atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive positions.

Atheist: Does not believe in any gods.

Agnostic: One who believes it is impossible to know for sure.

I understand that you want the definitions of the two words to be that precise and scientific but they are not. If you write a paper then you're free to say "for the purposes of this paper, atheist will mean X and agnostic will mean Y". But in conversational English and especially in the thought process that people use to decide which term with which to self-identify (or not) it's not so clear. And dictionaries of the English language reflect that the definitions are not so precise and scientific as you'd like.

Atheist and Agnostic are answers to different questions. One is about what you believe and the other is about what you know. They aren't mutually exclusive and a well thought out position should include both.

And in English it is usage that ultimately wins, even though in a specific timeframe the dictionaries carry some weight about what is the currently and commonly accepted (correct?) definition.

Especially when the words are self-chosen as a label, it is somewhat prevalent to take the meaning of agnostic to say that the person leans somewhat more toward belief and the meaning of atheist to say that the person does not lean in that direction. I don't know exactly how prevalent that usage is but that isn't so much the point I was getting at. My point is that it's prevalent enough that people may want to (and some do) take it into account if they choose to self-label.

...in this particular case it is not just a matter of people meaning different things when they use the word. One of the things people mean when they use it is nonsensical.

Namely, using "agnostic" to indicate some kind of fence-sitting position halfway between atheism and theism but belonging to neither of the categories... because *no such state exists*. So they can't actually be that, no matter how many people insist on saying they are. Possessing or not possessing a belief in the existence of a deity describes a binary solution set.


So it's not just "this term has two different definitions". It's "this term has two different definitions and one of them is demonstrably wrong".



(And yes anyone about to come along and link to Webster's or something... I'm aware the wrong one is also in the dictionary. The dictionary will do that all the time if enough people use it that way, they don't care if it's wrong only that that's what people mean when they say it. It's appearance in the dictionary does not establish it as being logically valid.)

What's your basis for saying that? From some quick searching on the subject it looks to me like there's science saying that people are capable of assessing the probability that something is true and basing decisions on that probability. Such a person has a degree of belief somewhere between 0 and 1, no?

For example, this paper:

But regardless of how confident you are a belief you have is right, you still either do or do not have it. There is no third state.

And where did you get those criteria from?

If you have it, you have it. That's the criteria.

When posed the question "do you currently possess a belief that a deity exists (regardless of how sure you are that belief may be correct)?" if you answer yes you're a theist. If you answer no you're an atheist. It's just that simple.



(It is at this point that someone calling themselves an agnostic usually leaps in and says "I would say I don't know if God exists! AHA!" Thus demonstrating they didn't listen to the question, which did not ask them if they *knew* a deity existed.)

What if my assessment is that there's about a 50% probability that there's a squirrel in my backyard right now? Should I answer yes or no to the question of whether I believe there's a squirrel in my backyard? And why?

(We agree that I don't know - I'm not at home right now.)

"What if my assessment is that there's about a 50% probability that there's a squirrel in my backyard right now? "

So I'd say I believe it's about a toss up whether there's a squirrel in my back yard but I believe it's almost certain that there's a squirrel somewhere on the block.

The question is, as a result of your evaluation of the odds of there being a squirrel in your back yard being 50%... did you adopt a belief there was a squirrel there?


I am not asking what your evaluations of such a belief being correct or not may be. Or how wide a geographic search range you would have to include before your evaluations of the probability of a squirrel being found within it rose to a level approaching certainty. I am asking if the belief there is a squirrel in your back yard is currently resident in your brain. Right now.

As it is your brain, that is something you should know.

A discussion that NDT had on an internet radio show is what prompted my OP and in that discussion there is an interesting exchange about these words, their meanings, and dictionaries that I think you'll find interesting. Here's the audio and (sorry) I don't remember exactly where that particular exchange is:

http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs103-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-why-he-doesnt-call-himself-an-a.html

A quick (and probably rough) summary of the exchange is that NDT says that the English language, unlike French for example, does not have an authority on what each word means and then Massimo responds that while that's true, dictionaries for English are both descriptive and, during specific timeframes, prescriptive, so that it is possible to tell someone they are using a word incorrectly because Webster or Oxford says that most people use it this other way. NDT doesn't disagree with Massimo's clarification.

Interestingly, neither NDT nor Massimo seemed to use the more precise definitions that you advocate. NDT seemed to see it as a choice between two labels, agnostic and atheist, and made his choice based on the peripheral connotations of each. Massimo also saw it as a choice between two labels but said that if his priors were more like 50/50 on the existence of gods then he would think agnostic was the right choice and that because his priors actually are 99.X/0.X against the existence of gods he thinks that atheist is the right label for him.

I think the entire discussion (about 40 minutes long) is really interesting and well done (the part about dictionaries is just a brief part) and I recommend it.

more 'reasonable' term f/ scientist to use since even set theories are open to change if new evidence is uncovered. As scientific a mind/thought process I try to have, the idea of an entity fitting god's description (at least Jud/Christ/Islam top god) is just not possible. And it would mean that scientific explanations are rather pointless.

So, as a true scientist, I have no quarrel w/ NDT's self-label, I just think it's mostly semantics.

..."someone who remains unconvinced" is an atheist, not an agnostic, since agnosticism has not a single thing to do with whether a person is or is not convinced of a deity existing. So you should have a quarrel with his self-label... seeing as it's wrong and all.



"I am positive there could be no evidence" on the other hand is a very good definition of an agnostic. it is the positive assertion that evidence of the existence of a deity is logically unattainable. Which I'm betting NDT also is, but the point is he's trying to say he's agnostic instead of atheist which is nonsense. They are not alternatives to each other.

Someone asking if a person is atheist or theist and them answering "neither, I'm an agnostic" is like someone asking a person if they're male or female and them answering "neither, I'm an accountant." They might very well be an accountant, but that's not an alternative category to male and female.

To me, an agnostic is someone who admits there could be evidence but it hasn't been found or isn't quite cinvincing enough, but thinks that supreme god is a possibility. An atheist knows no such evidence exists because such an entity simply doesn't exist.

I suppose many people do define atheism by Madeline Murray O'Hair's brand of hard disbelief. Regardless, the meaning of the word is evident.
Atheism: A- Not; theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods). It is self-defined.

a definition for agnostic that I don't really agree with. You are saying that agnostic is a position that is more open to the existence of god than atheist. I don't think that is accurate, but even if it were, perhaps NDT is more open than many self-described atheists.

The other part I take issue with is this position:

NDT says he is an agnostic, but
His definition of agnostic is what most atheists call atheist
Therefore, he is really an atheist.

I think he would also object to this characterization.

Let him be what he wants to be. He's not comfortable with labels and with the atheist label in particular.

I really understand how he feels and am glad to be in such good company.

To elaborate on my view, I'm saying I think people who self-identify as agnostic tend on average to be the ones who are more open to the possibility while those who self-identify as atheist tend on average to not be very open at all. NDT and you are both counter-examples but I still think I'm likely right about the averages. And I also acknowledge the point that Warren made in #1 but I think many people, maybe most people, don't think of the labels in those scientific terms. And the question that the poll is getting at is more about how people see the labels and themselves, not about scientific definitions.

Also, the characterization that you object to was not one made by me. I just quoted him (accurately I think) and then moved on to my views and to how others see it. I let him speak for himself, I believe.

term would be "accurate".

Also, it would help if you clarified what you meant by "more open". Do you mean lower standards of evidence or something?

I admit that I may be wrong but figure that it's interesting to discuss the concepts even if we don't have any studies in front of us. In other words, I do know that some people use the terms this way (one person did in this thread and one of the hosts did in the show that I've linked to a couple of times). So the usage that I'm pointing to does exist - that's the point I'm making rather than any assertion about what the frequency is or isn't.

Not sure whether you mean "accurate" as in "using the correct definition". If so, then the definition of words in English follows usage rather than flowing out of some authority. So if a usage is somewhat prevalent then it is correct, like it or not.

three points on the spectrum

theists have an active belief in God, they know God exists.

atheists have an active disbelief in God, they know God does not exist.

agnostic, I have no idea if God exists or doesn't (and such a thing is unknowable is usually the added bit).

I'm an agnostic. I have no idea if God exists. I suspect God does not exist, but that's mostly based on my belief that current science suggests God is unnecessary for the universe to exist as it is. But at best that's just a suggestion. God and science could be compatible, or not, I don't know.

Now some folks who say they are atheists may really be closer to agnostics, I don't know...but there are three points on the spectrum:

I know God exists
I know God does not exist
I don't know if God exists

That usually lines up with theist, atheist, and agnostic.

I believe god exists.
I do not believe god exists.
I don't know if god exists.

Most theists and atheists will say they do not know when they are pushed on the question. That is what faith is all about - belief without evidence.

My position on the spectrum is similar to yours and I don't consider myself either theist or atheist. I do know that I am not a believer, but I don't actively reject belief.

lets hope we get renewed for another "season"

When I hear "atheist", I think of assertive non-religious people, like Dawkins. When I hear "agnostic," I think of people that prefer to avoid having to argue about their non-belief.

I do find NDT's statement very reasonable. Why do we need to categorize it further?

But to let him speak for himself, here's audio in which he discusses this, which prompted my question:
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs103-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-why-he-doesnt-call-himself-an-a.html

"I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence...of a divine force...in the universe."
"when you are evidence driven, the word belief has little role in your life."

That is how he sees it. Is that agnostic or atheist? Does it matter?

you hear "agnostic" does not apply to this agnostic. I don't have a problem with

my "non-belief". I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I just don't know.

In fact, NDT doesn't seem to think he has a problem. Why create one centered on his own preference?

NDT chose to speak publicly about his thoughts and I'm interested in the thoughts of others on the same question.

How is that a problem?

Trying to force another person into a pigeonhole not of his or her choosing is always problematical. It implies, among other things, that you are more aware of NDT's proper identity than he is. You could have posted this without any reference to NDT, merely asking people to choose the option that fits them best.

I just quoted what he chose to state publicly on a radio show. Whatever hole he is or isn't in is of his choosing.

that they're not TRUE Muslims? As your apologist friends here do quite frequently.

I'll give my own view, though. I consider myself agnostic, in that I'm not sure we can truly know for sure from our vantage point. I do tend to lean more strongly towards there being "something" out there, but don't feel any organized religion really has all the answers, although they may have some pieces of the puzzle. I'm also aware that the sense that there is a higher being, the sense of a connection, may be much more about touching a piece of myself- may be more internal, than there truly being a god/goddess/higher being.

That said, I have no issue with NDT's statement in terms of him self-identifying as agnostic, and I tend to think it's generally a good idea to take people's definitions of who they say they are at face value unless there is a really, really good reason not to.

I believe it's fairly prevalent for people to self-identify as agnostic instead of atheist because they tend, as you do, to lean more strongly toward there being something out there or some other personalized version of divinity or god.

I'm going to post some further thoughts at the bottom of the whole thread because I'd like other's thoughts on this as well as yours if you have anything to add. Please feel free to reply here or there and thanks again for contributing your views.

It's entirely his choice, yeah? I can't even fathom why anyone want to stuff someone else into their own narrow, biased pigeonholes. I certainly don't want anyone trying to define me according to their own preconceptions, and I don't imagine Mr Tyson -- or anyone else for that matter -- would appreciate being poured into these rigid and constricting molds either. Its presumptuous when some overweening Christian tries to tack disparaging labels on everyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and this is just as thoughtless.

He has self-identified as an agnostic but on at least one occasion clarified that he'd really prefer no label at all but that agnostic would be his first choice. And the statement of his thoughts on existence of god(s) is a direct quote.

The rest of the poll is not about him. It's about how the rest of us apply the labels to ourselves and what we mean by whichever term we choose.

So I pretty much agree with you but would just point out that my OP didn't do any of the things you objected to.

Those are your pigeonholes.

No one needs to be defined, or shoehorned into the limited choices you've selected.

NDT chooses to label himself an agnostic. I choose to label myself an atheist. Many regular posters here do choose one of those labels. There are also options for those who don't choose one of the two labels. And of course everyone is free to ignore my post altogether if they prefer. So I'm not pigeonholing anyone, just asking people what their choices already are, if they wish to say.

But up to us, it is. We can discuss this topic in a civil way (NDT has done so) or not.

have been talked to death.

But, I guess not.

The simple truth behind all of this is that there are no strict defining lines between hard atheists, soft atheists, various degrees of agnosticism and various degrees of religiosity. It shouldn't be that difficult to come up with some rudimentary definitions based on the modal points in the graphs, but apparently every time someone tries, all hell breaks loose.

Now, the real question is just why should anyone care about his personal views on religion?

and that the real gods are not vindictive bastards (unlike Yahweh for example) who will burn your sorry ass in some eternal torture chamber for choosing wrong.

Then again Pascal's wager had approximately zero to do with the OP.

in absolutes but will tell there is no evidence to support a divine power, diety, etc.

In #7 TDale313 shares her thoughts:

"Atheist" has always had negative connotations, thanks to the believers who originally defined it. But now those are so ingrained that even some non-believers embrace them, believing atheists to be people who are SURE that gods don't exist, who want to stamp out religion with force, etc. And they say to themselves, well I'm not like that, so I'm "agnostic."

I agree with your characterization of NDT's stance as well. He realizes that his efforts to repopularize science would be derailed by allowing people to associate him with atheism, though clearly he does not believe in any gods.

In that discussion that I've referenced, he says he wishes there were more words to better express the subtleties. Sort of like the many words that distinguish rivers, brooks, creeks, and so on from each other.

physics rather than religion or philosophy. Not to mention his field of expertise is very esoteric for many people, that for many of the religious its not on their radar, so he's more likely to argue against astrologers and other quacks than fundamentalists.

To him, it seems religion is largely a non-factor in how he approaches life and his work, and since religion doesn't directly challenge his science outreach(mostly), he doesn't engage it that often.

But they don't.

Oxford definition for agnostic:

This statement: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." Uhm, you can only claim, at least, one or the other, though to clarify, it would be belief and/or faith nor disbelief in God. If you don't claim to have "faith" then you don't believe, so therefore you can't disclaim disbelief, if that makes sense. Belief in god, as belief in the existence of anything is either a 1 or a 0, there is no halfway point.

So that's my problem with the Oxford second definition, the first definition I don't have a problem with because it pertains to knowledge.

On Webster, that second definition seems to try to create a definition most atheists already fall into, so seems like a useless tack-on. While both dictionaries do include this aspect of belief or faith in the definition of agnostic, it doesn't seem to fit, logically.

that supposedly exist in the real world.

I would challenge anyone to believe something tangible half exists. Some questions do only have an yes or no answer, this includes questions about existence of objects in the world. How sure we are of the answer may vary, the belief itself may not.

Believing in possibilities is NOT the same as actually believing that something exists.

God is on the same footing as invisible pink unicorns.

so remain in the realm of the theoretical, hypercubes, for example, or other 4th spacial dimensional objects.

They can be roughly approximated in our reality, but only roughly. But are they "real"? That's the question, I would argue no, at least not in the same way as tangible objects and beings in our universe can exist.

agnostic are more receptive to the possibility of a god, then maintain that NDT is an exception to your premise.

First, I don't accept your premise. Second, what's with the apparent need for NDT to be just like you, even if he says he is not.

This is what I see over and over when it comes to NDT. People who identify as atheists want him to be an atheist. They will sometimes go so far as to say that he is lying or in the closet or some such nonsense.

Your final paragraph seems to be a challenge to him and a specific challenge about his choice of labels. Part of the reason he does not choose atheist is because it comes with baggage he doesn't want. If i am reading this right, you are saying that agnostic comes with baggage too and people might assume he is "more receptive".

I suspect it is hard for those that insist on 2 teams to not be able to claim NDT, but that's just the way it is.

We have examples of people who treat "agnostic" as meaning that the person leans toward belief. Massimo, one of the hosts of the discussion I've referenced, is an atheist who treats the term that way. TDale313, who posted in this thread, self-identifies as an agnostic and treats the term that way.

NDT and you both self-identify as agnostic and you don't treat the term that way. I self-identify as an atheist and my position on it is that I note there are multiple definitions in use. There are other atheists in this thread who clearly don't treat agnostic as having that meaning and don't even want (for reasons unclear to me) to acknowledge that the other usage does occur.

I don't actually have a strong opinion about how prevalent the aforementioned usage of agnostic is, I just know that it definitely exists. I agree with NDT in wishing that there were multiple words to better reflect the subtle differences in meaning. Since there aren't, we just need, in my opinion, to clarify what each of us mean when we use the one term, agnostic, or the other one, atheist.

Regarding my final paragraph, yes, I am saying that people might assume things about NDT from him adopting the label agnostic and for some people, depending on how they personally understand the term, one of the resulting assumptions would be that he leans somewhat toward belief. Meanwhile NDT doesn't seem to express any leaning toward belief. In that discussion he accepts Massimo's proposal that he (NDT) might see it pretty much the same way as belief in unicorns. So if someone makes that assumption that he leans toward belief it would appear to be mistaken. And NDT in the end would really rather that no one infer anything from the agnostic label, surely including anything about that belief. He wants to answer that question (and any other question anyone has) directly rather than have them assume answers based on a label.

And to your last point, I'm not in favor of people thinking in terms of teams. I generally avoid saying that I'm an X (whatever it might be) for the same concern that NDT has about labels. I'm a member of a UU congregation (and on its board of trustees) but yet I don't tend to say that I am a UU. The former (that I'm a member) is a fact and that's fine; the latter would cause some people to assume they know certain things about me and some of those assumptions would likely be incorrect. So I'm not trying to show that NDT is on my team - I don't have a team. I noted originally that his views on the existence of a divine being, as stated by him, are the same as mine (or maybe I should more modestly say mine are the same as his). I also note based on the poll results so far that his words are an accurate statement of the views of 3 out of 3 agnostics who responded and also of 23 out of 24 atheists who responded. So even if we were trying to see whose team he's on (a task that I reject anyway and I'm guessing NDT would too) then this particular trait wouldn't seem to be the distinction to use to do it.

Polls are getting increasingly hard to decipher due to the use of words that are entirely clear. In particular, the "nones" create a problem as they run the gamut from atheist to theist.

In the meanwhile, I think we have to let people label themselves however they want and fully agree with you that it is incumbent on us to ask for the definition rather than assume it means something specific.

What really galls me is the apparent need to say that someone is not what they say they are because they don't fit the pigeonhole that someone has created. I am frequently told that I am not what I say I am. Some even go so far as to claim I am lying or that I am a hidden theist with an agenda. I have even had a member demand that I deny christ three times…. seriously.

Whether NDT "leans" toward belief or not is entirely irrelevant. If he did, it would not diminish him in any way whatsoever. Honestly, I suspect he thinks it is nobody's business and it has nothing to do with his position as an educator and a scientist.

I like your UU example. Along the same veins, it has become increasingly difficult for liberal/progressive christians to comfortably say they are christian. The word has become so identified with the religious right that assumptions are made which are entirely inaccurate. You can see that almost daily in this group.

1. NDT doesn't quite "think it is nobody's business", since he did cheerfully engage in a discussion knowing what it was going to be about but this is a minor a quibble
   
2. I almost agree that he thinks it has nothing to do with his position as an educator and a scientist, the almost part being that he does intend to stand at the gate and expend some energy (mostly by speaking out) when people try to bring faith-based ideas into science classrooms, etc.
   
3. He also wanted to make sure it was known (in a part that I didn't transcribe for you) that his speaking about this is very much the exception for him and that he doesn't and won't spend much time on it. It's not generally (with the exception of 2. above, part of the public side of him, intentionally. Rather it is science and the wonders of the universe that his engagement with the the public will be focused on.

I wanted to clarify some things and make his position clear, but I don't think he really wants to talk about this. You make this pretty clear in your point #3.

If he were a believer it might be even better. Who better to disabuse some believers of their beliefs which are successfully challenged by scientific evidence than someone who does have religious beliefs?

I don't think he is a believer at all, but I disagree that it would in any way inhibit pursuing his objectives.

He very cheerfully engaged the topic on this occasion but also made it clear he wouldn't be doing so very often, by design. So "reluctantly" is a fair enough way to sum that up.

plus his position that it's not really relevant is wise.

Great topic though and I give you kudos for starting a good thread and managing it really well.

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

English semantics is a little weak in certain areas; one of which is belief. Example:

A: Do you believe that John and Mary got married last night?
B: No.
A: What??? They did. It's here in the paper.
B. OK, I believe they got married..

B's first answer is NOT an expression of disbelief (although A took it that way). It is an expression of NON-belief. Generally if a person has no information about the subject there is no belief, one way or the other. Notice that for a marriage (a not unusual occurrence), B's level of conviction is rather low.

Normally the usage of:
An atheist is one who disbelieves in God = finds evidence favoring non existence.
An agnostic is one who does not believe in God (note not disbelieves) = has seen no evidence one way of another.

I chose the first answer.

I agree that there is a difference and those that say that agnostic can only be used as a modifier need to check their personal agenda.

Specifically here:

I would accept that definition of atheist for myself.

I think NDT would accept the second for himself. He has said the whole matter is unimportant to him. I think he sees no reason to seek evidence either way.

Perhaps apathetic agnostic would be a good term for him.

I think it's #49 in the book of things cbayer says that are available for ridicule.

But, that is neither here nor there.

Not knowing and not caring is a good position to take when the answers are not available, imo.

Apagnostic.

Since you answered that you self-identify as atheist, if we take that together with the definition you give for atheist, does that mean you find evidence favoring non-existence? If so, I think that's an unusual position - it seems that most atheists say that it's lack of evidence for existence that they find, not that they find (or could find) evidence for non-existence. Would you want to elaborate or clarify?

I find if you take all the well-known arguments into account and all the physical evidence (none) that the arguments 'for' are mostly of the logical fallacy variety; the rest are just silly (I toss the anecdotal such as, "an angel visited me and told me" in with these ). On the other hand I find this negative argument 'against' rather solid: how would the two surmised universes (one with a god, one without) differ? Answer: apparently none at all. Therefore Occam's razor says, "Take the simpler one". Yes, I realize this is an awfully weak argument, but you just need a skosh to win an argument.

I would put it: how could we ever detect the difference?

If we see a boulder suddenly move in front of our eyes, what reason could there ever be for concluding that a god moved it rather than looking for a scientific explanation? None, as far as I can see. So no matter how a universe (or a surmised universe) looks and behaves, there's never justification for saying an observation is evidence of a god. All evidence is presumed to be evidence of not a god but rather a physical process, known or (as of yet) unknown.

But then you remind me that I have a problem perhaps more basic than that - I don't find that anyone has even provided a definition of God or of supernatural that I understand to have any coherent meaning.

But I like your answer and need to think about it and decide whether it makes more sense than these that I've been hanging on to - maybe it does.

And I especially that you're not in a rush to answer a fundamentally profound question of the universe (similar to Deep-Thought in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe&quot .

There may be a difference between lacking something (belief) and denying something (belief).

I am without belief is more passive than I have no belief.

It's subtle, but I think there can be a difference.

Here is something I found that may explain it better than I can:

does not posses a word for someone who believes in the opposite position.

Words like deny and disbelief often are used to mean "hold the exact opposite belief," but when looking up their meaning I find that not a single one of those words has that meaning. In fact, I can not find any word to describe that position.

So, in these discussion I often use my own invented term. I use the term contra-belief. Contra being Greek for opposite. Because it is a fairly well understood prefix I often have no objection to the term nor anyone stating that they do not understanding what I mean.

The purpose of language is to convey ideas from one person to another so that seems to work.

Even saying "lack" is sort of problematic as that implies something is missing from the person.

"Atheist with specific beliefs" seems a good phrase to use.



*Your link is currently not loading for me. Therefore I basing the entirety of this post on your quote.

It is confusing and sometimes people hold their positions quite dear. This leads to a lot of semantic battles that end up being meaningless.

As has been suggested elsewhere, it seems best to just ask someone to explain what they mean when they say, "I am an ________".

I also very much agree that words like lack, without and absent wrongly imply that someone is missing something, but the nomenclature fails us again.

In term of the phrase "atheists with specific beliefs", I think there is value in distinguishing the very simplistic concept of atheism from some of the things that define someones position more accurately. I like it because it isn't pejorative or judgmental, but merely descriptive.

and say I don't accept the existence of a God.

In a religious context, I say I don't have any beliefs.

But i believe in progressive ideals, which is completely different.

I believe in some individuals.

Holding something to be true without hard evidence - that is a belief.

Or you expectations.

I believe the Packers will beat the Cowboys is a simple prediction.

I believe in ghosts is another matter.

'Disbelieve' means to hold evidence against. 'Does not believe' may mean lacks information about and for which you would be guilty of a logical fallacy if you did believe (though the ignorant do, quite often do believe). As I pointed out above, English semantics lacks some mechanisms in beliefs and it is hard to be understood. Belief and disbelief do NOT cover all of the logical field: the middle ground is non-belief. For instance, do you believe that there are some theorems in Math that are true but unprovable?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I am basing mine position based upon multiple English dictionaries and the etymology of the word. [/font]

Again English semantics/linguistics is weak in a few areas . "Dis-" may mean lack of or it may mean not. Some concepts (x) are true binary and do not allow a middle ground. "Dis-x" means "not x". Some concepts are polar (y) and allow a middle ground. "Dis-y" means lack of y. "Like" and "dislike" are both active positions on the scale but you may prefer to dodge both. If you have never tried something (for example a flavor of ice cream), you would have nothing to base an opinion on. Therefore you normally couldn't claim to 'like' it and you couldn't claim to 'dislike' it. You cannot form an opinion without information. Well, there are people who can, but you know what I mean. These are the people who confuse the matter for those of us trying to reach a logical opinion. Upon what do I base my opinion: Semantics.

Since the guy's career is the latter, his choice makes sense to him for those needs. Most people think, in large part due to intentional obfuscation, that agnosticism is a position in between believing and believing in absence, and ignore the perfectly plausible position that already exists there which is simply to lack belief.

But philosophy, etymology, linguistics, and the writings of the word's originator all tell those with more in-depth interest that agnosticism is a position about knowledge and atheism is a position about belief. Non-overlapping magisteria to borrow a phrase.

...so far as I am concerned, he's an agnostic.

My default position is to treat people's self identification with respect.

I don't expect that to change, as he would have to do something pretty awful like go on a murder spree for me to totally lose respect for him, and I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

I mean, dude strikes me as a cuddly teddy bear.

I see no reason to diss him by arguing with the way he self-identifies.

NDT's self labeling is more about staying out of controversy, he wants to remain strictly viewed as a scientist so he can further those ends. And one who can't see that from things that he has said (not just the above, but pulling from his whole catalog) is just trying to stir the pot.

to substantiate your claims in any way.

He doesn't avoid controversy and has been very clear about how he sees himself in terms of religion. He doesn't really want to talk about it, but when he does, he clearly states that he is agnostic, period.

If anyone is trying to stir the pot, it might be someone who makes about a story about NDT out of whole cloth simply to fulfill their own fantasies about who he is.

You were speaking for NDT.

I can't watch this video, but it doesn't address my question to you, I feel pretty sure.

Tyson has said multiple times that he leaves it at agnostic because he just wants to be known as a scientest, whennit comes to deeper questions of science vs religion he passes it off to the guys who are better known for that stuff, like Dawkins.

Surely someone who knows so much about NDT would know this about him.

Dawkins has zero to say about Tyson's beliefs. He can only speak to his own.

Tyson says he's agnostic, because, er, he's agnostic. He doesn't want to be an -ist and he doesn't identify as either atheist or theist.

I've never seen him pass anything off to Dawkins, and I doubt he ever will, unless it's about evolutionary biology. In fact, he has a history of challenging him and has said that he is "insensitive" when it comes to religion.

Surely someone who claims to know so much about NDT would know this about him.

do atheists believe there is no God(s), or do not believe in a God(s). Or is that the same thing?

For me I leave the word "believe" out of it and say; I do not accept the existence of any God(s).

The purest definition I could find was "rejection of belief in god(s)". What do you think? I think that can be applied to pretty much everyone who identifies as atheist, but I could be missing something.

It sounds like your definition fits this, as "do not accept" could also mean "reject".

(We know this can be more nuanced) that does sound right.

Though rejection of belief would describe my feelings of religion; and does not accept the existence would explain my feelings on whether there actually is a God or not. At least as I see it.

The acceptance thing is how I describe my atheism, it might also be how NDT would describe his agnosticism. He m8ght add, based on the evidence.

That is a step away from rejecting religion or not accepting the existence of a god.

It is most likely why he clearly refuses to take a position regarding theism.

He is different than you when it comes to this, but more like I am.

So there!

But I am not sure how much of that is to stay out of it publically or privately he is unsure.
He often sounds like anything to do with religion is immaterial to him, since it has no impact on the Universe he sees.

I would not say which of us he is more like, he keeps that private.

He never shies away from publicity, so I don't buy that. Occam's razor - he says he is an agnostic because he is an agnostic. Many people who claim agnosticism see religion as immaterial to them personally.

He doesn't keep it private. He has stated his position and it is similar to my own.

Some people want him to declare atheism. Why do you imagine that is?

Because of the connotations today, and he want to stay away from that debate.

I don't think we can really know.

Why are you so determined to claim he is so like you.

I can't say anything more than we both don't have any belief in God and see no evidence for it.

I really can't say how we view the likelihood or if he gives much thought to these things at all.

I think I am more interested in religion and associated stuff than he is it seems. But that is just an observation, could be wrong too.

I am determined because he and I share the position that it's ok to be an agnostic and reject the idea that one must choose a position regarding theism.

I tire of all the claims that he's really an atheist, but blah, blah, blah. It's all part of the team building that you object to.

Whether one is a theist, atheist or agnostic doesn't really correlate with interest in religion.