPhone. Even Dawkins counts himself a cultural christian and attends evensong occasionally.
I agree with Tyson that to properly communicate you need to understand the mind of the people you are talking to.
However, surely there is room for both. Dawkins helps those of us, who speak to people who are anti-science, to understand the arguments as to why evolution is true.
Im from the UK and we really didn't give a crap. it kind of made sense to anyone who has seen the orbit of pluto on a poster or something. crazy little bastard cuts up neptune's orbit!
They say you find things annoying in others, because they are the things that make you annoying. He dislikes Dawkings agressive speechs... but he has just as if not more of an agressive speech.
Fantastic interview, but it's a shame Tyson so strongly wishes to dissociate himself from the atheist movement. When he characterises atheists as against the use of "God" in casual conversation and who don't listen to religious music, he really describes only the most petulant among us. I'm sure Tyson is really an agnostic atheist, the terms not being incompatible, and it would be good for him to just accept that and move on.
@PoledniceWP Oh, enough with that. The man is doing better things than subjecting himself to the debates of the religious and atheists. Like he said, we have enough of them (me=atheist). He's agnostic, leave it at that.
@BeingBadAtMaths I'm not asking that he joins the ranks of atheists - I agree what he does already is great. I was just pointing out that he was offering a very silly caricature of who atheists are and what they want.
@PoledniceWP Him and other agnostics/skeptics (but to his credit, he doesn't want to be part of that argument and I don't blame him).
*shrug* From my experience, it's a sort of losing battle to try and show that not every bloody atheist is as... "fundamental" as the religious fanatics. At least for me... Maybe if I could talk like Neil, I wouldn't have a problem, heh.
@Inb4Reach after watching more tyson i'm beginning to agree with you. this video is a little like the ballet of the douches! at least tysons trying hard to get people into space though, he's definitely no sagan (but then who is!)
I look to a time when Bill Maher doesn't announce that we have a "black" scientist on the show, instead just a well known credible and brilliant scientist as Neil is.
The channel spawned from the Discovery channel called The Science Channel is 5% science, and they have the dumbest show called 'punkin'; chunkin', a show more idiotic than any I have ever seen, not much science about it,'cept the catapult made to throw the pumpkins.
You're right Neil, the public has no part in determining classifications of their work, as they are not in the know and what is popular is not important in the determination. These scientists were not arrogant at all. Good going Neil keep the "faith."
I completely agree with his reasoning on what being "smart" 1:19:45 is and always have. But if I had to choose a top 10 of "smartest" 21st century Americans...Tyson would be on that list. Love your passion and I'm a huge fan and emulate who you are!
This is a great guy, but as far as "the moon mission" in involved, I don't need explanations such as "it had enough fuel to go to the moon and back".... I need a technical description on the propulsion systems that were used, the chemical composition of the fuel that was used, how many people were in the crew of the mission, how many made it back to earth in one piece, and what were the physical, chemical, mathematic and other discoveries and conclusions drawn from this "trip" to the moon ?
Hah, I have to say I like both Tyson and Dawkins' styles, one is vibrant and empowering when explaining science, the other is "articulately barbed" and stings like hell when it comes to criticisms of religion.
What's that icon "tsn" at the bottom right corner?Is it some kind of a logo of Neil or your network or what because I've seen it on a lot of videos that Tyson is in.
Though I am not someone in physics (i was a student in the philosophy of law) but to have such a teacher, would be exactly what I would want from my teachers. Great and inspiring man :D
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I can't believe how many comments are about his atheism/agnosticism when he mentions that Carl Sagan, after giving him a tour of the labs, drove him to the bus stop and gave him his home phone number in case it snowed!
Man when he asked "How did you get into the Planetarium" (around 16:40)..I'm not even black and I found that offensive. It's as if to suggest that he couldn't be able to because of poverty or his nationality. I probably blew it out of proportion, but it came off really wrong and kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
@nanyacura Well, I find "How did you get to XYZ" Is a perfectly normal and frequent Question in a Conversation. It is just the Question, the Interest, how/why someone came to make a Job.
@nanyacura While I don't particularly like this interviewer (he has a tendency to argue about things irrelevant to the discussion), it could be argued that his question was simply leading Tyson into talking about the fact that a black man is perfectly capable of being active in the science community. It's very likely, in fact, that this man wasn't trying to be racist, but trying to acknowledge that, despite racism, a black man rose to a prominent position in the scientific community.
Re: Richard Dawkins style of communication...I am just a high school graduate and I understand Dawkins' way of articulating the truths of science quite clearly. I am also entertained by his talent in putting words together with wit and charm. Tyson, by contrast, seems to ferverently like to hear himself speak...and to great length, and with redundance. I like Tyson and don't mean to diminish his impact on his audience but I do feel "talked down to" often. He is transparent in his self-importance
@sillynut331 I admire both. Mr. deGrasse tyson has a Way to exhibit a strong Fascination and Enthusiasm with the Universe. He lso if funny and a cool Guy. Professor Dawkins is cool and admirable too, but in a diffrent Way. Professor Dawkins is eloquent and speaks in a Choice of Words and a Speed and Tone, that really shows him to be a true Gentleman. I'd sell my Soul to have his Wit and Eloquence.
I think, it is a Matter of Taste wether you like one of these Gentlemen more or esteem them equal.
@LutzDerLurch [cont.] What is sad, however, is that Mr. Dawkins is often perceived as agressive, because of his Language. I find it lamentable that in these Days, especially Young People like I, have so little Knowledge and esteem for their own mother-Tongue, that they feel offended if someone is a true Master of Words.
This was such a great interview. Almost two hours dealing with various topics and yet, I scroll down to these comments and see endless back and forths about religion. Seriously? Must every youtube video that deals with science result in a religious tit for tat?
On a side note, I want read that novel about the cat. Sounds cool
@beyondthesystem U probably got a heap of replys from this but jst one more wont hurt right?
EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC, and if they claim they are not then they are lying and probably dnt understand they are lying. A strong intellectual case can be made for a agnostic deist belief but theistic belief generally requires that u have some knowledge and understanding of god and before we can believe someones claim they need to demonstrate they have "knowledge and understanding of god"
Now i'm depressed. Here I am thinking Neil had limited education and went over the opsticals anyways. But now I find out he went to one of the best highschools and then went to Harvard. Damn.
Is Neil saying war is good because of R&D it spawns? If so, what cost do the pawns used to fight said wars, and the innocent people who, also die as a result, compute as? Insignificant?
On a political side; Being the brilliant Scientific Literate Neil is, I'd be quite curious to know where he stands on the nature of our political system today. It'd be further interesting to know his opinion, before and after reading Ayn Rand.
Thanks to TSF for publishing your works for all to view! Subbed
@4micaman dude, he just said war is good for science. not war is good period.
with regard to Atlas Shrugged, he is already in the middle of the book. i don't remember the book "dropping the ball" to the endish, so he will probably enjoy it to the end. but i doubt he will think more or less of the author. i personally don't understand people who form opinions about authors of books they read: who cares?
@TheScienceFoundation Atheist isn't really a word is it? Although one can "believe" that there is no higher power, it would take science to prove that and because science cannot do that, you must leave out a 1% that there is a god, but say you are 99% certain that there is no god.
@paul7048 Atheism is a word. Everyone belongs to one of the following four categories, 1. Gnostic Theism 2. Agnostic Theism 3. Gnostic Atheism 4. Agnostic Atheism.
@OpethNation so. they just don't understand the words they use to describe them self. any one who call's them self a gnostic when it comes to "god" doesn't really understand what it means to truelly "know" something in a factual way. i don't care what it is what you think you "know" if you cant if you cant prove it its not a fact period.
@paul7048 just cause someone says something doesn't mean we have to give it credence at all. Science doesn't have to prove there is no god you have to prove there is a god using science. How can you even say there is 1% chance of there being a god lol that is extremely high a chance to give to an idea that literally has no evidence.Did you know there is 1% chance of star wars actually happened and the events where beamed in to george lucas's head while he was asleep, can you disprove that?
@TheScienceFoundation, I am going to have to disagree with that. As an atheist, I am not agnostic. Thomas Huxley, who created the term agnostic, believed that we cannot ever know the origins or causes of the universe. He created the term from a passage in Acts (17:23 to be exact). I believe we can know and are getting closer to knowing the origins of the universe with quite certainty and the evidence does not point to a god, known or unknown.
Most atheists do not say we cannot know, nor do they specifically say they know there isn't a god, what they say is that based on all the evidence we have, a god does not seem to exist and therefore we have no need to worship it. Like Sagan's Dragon in the garage.
@GottOngeloof You can't ever know if all is know - therefor it's impossible to be a gnostic atheist in the true meaning of that word. Although in a day-to-day you can be just as sure, as you are with santa.
Neither Agnostics nor Atheists say with full certainty there is no god but neither find the hypothesis probable as a result of there be no evidence. It seems whether one defines themselves Agnostic or Atheist doesn't define a difference in belief but rather a difference in opinion of religion - Atheist's being against religion and an Agnostic not caring either way.
whether you are gnostic or agnostic is about whether you are certain or not.
whrther you are a theist or an atheist depends on whether you believe in a god or not.
you can be a gnostic atheist (KNOWS god doesn't exist), a gnostic theist (KNOWS god does exist, probably most theists are this) an agnostic atheist (doesn't know but learning towards god doesn't exist, what most atheist probably are) or an agnostic theist (doesn't know but leaning towards god does exist).
@khajiit92 i agree with your definitions but do you think it is possible to be a gnostic theist, this implies you know that god does exist but one cannot know something unless it happens to be true - knowing is the intersection of belief and truth - where the most fundamentally religious may act and claim they really know, they can't because they would need empirical evidence that implied its truth whereby no one would have any reason to doubt,
... it is rather that they believe they know rather than they actually know. Anyways by original point was to suggest we are all agnostic (belief that know one knows god does or does not exist) but this is different from whether we believe or do not believe in god, from what i've herd of Neil i think he doesn't...
whereby he may be agnostic which is the most reasonable and logical position to take but this is different from if you believe or don't believe in god, imo, though i'll be happy to be corrected.
when i say know and i'm talking about being gnostic, i mean 'know' (with the speech marks) if that makes sense. in your own mind you are absolutely certain of it, regardless of the truth.in other words, there is absolutely no doubt. maybe know is the wrong word, but i think you get what i mean.
@TheScienceFoundation Not true. My position is that I "KNOW" there is no God just like I "KNOW" there's no Santa Clause. You can play semantics all day with "what we can know" but that's just a philisophical bullshit.
@TheScienceFoundation If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, therefore agnostics are atheists. People have transformed the word agnostic to mean something more like a compromise between theism and atheism, although it's clear to me that if you look at the etymology of the word 'atheist' it's obvious meaning is "not theist."
@TheScienceFoundation Yep, even Richard Dawkins said that he was on a scale from 1 till 7, 1 being an absolute religious person who "knows" and the 7 being absolutly sure that there is NO god, he was a 6,9.
He says Dawkins has a sharpness in the way he speaks or delivers his message yet Tyson completely rips this guy at 8:00 for asking a question seemingly twice. He also says he would not be a politician because he has no patience for making anyone believe anything yet in the clip with Dawkins he says their job as a "communicator" of science is to deliver the message to the public with facts & "persuasion"... In using the term persuasion he is trying to make people believe his facts which is what
"In order to be called a militant atheist, all you have to do is write a book or have a blog. If you're religious and you want people to call you militant, you have to blow stuff up and shoot people."
-Martin Wagner
I also guess by reading your comment, that asking for religions to be kept out of science classrooms makes me a "militant" atheist.
I don't get the thing about his "not being an atheist". Well, he is an atheist, no matter how he, himself, define atheism. It may be he has another definition for atheism, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he is one. He is an agnostic atheist. Period...
@HKragh Firstly, I think he knows both definitions very well and is himself the best judge of where he would put himself. Secondly, atheism is more than a label, it is a bit of a community as well - one that Dr. Tyson seemingly wants no part of. Thirdly, what makes you say he is an atheist? He claims himself to be an agnostic in the sense of T. Huxley and that's enough of a statement. While there are agnostic atheists, N. Tyson doesn't fancy himself one. Why do you want to "make" him one?
@DementorBob Personally I'm very happy whenever people use the correct definition as base for a given statement. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god. Period. Not one who denies a god, or thinks gods are impossible. Now, Neil has stated again and again that he doesn't believe in a god. Not that he believes there is no god, just that he doesn't believe in one. By the definition of an atheist, he is such. It doesn't matter at all which definition he himself creates for the word.
@DementorBob -And he shouldn't go into the wiki page and change it, just because he has misunderstood the term atheist. That is just not how knowledge libaries should work. And whatever community has build upon the term atheist, should have nothing to do with anything. He is an agnostic atheist. If he for some reason didn't like black haired people, or if his personal definition of the color black was skewed, it wouldn't make him non black haired. We need definitions to be consistent...
Neil's story about meeting Sagan for the first time is a truly moving one. If more of the great scientists of our time were as conscious as Sagan was about instilling a sense of wonder and awe of our natural universe in young and curious minds, the future of science education in America may look a little brighter than it does now,
i agree with degrasse, dawkins is really not a good mouthpiece for science, or atheism for that matter. i like dawkins, but he just comes off as a prick to the other side. also, his CONSTANT fucking up when talking with american evangelicals by telling them "priests and bishops" accept evolution drives me crazy. he should know by now that to an evangelical, bishops and priests may as well be satanic monks.
As agnosticism deals with knowledge we are all agnostics about gods, everyone who sees he knows that god exists needs to cough up a proof. Thats why i find the term useless. But many people don't care sincerely about religion either way so i see no reason to take away the agnosticism term to mark that.
In that sense he is doing more against religion. He is fighting to root cause that is illiteracy. That will hurt religion more if people start thinking on their own.
Glad to see a well respected speaker claiming and sticking up for agnosticism as described by Huxley and making the point of setting apart from modern atheism. I would love to see what his response would be if someone accused him of being "an atheist who hasn't thought about it".
Well, but the science in CSI is often BS. I just say zooming in on the reflection on an eye in a CCTV recording (which usually uses NTSC resolution and is usually blurry). Red Dwarf: Back to Earth did a nice parody on that.
@TheScienceFoundation I'm familiar with the Strawman Fallacy, but a person who is misrepresenting a concept due to a poor understanding isn't necessarily making this fallacy.
@ChozoBoy It can be stipulated that the misconception is intentional, but generally it's used to describe any attack on a misrepresentation of a position, willful or otherwise.
@TheScienceFoundation They are usually called "pseudo-intellectuals". It is not a profession, though. They are usually called "commentators" when they have space in the media.
I noticed that too, he doesn't seem to understand what the term atheism means despite having gone to great lengths to understand the etymologies of the words goodbye and "godspeed". He's of the impression that atheism means outright rejection of god without realising that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I also get pissy when even Carl Sagan makes the same mistake also, I think it's to do with PR, if you're known as an atheist, you got no hope "spreading" science.
@therock27374 I felt Carl was pretty good about it. That was a different era, and he was running the only real science program on the six-and-a-half channels of TV back then, so he had to be careful or risk losing his mode of media. I'm pretty sure he's used both words to describe himself on occassion, so I'd like to think that he knew what they meant. Even if he didn't, he was philosophically sound through and through.
@therock27374 Atheism is the rejection of any belief in any deities and Dr. Tyson got that exactly right. Atheism comes from atheos = without god. The notion that it is simply the absence of a belief is relatively new, dating back to about the 18th century as far as I know. So let's put those semantics aside and make it a bit less ambiguous: Tyson is not an explicit or "positive" atheist. There, now we don't have to bicker about definitions.
You say it yourself: atheos = without god. Not: atheos = denying of god, or: atheos = knowing no god exist.
Is Neil without god? Definitely!
If we don't use modern definitions of terms, what good is language then? Words has changed their meaning through time, and language is only meaningful, if we use the modern version of it, and the modern definitions of the details.
Actually, using your definition Tyson IS an atheist, he's afterall- without the POSITIVE belief in god. Since lacking or not having positive belief in god is "without" god (as is colourless without colour), he is therefore atheist. Colourless merely implies lack of colour, it doesn't necessitate anti-colour properties :P This is what my comment is supposed to bring across as a point.
@ChozoBoy I'm not so sure he doesn't understand the term, he simply doesn't want to be associated with the more militant bunch of atheists. I think he's an atheist based on all of his public appearances that I've seen. He simply doesn't want to draw fire (and it does come in tons in this kind of a position) considering his mission of public education.
@agetahon That is silly. If your mission was public education, then there wouldn't be any reason to pick one detail to lie to the public about. (Belief in supernatural deities, in this case.) There's no way he could be associated with militant atheists because he doesn't act like or associate with them.
@ChozoBoy If you're interested in science but believe in what can be perceived as a conflicting world view than telling you that you're stupid because you believe in those things, as rule, does not draw people into science. I'm not saying that I would choose this path, but I can't see a way to criticise such a thinking. As long as science is getting advanced who cares? Those people will eventually understand science philosophy and maybe leave altogether some of their old non-scientific believes.
@agetahon Nobody said that a person is stupid because they believe a faith-claim. Most people just don't evaluate the justification of their beliefs or understand how the burden of proof works. My belief is that when the mainstream public makes the connection between the enormous seculararity of scientists and how most intelligent, moral, and respectable people
@ChozoBoy (in accordance with the ratios of those who are scientists or doctors, in college, live in peaceful/industrialized areas, are under-represented in prison, etc. to the rest of the populace) also happen to be atheists, then we can maybe stop being the most discriminated minority per capita.
@ChozoBoy You're using a logical argument here. What I'm afraid you fail to grasp is that most people who believe in the supernatural are not in the habit of reasoning; belief is a virtue, in a believers world. What I love about people like Caral Sagan and Neil Tyson is that they don't get in your face. They definitely don't support non-rational thinking, all you need to do is listen to them, but yet they find a way to relate to people who would otherwise dismiss science of all sorts of reasons.
@agetahon And that I think is more important than automatically dismissing their ways because its somehow against the political ambitions of atheists. I presume you live in America, I live in Israel in the center of the middle east where you have a lot of religious nut-cakes. And although in general people here are tolerant towards atheism (with the exception of religious people of course) we have nothing resembling your constitution which creates a lot of political difficulties here.
@agetahon That's why I think science is such an important subject. If you're an educator leave the specifics of what your listeners currently believe, and just teach them about science and scientific method and philosophy, eventually they will pick up. He does not use this philosophy in the lab just in education (btw: this is all just IMHO maybe he's doing it for different reasons).
Sorry for the long post. I have much more to say but its not very comfortable doing it here.
Thumbs up if you see a guy materialize at 11:50
t3hlol 2 days ago
Comment removed
t3hlol 2 days ago
"NO!" you the man Neil.
onlyMTBlade 3 days ago
atheism is just not beleiving in a god, if you do not beleive in a god you are atheist, what neil is talking is militant atheist. if you dont beleive in a god you are an atheist if you arent sure then you are a agnostic atheist sorry neil im a fan of your work but you are an atheist agnostic that dont like militant atheists.
Wolfot2008 5 days ago
ps - has always watching neil talking is always time well spent.
Wolfot2008 5 days ago
i love Neil deGrasse Tyson, he's an awesome guy, he lacks the culturally elitist judgmental intolerance for others rationalists like Richard Dawkins display so commonly. and yet stands the fact no matter how unpleasant they may be. i like how he shows his passion to his profession. although i'm not a scientific person i received allot from his Nova science now, for me he is to astrophysics documentary broadcasting what David Attenborough was to natural history documentary broadcasting.
MartianSanta 5 days ago
so much fun to listen to NDT
sethmusic 6 days ago
Is it just me, or does NDT seem to dislike this guy?
inersphobia 1 week ago
1:35:30
"What is the biggest mistake you have done?"
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Mistake?
Epic win!
johanneswingerlang 1 week ago
I like Neil and Richard.
JImmy4336 2 weeks ago
As an astrophysicist he has a much easier deal of trying to eplain what he is doing than many other scientists. One of the hardest fields to relate to the general public in my opinion is chemistry, I have spent day trying to figure out how to explain to people what I do in the lab but I have had very limited success in trying to get others to understand. Astrophysics has a great edge there, everyone is facinated about space!
groenjoost 2 weeks ago 2
I like this man very much, but at some point, when he talks about science programs on TV and the science channels, showing how happy he is... well, maybe because we have more to choose, we have better technology and more knowledge to explain things... but haven't you watched science channels? For crying out loud. Most of the programs is pure crap: explosions of the universe, deadly attacks, horrific accidents and survivals, profecies, freaks, etc., etc. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!
Antimoron2 2 weeks ago
great interview. the world needs more intelligent people like this. And Tyson is anything but a douche, he's completely open to all kinds of thought and educates uninformed people all over America, that doesnt sound like a fucking douche to me.
MrPsychedelic11 2 weeks ago
Awesome! Almost two hours, but I could listen for another day. (I have to sleep some time.)
AtheistRex 3 weeks ago
I would classify myself as an atheist but I also have Mass in Minor and Handel's Messiah on my iPhone. Even Dawkins counts himself a cultural christian and attends evensong occasionally.
St00sh13 4 weeks ago
I agree with Tyson that to properly communicate you need to understand the mind of the people you are talking to.
However, surely there is room for both. Dawkins helps those of us, who speak to people who are anti-science, to understand the arguments as to why evolution is true.
St00sh13 4 weeks ago
Im from the UK and we really didn't give a crap. it kind of made sense to anyone who has seen the orbit of pluto on a poster or something. crazy little bastard cuts up neptune's orbit!
callumnik117 1 month ago
The interviewer has no sense of humor!!!!!!!!!!!!
rdMontijo 1 month ago
THE CREATOR is going to be in a movie.
Andysingtoyou 1 month ago
Comment removed
Andysingtoyou 1 month ago
he seems annoyed by the interviewer :D
Matzes 1 month ago
They say you find things annoying in others, because they are the things that make you annoying. He dislikes Dawkings agressive speechs... but he has just as if not more of an agressive speech.
Note: 17:50
bboybram 1 month ago
"How do we get women more into science?"
"They're watching CSI" haha xD
crysisnov 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Fantastic interview, but it's a shame Tyson so strongly wishes to dissociate himself from the atheist movement. When he characterises atheists as against the use of "God" in casual conversation and who don't listen to religious music, he really describes only the most petulant among us. I'm sure Tyson is really an agnostic atheist, the terms not being incompatible, and it would be good for him to just accept that and move on.
PoledniceWP 1 month ago
@PoledniceWP Oh, enough with that. The man is doing better things than subjecting himself to the debates of the religious and atheists. Like he said, we have enough of them (me=atheist). He's agnostic, leave it at that.
BeingBadAtMaths 2 weeks ago
@BeingBadAtMaths I'm not asking that he joins the ranks of atheists - I agree what he does already is great. I was just pointing out that he was offering a very silly caricature of who atheists are and what they want.
PoledniceWP 2 weeks ago
@PoledniceWP Him and other agnostics/skeptics (but to his credit, he doesn't want to be part of that argument and I don't blame him).
*shrug* From my experience, it's a sort of losing battle to try and show that not every bloody atheist is as... "fundamental" as the religious fanatics. At least for me... Maybe if I could talk like Neil, I wouldn't have a problem, heh.
BeingBadAtMaths 2 weeks ago
Does anyone else notice the person on the left hand side of the stage just seem to materialize into being at the 11:51 mark ???
obar111 1 month ago
the interviewer seems to have rather a little of the douche about him
PrettyGoodTunes 1 month ago
@PrettyGoodTunes Funny you say that cos i get a douche vibe from Tyson!
Inb4Reach 1 month ago
@Inb4Reach after watching more tyson i'm beginning to agree with you. this video is a little like the ballet of the douches! at least tysons trying hard to get people into space though, he's definitely no sagan (but then who is!)
PrettyGoodTunes 3 weeks ago
"Remind me again why Pluto matters."
"It doesn't"
"Oh..."
Guitars0fWar 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheScienceFoundation 16
Comment removed
Philzo211 2 months ago
I look to a time when Bill Maher doesn't announce that we have a "black" scientist on the show, instead just a well known credible and brilliant scientist as Neil is.
nash984954 2 months ago 2
The channel spawned from the Discovery channel called The Science Channel is 5% science, and they have the dumbest show called 'punkin'; chunkin', a show more idiotic than any I have ever seen, not much science about it,'cept the catapult made to throw the pumpkins.
nash984954 2 months ago
You're right Neil, the public has no part in determining classifications of their work, as they are not in the know and what is popular is not important in the determination. These scientists were not arrogant at all. Good going Neil keep the "faith."
nash984954 2 months ago
This was fun to watch while it was snowing.
lattask8er 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I completely agree with his reasoning on what being "smart" 1:19:45 is and always have. But if I had to choose a top 10 of "smartest" 21st century Americans...Tyson would be on that list. Love your passion and I'm a huge fan and emulate who you are!
WxMan18 2 months ago
Comment removed
WxMan18 2 months ago
Comment removed
WxMan18 2 months ago
Comment removed
WxMan18 2 months ago
i feel like i need to watch a gucci mane video now.. NDT is a king among men
mylesd09 2 months ago
he is so smart my balls just fell off
Azivegu 2 months ago in playlist Meer video's van TheScienceFoundation 11
wtf? People send him hate mail because of Pluto?>:(
0001connie 2 months ago
This is a great guy, but as far as "the moon mission" in involved, I don't need explanations such as "it had enough fuel to go to the moon and back".... I need a technical description on the propulsion systems that were used, the chemical composition of the fuel that was used, how many people were in the crew of the mission, how many made it back to earth in one piece, and what were the physical, chemical, mathematic and other discoveries and conclusions drawn from this "trip" to the moon ?
ThePhpcip 3 months ago
This guy is my new hero, humor and intellect what else could you ask for?
HectorL360 3 months ago
@HectorL360 I could ask for 1 thing: Are you really gay ? :))))))))))))
ThePhpcip 3 months ago
@ThePhpcip Actually I'm not gay.
HectorL360 3 months ago
Let me eat cookie and chocolate milk.
congtron 3 months ago
Comment removed
HectorL360 3 months ago
If they tried to demote Neptune, I would be mad >:(
chrisuzwhite 3 months ago
I come back to this interview from time to time: just to take in all the information this Dr. Tyson is putting out there...
enyskept 3 months ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!!
Thinkdeep420 3 months ago
Hah, I have to say I like both Tyson and Dawkins' styles, one is vibrant and empowering when explaining science, the other is "articulately barbed" and stings like hell when it comes to criticisms of religion.
Nevangelus 4 months ago
What's that icon "tsn" at the bottom right corner?Is it some kind of a logo of Neil or your network or what because I've seen it on a lot of videos that Tyson is in.
denispkpk 4 months ago
@denispkpk its The Science Network logo, thesciencenetwork(.)org
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Thanks a lot !
denispkpk 4 months ago
11:52 that man just magically appears in the background, wtf!
TheRealRoxette 4 months ago
@TheRealRoxette wow suprised no one else noticed that
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
1:44:22 - 1:45:03 is soooooo TRUE i agree 100%, humans are not trustworthy, and always strive to be better then others
ihatecandy01 4 months ago
You can see at the end of the clip (around 1:34:00), when he talks about NASA, you can see it hurts him a lot.
toverkleet 4 months ago
Though I am not someone in physics (i was a student in the philosophy of law) but to have such a teacher, would be exactly what I would want from my teachers. Great and inspiring man :D
toverkleet 4 months ago
Pluto is still Pluto! Why do we even care how scientists class planetary bodies?
Because they have a diploma and we don't? Pfft. Degree or not, I have a brain, same as anyone
itchytoke 4 months ago
It sounds like Tyson would be both a great father and a really bad one at the same time :P
toverkleet 4 months ago
ghost @11:52 AHHHH!!!!
ebruce03 4 months ago
Awesome Conversation. Thanks fro the upload
prophismusic 5 months ago
Yeaaa:)
mattysimsoficial 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Thanks for the opportunity. Wonderful interview.
Jeberval 5 months ago
His point on Obama is interesting.
It is like Tiger Woods, he is more Asian than Black but he is still refered to as a Black Man.
ThanatoselNyx 5 months ago
I can't believe how many comments are about his atheism/agnosticism when he mentions that Carl Sagan, after giving him a tour of the labs, drove him to the bus stop and gave him his home phone number in case it snowed!
thelimecocunut 5 months ago
Man when he asked "How did you get into the Planetarium" (around 16:40)..I'm not even black and I found that offensive. It's as if to suggest that he couldn't be able to because of poverty or his nationality. I probably blew it out of proportion, but it came off really wrong and kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
nanyacura 6 months ago
@nanyacura Well, I find "How did you get to XYZ" Is a perfectly normal and frequent Question in a Conversation. It is just the Question, the Interest, how/why someone came to make a Job.
LutzDerLurch 6 months ago
@nanyacura While I don't particularly like this interviewer (he has a tendency to argue about things irrelevant to the discussion), it could be argued that his question was simply leading Tyson into talking about the fact that a black man is perfectly capable of being active in the science community. It's very likely, in fact, that this man wasn't trying to be racist, but trying to acknowledge that, despite racism, a black man rose to a prominent position in the scientific community.
eternalquiet 5 months ago
Re: Richard Dawkins style of communication...I am just a high school graduate and I understand Dawkins' way of articulating the truths of science quite clearly. I am also entertained by his talent in putting words together with wit and charm. Tyson, by contrast, seems to ferverently like to hear himself speak...and to great length, and with redundance. I like Tyson and don't mean to diminish his impact on his audience but I do feel "talked down to" often. He is transparent in his self-importance
sillynut331 6 months ago
@sillynut331 I admire both. Mr. deGrasse tyson has a Way to exhibit a strong Fascination and Enthusiasm with the Universe. He lso if funny and a cool Guy. Professor Dawkins is cool and admirable too, but in a diffrent Way. Professor Dawkins is eloquent and speaks in a Choice of Words and a Speed and Tone, that really shows him to be a true Gentleman. I'd sell my Soul to have his Wit and Eloquence.
I think, it is a Matter of Taste wether you like one of these Gentlemen more or esteem them equal.
LutzDerLurch 6 months ago
@LutzDerLurch [cont.] What is sad, however, is that Mr. Dawkins is often perceived as agressive, because of his Language. I find it lamentable that in these Days, especially Young People like I, have so little Knowledge and esteem for their own mother-Tongue, that they feel offended if someone is a true Master of Words.
LutzDerLurch 6 months ago
@sillynut331 It's less straightforward, you mean. It's storytelling, notice how Tyson can hold the attention of a whole crowd?
nanomagnetic 5 months ago
3 thumbs down? How can you not love Dr.Tyson? Ah must be KKK members.
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago 2
I love Neil but I can't stand this interviewer!!!
extrude22 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it was peer reviewed. It was peer reviewed.
greenbrad182 7 months ago
i love this man and his mind ...if people got just 20% of the way His mind work the world will be much better place.
Noway778 7 months ago 41
tyson is wrong about the whole black thing
FIGHTFANNERD3 8 months ago
This was such a great interview. Almost two hours dealing with various topics and yet, I scroll down to these comments and see endless back and forths about religion. Seriously? Must every youtube video that deals with science result in a religious tit for tat?
On a side note, I want read that novel about the cat. Sounds cool
iamadamsusername 8 months ago 29
@beyondthesystem U probably got a heap of replys from this but jst one more wont hurt right?
EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC, and if they claim they are not then they are lying and probably dnt understand they are lying. A strong intellectual case can be made for a agnostic deist belief but theistic belief generally requires that u have some knowledge and understanding of god and before we can believe someones claim they need to demonstrate they have "knowledge and understanding of god"
shandcunt 8 months ago
@roont yes he is as much agnostic about gods as he is about Santa Claus or Voldemort
sondano 8 months ago
Now i'm depressed. Here I am thinking Neil had limited education and went over the opsticals anyways. But now I find out he went to one of the best highschools and then went to Harvard. Damn.
Nerd0042 8 months ago
@Nerd0042 don't worry, maybe spelling was one of his opsticals....
duswdav 8 months ago 2
Why do they get so angry about Pluto? I don't get it, is just a stupid chunk of rock. Barely has the gravity to be even round.
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
i know its only 3 people but i cannot fathom how anyone would dislike this video??
beyondthesystem 9 months ago
Whenever I hear NDT speak I feel so energetic and invigorated.
cloclo902003 9 months ago
i need to go to school, divides de videos please.
ridel87 9 months ago
Is Neil saying war is good because of R&D it spawns? If so, what cost do the pawns used to fight said wars, and the innocent people who, also die as a result, compute as? Insignificant?
On a political side; Being the brilliant Scientific Literate Neil is, I'd be quite curious to know where he stands on the nature of our political system today. It'd be further interesting to know his opinion, before and after reading Ayn Rand.
Thanks to TSF for publishing your works for all to view! Subbed
4micaman 9 months ago
@4micaman dude, he just said war is good for science. not war is good period.
with regard to Atlas Shrugged, he is already in the middle of the book. i don't remember the book "dropping the ball" to the endish, so he will probably enjoy it to the end. but i doubt he will think more or less of the author. i personally don't understand people who form opinions about authors of books they read: who cares?
UnconformistSheep 7 months ago
Neil Tyson is a boss
emptysky89 9 months ago
I love you Neil, but don't you dare to mess with Neptune!!!!
cristianfcao 10 months ago
@roont Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. If pushed, everyone technically has to be agnostic.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 47
@TheScienceFoundation Atheist isn't really a word is it? Although one can "believe" that there is no higher power, it would take science to prove that and because science cannot do that, you must leave out a 1% that there is a god, but say you are 99% certain that there is no god.
So therefore everyone must be an agnostic right?
paul7048 10 months ago
@paul7048 Atheism is a word. Everyone belongs to one of the following four categories, 1. Gnostic Theism 2. Agnostic Theism 3. Gnostic Atheism 4. Agnostic Atheism.
OpethNation 10 months ago
@OpethNation well technically it only atheism and theism and we are all agnostic
kainniak1 9 months ago
@kainniak1 Right, but the gnostic theists and atheists will argue their position till the death!
OpethNation 9 months ago
@OpethNation so. they just don't understand the words they use to describe them self. any one who call's them self a gnostic when it comes to "god" doesn't really understand what it means to truelly "know" something in a factual way. i don't care what it is what you think you "know" if you cant if you cant prove it its not a fact period.
kainniak1 9 months ago
@kainniak1 uh, yep.
OpethNation 9 months ago
@paul7048 Have you ever read Vic Stegner's book 'God: The Failed Hypothesis'? Science can prove much more than you think.
GottOngeloof 9 months ago
@paul7048 just cause someone says something doesn't mean we have to give it credence at all. Science doesn't have to prove there is no god you have to prove there is a god using science. How can you even say there is 1% chance of there being a god lol that is extremely high a chance to give to an idea that literally has no evidence.Did you know there is 1% chance of star wars actually happened and the events where beamed in to george lucas's head while he was asleep, can you disprove that?
kainniak1 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I am going to have to disagree with that. As an atheist, I am not agnostic. Thomas Huxley, who created the term agnostic, believed that we cannot ever know the origins or causes of the universe. He created the term from a passage in Acts (17:23 to be exact). I believe we can know and are getting closer to knowing the origins of the universe with quite certainty and the evidence does not point to a god, known or unknown.
GottOngeloof 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most atheists do not say we cannot know, nor do they specifically say they know there isn't a god, what they say is that based on all the evidence we have, a god does not seem to exist and therefore we have no need to worship it. Like Sagan's Dragon in the garage.
GottOngeloof 9 months ago
@GottOngeloof You can't ever know if all is know - therefor it's impossible to be a gnostic atheist in the true meaning of that word. Although in a day-to-day you can be just as sure, as you are with santa.
tristbjorn 4 months ago
Neither Agnostics nor Atheists say with full certainty there is no god but neither find the hypothesis probable as a result of there be no evidence. It seems whether one defines themselves Agnostic or Atheist doesn't define a difference in belief but rather a difference in opinion of religion - Atheist's being against religion and an Agnostic not caring either way.
beyondthesystem 9 months ago
@beyondthesystem your definitions are incorrect.
TheStonerification 8 months ago
@beyondthesystem
whether you are gnostic or agnostic is about whether you are certain or not.
whrther you are a theist or an atheist depends on whether you believe in a god or not.
you can be a gnostic atheist (KNOWS god doesn't exist), a gnostic theist (KNOWS god does exist, probably most theists are this) an agnostic atheist (doesn't know but learning towards god doesn't exist, what most atheist probably are) or an agnostic theist (doesn't know but leaning towards god does exist).
khajiit92 8 months ago
@khajiit92 i agree with your definitions but do you think it is possible to be a gnostic theist, this implies you know that god does exist but one cannot know something unless it happens to be true - knowing is the intersection of belief and truth - where the most fundamentally religious may act and claim they really know, they can't because they would need empirical evidence that implied its truth whereby no one would have any reason to doubt,
beyondthesystem 8 months ago
... it is rather that they believe they know rather than they actually know. Anyways by original point was to suggest we are all agnostic (belief that know one knows god does or does not exist) but this is different from whether we believe or do not believe in god, from what i've herd of Neil i think he doesn't...
beyondthesystem 8 months ago
whereby he may be agnostic which is the most reasonable and logical position to take but this is different from if you believe or don't believe in god, imo, though i'll be happy to be corrected.
beyondthesystem 8 months ago
@beyondthesystem
when i say know and i'm talking about being gnostic, i mean 'know' (with the speech marks) if that makes sense. in your own mind you are absolutely certain of it, regardless of the truth.in other words, there is absolutely no doubt. maybe know is the wrong word, but i think you get what i mean.
khajiit92 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Not true. My position is that I "KNOW" there is no God just like I "KNOW" there's no Santa Clause. You can play semantics all day with "what we can know" but that's just a philisophical bullshit.
exconguitar 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, therefore agnostics are atheists. People have transformed the word agnostic to mean something more like a compromise between theism and atheism, although it's clear to me that if you look at the etymology of the word 'atheist' it's obvious meaning is "not theist."
rprnorg 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation thats why i just say "im not religious" haha
TheChipAndSkip 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yep, even Richard Dawkins said that he was on a scale from 1 till 7, 1 being an absolute religious person who "knows" and the 7 being absolutly sure that there is NO god, he was a 6,9.
toverkleet 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation, i must ask you: Why?
pedrokobuti 4 months ago
Neil, great remarks on communicating difficult ideas.
mikemontagne 10 months ago
Why are they sitting so close to gether? I know Neil is an incredible person, but damn give him some space.
Wordlaw12 10 months ago
@SaberOtaku
:D
g0tcadaver 11 months ago
thumbs up if you watched the whole thing!
frydayupinhere 11 months ago 26
omg he's a genius. Being articulate is different from being good at communicating!
mdupre0423 11 months ago
He says Dawkins has a sharpness in the way he speaks or delivers his message yet Tyson completely rips this guy at 8:00 for asking a question seemingly twice. He also says he would not be a politician because he has no patience for making anyone believe anything yet in the clip with Dawkins he says their job as a "communicator" of science is to deliver the message to the public with facts & "persuasion"... In using the term persuasion he is trying to make people believe his facts which is what
doublenichol 11 months ago
"In order to be called a militant atheist, all you have to do is write a book or have a blog. If you're religious and you want people to call you militant, you have to blow stuff up and shoot people."
-Martin Wagner
I also guess by reading your comment, that asking for religions to be kept out of science classrooms makes me a "militant" atheist.
therock27374 1 year ago 2
I don't get the thing about his "not being an atheist". Well, he is an atheist, no matter how he, himself, define atheism. It may be he has another definition for atheism, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he is one. He is an agnostic atheist. Period...
HKragh 1 year ago
@HKragh Firstly, I think he knows both definitions very well and is himself the best judge of where he would put himself. Secondly, atheism is more than a label, it is a bit of a community as well - one that Dr. Tyson seemingly wants no part of. Thirdly, what makes you say he is an atheist? He claims himself to be an agnostic in the sense of T. Huxley and that's enough of a statement. While there are agnostic atheists, N. Tyson doesn't fancy himself one. Why do you want to "make" him one?
DementorBob 1 year ago
@DementorBob Personally I'm very happy whenever people use the correct definition as base for a given statement. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god. Period. Not one who denies a god, or thinks gods are impossible. Now, Neil has stated again and again that he doesn't believe in a god. Not that he believes there is no god, just that he doesn't believe in one. By the definition of an atheist, he is such. It doesn't matter at all which definition he himself creates for the word.
HKragh 1 year ago
@DementorBob -And he shouldn't go into the wiki page and change it, just because he has misunderstood the term atheist. That is just not how knowledge libaries should work. And whatever community has build upon the term atheist, should have nothing to do with anything. He is an agnostic atheist. If he for some reason didn't like black haired people, or if his personal definition of the color black was skewed, it wouldn't make him non black haired. We need definitions to be consistent...
HKragh 1 year ago
12:25... there is a word for it: didactics!
daschamaeleon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Money/market" is ROOT of problems, how do we:
1. stop corruption caused by profit motive?
2. ensure everyone has minimum necessities?
ANSWER
1. FREELY Share ALL resources & knowledge worldwide, NO more money/property
2. Use LATEST technology to create an ABUNDANCE of all our needs, NO more waste/theft
3. Automate/localize ALL production and distribution, NO more central control/wage slavery
v=4Z9WVZddH9w
dontblockmedk 1 year ago
"So tell me why Pluto matters ?"
"It doesn't !"
alphakristjan 1 year ago
why was he being so "sharp" against the interviewer?
themethod 1 year ago
@themethod Because the interviewer is not his general public.
baillou2 1 year ago
Neil's story about meeting Sagan for the first time is a truly moving one. If more of the great scientists of our time were as conscious as Sagan was about instilling a sense of wonder and awe of our natural universe in young and curious minds, the future of science education in America may look a little brighter than it does now,
ethanxvx 1 year ago 6
A really good conversation. Thanks to both Neil and Roger.
bjkeefe 1 year ago
0:50:27 Hahaha
AfroEliteXL 1 year ago
So earth is not an obloete sphereoid, it's pear shaped? We wouldn't had to learn this stupid word if they'd found this out earlier:D
Ignorantf00l 1 year ago
i agree with degrasse, dawkins is really not a good mouthpiece for science, or atheism for that matter. i like dawkins, but he just comes off as a prick to the other side. also, his CONSTANT fucking up when talking with american evangelicals by telling them "priests and bishops" accept evolution drives me crazy. he should know by now that to an evangelical, bishops and priests may as well be satanic monks.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Who doesn't love Tyson...just wish he realized agnosticism is stupid
moss824 1 year ago
As agnosticism deals with knowledge we are all agnostics about gods, everyone who sees he knows that god exists needs to cough up a proof. Thats why i find the term useless. But many people don't care sincerely about religion either way so i see no reason to take away the agnosticism term to mark that.
In that sense he is doing more against religion. He is fighting to root cause that is illiteracy. That will hurt religion more if people start thinking on their own.
Uhmu45 1 year ago 4
Glad to see a well respected speaker claiming and sticking up for agnosticism as described by Huxley and making the point of setting apart from modern atheism. I would love to see what his response would be if someone accused him of being "an atheist who hasn't thought about it".
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
Well, but the science in CSI is often BS. I just say zooming in on the reflection on an eye in a CCTV recording (which usually uses NTSC resolution and is usually blurry). Red Dwarf: Back to Earth did a nice parody on that.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
There should be a word for people who discuss atheism and don't understand what the word means.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago 33
@ChozoBoy Is there a profession that involves solely making strawmen?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Excuse me, I'm not sure that I understand the relevance.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago
@ChozoBoy In logic, a strawman is a misrepresentation of a position, you were calling for a name for people who misrepresent atheism.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation I'm familiar with the Strawman Fallacy, but a person who is misrepresenting a concept due to a poor understanding isn't necessarily making this fallacy.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago
@ChozoBoy It can be stipulated that the misconception is intentional, but generally it's used to describe any attack on a misrepresentation of a position, willful or otherwise.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation I strive to be as intelligent as you all are. Hopefully this interview helped
khoops66 11 months ago
@khoops66 Definitely subscribe to all the users listed on my channel description.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation They are usually called "pseudo-intellectuals". It is not a profession, though. They are usually called "commentators" when they have space in the media.
Antonielly 8 months ago
@ChozoBoy
I noticed that too, he doesn't seem to understand what the term atheism means despite having gone to great lengths to understand the etymologies of the words goodbye and "godspeed". He's of the impression that atheism means outright rejection of god without realising that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I also get pissy when even Carl Sagan makes the same mistake also, I think it's to do with PR, if you're known as an atheist, you got no hope "spreading" science.
therock27374 1 year ago
@therock27374 I felt Carl was pretty good about it. That was a different era, and he was running the only real science program on the six-and-a-half channels of TV back then, so he had to be careful or risk losing his mode of media. I'm pretty sure he's used both words to describe himself on occassion, so I'd like to think that he knew what they meant. Even if he didn't, he was philosophically sound through and through.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago
@therock27374 Atheism is the rejection of any belief in any deities and Dr. Tyson got that exactly right. Atheism comes from atheos = without god. The notion that it is simply the absence of a belief is relatively new, dating back to about the 18th century as far as I know. So let's put those semantics aside and make it a bit less ambiguous: Tyson is not an explicit or "positive" atheist. There, now we don't have to bicker about definitions.
DementorBob 1 year ago
@DementorBob
You say it yourself: atheos = without god. Not: atheos = denying of god, or: atheos = knowing no god exist.
Is Neil without god? Definitely!
If we don't use modern definitions of terms, what good is language then? Words has changed their meaning through time, and language is only meaningful, if we use the modern version of it, and the modern definitions of the details.
HKragh 1 year ago
@DementorBob
Actually, using your definition Tyson IS an atheist, he's afterall- without the POSITIVE belief in god. Since lacking or not having positive belief in god is "without" god (as is colourless without colour), he is therefore atheist. Colourless merely implies lack of colour, it doesn't necessitate anti-colour properties :P This is what my comment is supposed to bring across as a point.
therock27374 1 year ago
@ChozoBoy I'm not so sure he doesn't understand the term, he simply doesn't want to be associated with the more militant bunch of atheists. I think he's an atheist based on all of his public appearances that I've seen. He simply doesn't want to draw fire (and it does come in tons in this kind of a position) considering his mission of public education.
agetahon 1 year ago
@agetahon That is silly. If your mission was public education, then there wouldn't be any reason to pick one detail to lie to the public about. (Belief in supernatural deities, in this case.) There's no way he could be associated with militant atheists because he doesn't act like or associate with them.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago 2
@ChozoBoy If you're interested in science but believe in what can be perceived as a conflicting world view than telling you that you're stupid because you believe in those things, as rule, does not draw people into science. I'm not saying that I would choose this path, but I can't see a way to criticise such a thinking. As long as science is getting advanced who cares? Those people will eventually understand science philosophy and maybe leave altogether some of their old non-scientific believes.
agetahon 1 year ago
@agetahon Nobody said that a person is stupid because they believe a faith-claim. Most people just don't evaluate the justification of their beliefs or understand how the burden of proof works. My belief is that when the mainstream public makes the connection between the enormous seculararity of scientists and how most intelligent, moral, and respectable people
ChozoBoy 1 year ago
@ChozoBoy (in accordance with the ratios of those who are scientists or doctors, in college, live in peaceful/industrialized areas, are under-represented in prison, etc. to the rest of the populace) also happen to be atheists, then we can maybe stop being the most discriminated minority per capita.
ChozoBoy 1 year ago
@ChozoBoy You're using a logical argument here. What I'm afraid you fail to grasp is that most people who believe in the supernatural are not in the habit of reasoning; belief is a virtue, in a believers world. What I love about people like Caral Sagan and Neil Tyson is that they don't get in your face. They definitely don't support non-rational thinking, all you need to do is listen to them, but yet they find a way to relate to people who would otherwise dismiss science of all sorts of reasons.
agetahon 1 year ago 2
@agetahon And that I think is more important than automatically dismissing their ways because its somehow against the political ambitions of atheists. I presume you live in America, I live in Israel in the center of the middle east where you have a lot of religious nut-cakes. And although in general people here are tolerant towards atheism (with the exception of religious people of course) we have nothing resembling your constitution which creates a lot of political difficulties here.
agetahon 1 year ago
@agetahon That's why I think science is such an important subject. If you're an educator leave the specifics of what your listeners currently believe, and just teach them about science and scientific method and philosophy, eventually they will pick up. He does not use this philosophy in the lab just in education (btw: this is all just IMHO maybe he's doing it for different reasons).
Sorry for the long post. I have much more to say but its not very comfortable doing it here.
agetahon 1 year ago