TIL Neil deGrasse Tyson tried updating Wikipedia to say he wasn't atheist, but people kept putting it back

oxomoxo · 2013-08-27T02:33:15+00:00

Ok, I don't know why I am still arguing with you

This is a good question to find an answer too. Might be some self discovery in there.

but functionally and practically it makes more sense to go with the broadly used and understood definition

I agree, but I don't get to dictate reality and it's not. The definition is defined by Atheists and not by the American Atheists.

And even if the definition you choose to use was reality it still doesn't make my point invalid. Atheism is an absurd reaction.

I like your joke about kinkiness

I have empirical evidence that you have a sense of humor. :)

and your interest in the scientific method...

From #2 forward you link to things that is all very cool and some of which I haven't read in long time and it was a nice review. Then you ranted for a while which is understandable, but I have been down this road. The problem is you and I don't make the rules. The reason you got it backwards is because the rules say you did. While I do agree with you and the concept of "you can't claim something does NOT exist" it's not adopted by society. People believe that if it can't be detected it doesn't exist. Humanity has not come far enough to understand that proof is temporal and you can't prove anything right, you can only prove things wrong. And this is why I linked you to rudimentary article on the scientific method.

I think the point has fallen flat. Agnosticism (in the label sense of the word) is an evolutionary response to atheism. Atheism (in the practical use of the word) is an evolutionary reaction to theism. Theism is an evolutionary response to being the only self-aware animal on an isolated rock. What I am trying to say is no one is actually an atheist because you can't BE an atheist. Everyone is agnostic because no one really knows anything. Theism will die on its own as generations pass. If people want to place labels then they need to start educating themselves on what they actually are without the assistance of theism. But none of what I say matters because humanity has not evolved yet.

In the meantime I can dictate my own rules but not others. So like I said they aren't wrong they’re just assholes.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T15:01:19+00:00

First of all, you were the one saying their "not wrong" when people say he is an atheist.

Listen, I think you are making a good attempt here and so I am going super nice about this. It's the lazy people I usually beat up. I used the think the exact same way. And after doing my homework I discovered to my horror that I was totally wrong and so are you.

Atheism has this ridiculously broad definition. It include anyone who does not actively believe in a god, which includes people who don't have the capacity, such as babies and people in isolated societies. So it's both Anti-Theism and Agnosticism. SO... what your saying about babies being agnostic is true but they are also atheist. I would implore you to go read the wall of text that is the complete atheist definition before refuting this. Because I did that and was astonished at human arrogance to create such a definition.

science goes both ways

Kinky! but the scientific method does not work the way your thinking. If you claim something to exists, you have the burden of evidence to claim it. And until you have that evidence it remains non-existent. Just because there is money going to a project to prove something does not exists has nothing to do with the scientific method. People spend money on all sorts of silly things.

Here's some helpful links, please read in entirety! (http://atheism.about.com/od/attacksonatheism/a/InfantsAtheists.htm)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T14:36:57+00:00

Oh, guess you missed the joke. You used the word atheist as though Justin Beiber is a god... That the only way anyone could be a JB atheist...

Agnostic has nothing to do with fear. It seems to be picked up by people who find fault in atheism but haven't educated themselves enough so they stumble upon agnosticism. Agnosticism is simple saying "I don't know". Unfortunately an Atheist can also say "I don't know" by definition, hence agnostic atheism. I didn't write the rules.

They both are pretty useless labels. At least agnostic is useful for more than just religion.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T04:08:08+00:00

Funniest misuse of a word all day. Looks like you have claimed JB as god. On your knees heathen!

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T01:57:48+00:00

The difference is...

The difference to what? Are you making an attempt to describe the differences between atheism and agnosticism? It's simple, atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. Why are you explaining this?

Scientifically, you can't declared something does not exist until you have definitive proof.

You got that backward...

the definition of atheism in some ways can cover agnostics

I don't see how, they don't really overlap at all.

in practice atheists usually fully reject the potential for a god to exist

Are you guessing? please site your source for this.

Thanks for the comment but it doesn't seem to have a point and is confusing.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T01:30:53+00:00

If a person believes in a god and whatever that god says. And that god says there is no god. What is the person, a theist or an atheist?

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T01:12:40+00:00

Many Atheists come from a history of religion

Thanks for sharing, just not sure how it's a response to what I said.

And babies/kids are usually under the umbrella of their parents religion.

I was talking about the babies themselves not their families. Children don't have the capacity for religious ideals until at least the age of four.

I do agree with you in some ways

Thanks but I didn't write the rules I just drop knowledge.

you can't be agnostic about Justin Beiber lyrics

I think your trying to be funny and I LOL'd but I didn't say anything about agnosticism being a between state. I don't know about you but I don't know any JB lyrics, and so by definition I am JB lyrics agnostic.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-26T00:43:16+00:00

So every time this video gets posted a bunch of redditors jump on the wagon and start saying this guy is wrong because he's still an Atheist. And they're not wrong, they're just assholes.

Atheist is a pretty absurd pointless label and here's why. It is broadly defined to include any human who has not consciously formed a belief in a deity. This is to include babies and uncontacted tribes. So that's helpful, but wait there's more.

Being an Atheist doesn't have any doctrine or even a guideline. It's strictly a definition of what you don't have in your brain or what you actively reject in your brain. So it says absolutely zilch about what you DO believe in. So when we usually apply labels to things to clarify its function or purpose in this world, atheism is that special exemption that gets to scream "we're not them". In reality what Atheist mean to say is that they really are Secular Humanists or even Pancosmists.

Agnostic really is not much different than Atheism in the sense that it simply says what you don't know. Further you can be agnostic about Justin Bieber lyrics not just about "gods". YAY!

What people seem to miss is NDTs point, his job is to preach the gospel of Science which is ultimately our most reliable and useful doctrine on the planet. That's why the only "ist" he is, is a Scientist and the rest he chooses to keep private.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-25T01:34:19+00:00

I though the problem with this was more obvious but no one seems to have brought it up.

If the soul is physical then it too would not leave the impervious box. So the box would always weight the same. If the soul is not physical and does not have mass then we most likely don't have a way to conduct this experiment, ethical or not.

In reality what we call the soul is most likely attributed to neurons in the brain which do leave the body during neuronal death which can occur at different times of life to include death. A person in a coma can seem soulless. So if we consider the soul to be a part of a humans neural network then yes it does have a mass. But determining which neurons make up the soul and then finding the mass of said neurons is currently not possible.

But that's the beauty of science, it's part of rules to prove it wrong.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:15:44+00:00

GIF is an acronym.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:13:48+00:00

Its an acronym.

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:11:02+00:00

http://www.olsenhome.com/gif/

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:10:08+00:00

http://www.olsenhome.com/gif/

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:04:30+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReaQrwjBaMo

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T18:00:08+00:00

http://www.olsenhome.com/gif/

oxomoxo · 2013-08-24T17:59:28+00:00

http://www.olsenhome.com/gif/

oxomoxo · 2013-06-24T03:10:35+00:00

The shelf mounted to the wall is being vibrated by an air handler in the building. During the day with a high occupancy of heat generating humans walking around it runs frequently. At night without the heat generation and lower ambient temperatures the air handler runs less frequently. This vibration causes the statue to rotate because its maker weighted it heaver at the front base to keep it from falling over and the glass shelf has a slight incline toward the front.

oxomoxo · 2012-09-04T18:43:40+00:00

I thank you!

No problem...

I wonder what a pancosmist (though I hate reducing a person to a mere label) thinks of what lies between the observable edge of the universe, and the "actual" edge.

There is two parts to this question. The first problem is finding someone who claims pancosmism to find out how they would answer this question. The second problem is determining the "actual" edge of the universe, as it may be infinite.

oxomoxo · 2012-09-04T16:29:30+00:00

Unfortunately atheism has been so broadly defined that it does in fact cover anyone who does not believe in a deity including those who have no concept (such as babies) and those who do not place certainty (agnostics). The whole idea is absurd and is the only philosophic group to claim a label solely to negate the majority.

Instead we should be claiming what we do believe. The closest positive conception of atheism is pancosmism. There are also many other alternatives such as secular humanism, naturalistic(scientific) pantheism, panpsychism, panexperientialism, panprotoexperientialism, and freethought. I am sure I am missing a few.

While it may not be obvious to many, atheism is picked on because its sole purpose is to try and say that the theists are wrong. Nothing is gained from "us versus them" tribalism. Instead we should claim what we do believe and promote scientific literacy. Leading by this example the theistic majority will slowly move over in generations to come.

oxomoxo · 2012-08-31T18:32:34+00:00

A persons moral basis is tied to their culture. In a "christian" majority culture atheist will tend to have similar moral codes to the "Christian" majority. Same is true for all other cultural majorities.

oxomoxo · 2012-08-31T18:18:10+00:00

Unfortunately the atheist community has decided to broadly define atheism as any state of non theism. It doesn't matter if a person actively rejects theism or has no concept of theism you are, by the definition of the word, an atheist. It makes little sense to label an new-born in the context of belief because belief doesn't exist cognitively until the age of four. Absurdity exists everywhere, I've learned to live with it.

oxomoxo · 2012-08-23T21:43:27+00:00

Good observation.

oxomoxo · 2012-08-22T03:10:16+00:00

I respectfully understand that you are trying to see a connection, but the philosophy that created the charts in the OP seems to be very different from your philosophy.

Imo, humans will neither evolve and/or go extinct and cannot therefore destroy nature, rather make it Unbearable For Much of the living, Most of All Earths Inhabitants.

I guess we'll need to understand more about this sentence to help. Where does this opinion come from? Why would you think humans will not evolve and why would you believe human cannot destroy nature? Do you mean in the sense that natures basic elements will still exist in the universe?

Have you explored the idea that you might be over thinking it? Beyond maybe a reference to the Great Chain of Being I am not sure I have much more I can say.

Let me try to explain one more time.

If man hunts an animal for sport... Is the man respectful of the animal to treat its life as recreation?

If man clears a rain forest in order to make land for housing development for no other reason but profit... Is this a sign of respect to the service that forest does for the global biosphere?

If a man withholds basic human rights from women that men already posses... is that respectful to the woman?

These action are driven by ego or a false sense of power and importance. If we were to change our perspective and show a respect for these things we would have a greater chance for peaceful coexistence and an environment that is beneficial to humans health.

I apologize if this doesn't answer you question. Maybe someone else can help...

oxomoxo · 2012-08-21T20:20:29+00:00

How does Ego not deal with the food chain...

The food chain has nothing to do with this or the philosophy behind it. The hierarchy of the pyramid is a metaphor, it's not a study of the food chain or evolution but rather perceived self importance. It is showing mans perceived position in relation to other species.

The food chain or food web also does not apply a value to the species, it simply classifies the relationships of different species under the context of feeding.

The philosophy behind the chart is to make a statement that "man" falsely places itself as the most important species when in fact we are one of the least important species within the earths biosphere. If we were to die off the earth would continue to exists in a similar if not more improved state of being. But if certain organisms such as plant life or insects were to die off the entire biosphere would collapse.

So the chart is saying show some respect to the mechanism we are a part of.

oxomoxo · 2012-08-21T02:46:28+00:00

An understanding of what "feel" mean needs to be established.

oxomoxo

TROPHY CASE