Neil deGrasse Tyson's take on Agnosticism but with Asexuality

[GingerRose]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist, said that he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist because people usually don't get together and discuss what they don't do. Like people who don't ski, don't call themselves non-skiers and have meet-ups to talk about it.

 

So does it make sense or have a point in us coming together to discuss that we don't have sex?

 

 

 

[Grey-Ace Ventura]

I didn't know that asexual means people who come together and discuss their lack of sex lives. I thought asexual meant a lack of desire for sex, and that asexuals called themselves asexual because it's a word that describes their experience and allows them to find others and provide support and relate to them and that kind of thing.

 

Not skiing is a bad example in my opinion because religion and sports are two very different things to most people. When people use a word that means they don't do something, there are usually reasons that are more significant than living in Florida and not having the proper weather for skiing, hence the fact that there's no such word as non-skiiers. It's not that significant. However, I think words that describe people who don't do something like vegetarian, vegan, atheist, non-drinker, asexual, and agender all exist because they are useful to people in finding a community of people who can relate to their experiences and see things from a similar viewpoint to theirs, especially since the majority of the population do the thing they don't do.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist, said that he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist because people usually don't get together and discuss what they don't do. Like people who don't ski, don't call themselves non-skiers and have meet-ups to talk about it.

 

People do get together to talk about agnoticism and atheism though.  There are international athiest conferences.

 

43 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

So does it make sense or have a point in us coming together to discuss that we don't have sex?

Well if there was no point we wouldn't all be here would we? Although we talk about plenty of other things too.

[Tystie]

Asexuality is about what I am, not what I do. 

 

By having a word for this, I don’t have to define myself by saying what I’m not. For that reason, I think having a word for this is helpful.

 

But then, I also think saying I’m agnostic / atheist is also helpful. 

 

As for coming together and talking about it... Yes, sometimes that’s helpful, too, partly to know that there are other like-minded people ‘out there’. Also, I’ve found being in a crowd of Ace people very relaxing; no expectations of having to pair up or being asked awkward questions about partners or children... Plus, talking about not having sex is a very minor aspect of meet-ups, in my experience.

[Snao Cone]

There are specific places people go to do and talk about skiing. These places are highly specific and not common. They're not inescapable. Sexuality is ubiquitous to some degree, whether explicit or implicit in how our families form or what is marketed towards us. 99% of people seek fulfillment of their needs at some point in their lives through sexual relationships (just based on the 1% asexual estimate; this is up for debate and of course not all sexual people end up having active sex lives at any point, so it does get more complicated). Without a community to go to, asexual people can feel severely isolated and broken. People who come to different conclusions on religious beliefs than those around them also need some sense of a community. As @theV0ID said, there are atheist and agnostic communities - both online and in person - that people can go to. The words for those lead people to explore things.

 

And really, if this is NdGT's logic, why would be describe himself as an astrophysicist? He shouldn't need to specify that he's not from the strophysicist community.

[spencexists]

I think it makes sense because people dont talk about "theres no such thing as non-skiers" and this place is a safe place to feel validated and get information about what your like will be like and why its different from allosexuals. 

[Journee_Stars]

I think they were more so talking about how people tend to talk about things they don't do when it's actually important instead of talking about things that are less so important. If that was the case, then they were contradicting themself in what they said (unless he considers religion as not important of course), but that's just my personal opinion.

[GingerRose]

54 minutes ago, theV0ID said:

People do get together to talk about agnoticism and atheism though.  There are international athiest conferences.

Yes, he doesn't deny this. But rather wonders why it needs to happen.

[GingerRose]

33 minutes ago, Tystie said:

not what I do. 

Could people relate differently to this with agnosticism? I don't choose to not believe in God or to do so. It's just who I am.

[GingerRose]

56 minutes ago, theV0ID said:

point

What is our point in doing so?

[Homer]

Do we have context for this quote? There might be something missing here.

[GingerRose]

8 minutes ago, Homer said:

Do we have context for this quote? There might be something missing here.

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

[what the face]

6 hours ago, GingerRose said:

6 hours ago, GingerRose said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist, said that he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist because people usually don't get together and discuss what they don't do. Like people who don't ski, don't call themselves non-skiers and have meet-ups to talk about it.

 

So does it make sense or have a point in us coming together to discuss that we don't have sex?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naming is a powerful, creative act.  
In the Beginning. 

Think of the Old Testament, Adam’s first job is to name the creatures, thereby differentiating himself and realizing who he was.

 

When we put sounds, or letters (or character-istics) together we are spelling out a name.  We are in effect casting a spell,  calling forth the spirit or force of creation.  Granting and discovering meaning.

 

As we “come together to discuss” those names we were given and those we found and gave ourselves,  the language we use is not fixed but ever changing and evolving as are we ourselves.

[R_1]

Atheism would not exist as a concept if there were very few religious people.

[rebis]

On 3/8/2021 at 11:21 AM, GingerRose said:

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

Thanks for posting the link for his quote! You are kind of blurring what his point was though, when you say that "he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist", because he does consider himself agnostic. The point about non-skiers was specifically about why he does not call himself atheist. 

 

He was making a clear distinction between an agnostic like himself, and atheists who are passionate about their assertion that there is not and can not be a God.

 

I mean, his point resonates with me, because I have been in that very situation -- where I told someone I was agnostic, and they began to argue that this meant I was definitely an atheist. Like him, I didn't really feel strongly enough about it to passionately disavow that I could ever be an atheist. It's fine if you want to include "agnostic" under the broad umbrella of "atheist" because you feel like that should include everybody who does not positively believe in a deity. Agnostic doesn't mean you're sure there is no God, though -- it in fact means you're not sure, either way. Or, perhaps more clearly, that you don't think it's possible to be sure, based on the available evidence.

 

As far as the comparison to asexuality and AVEN goes then, I think it would only make sense to compare this place to the gatherings of atheists that he criticizes if the primary dialogue here was all just about how every rational person should be asexual, or something like that. And I really haven't been here very long, but it doesn't seem like that's the general point of AVEN.

[Morays]

24 minutes ago, rebis said:

Thanks for posting the link for his quote! You are kind of blurring what his point was though, when you say that he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist", because he does consider himself agnostic. The point about non-skiers was specifically about why he does not call himself atheist. 

 

He was making a clear distinction between an agnostic like himself, and atheists who are passionate about their assertion that there is not and can not be a God.

 

I mean, his point resonates with me, because I have been in that very situation -- where I told someone I was agnostic, and they began to argue that this meant I was definitely an atheist. Like him, I didn't really feel strongly enough about it to passionately disavow that I could ever be an atheist. It's fine if you want to include "agnostic" under the broad umbrella of "atheist" because you feel like that should include everybody who does not positively believe in a deity. Agnostic doesn't mean you're sure there is no God, though -- it in fact means you're not sure, either way. Or, perhaps more clearly, that you don't think it's possible to be sure, based on the available evidence.

To be clear, these aren't mutually exclusive ideas either -- agnostic atheists are also a thing, and I'd consider myself one. I don't consider it possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of what we'd consider a deity, which makes me agnostic, but I also am inclined to reject all of the currently existing deity hypotheses based on the available evidence we do have, which makes me an atheist.

 

Getting back to the original post, others have already stated the purposes, both cultural and semantic, of defining things via absence -- when the presence of a phenomenon is widespread or ubiquitous, it's only natural for those for whom it's not applicable to form a sense of group identity via their outlier or minority status. This is not the case in the non-skier example, where skiing is an activity easily avoided and only regularly partaken in by a minority of the population.

[rebis]

20 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

To be clear, these aren't mutually exclusive ideas either -- agnostic atheists are also a thing, and I'd consider myself one. I don't consider it possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of what we'd consider a deity, which makes me agnostic, but I also am inclined to reject all of the currently existing deity hypotheses based on the available evidence we do have, which makes me an atheist.

 

 

Yeah, fair enough. That makes sense, agnostic and atheist are not necessarily incompatible stances, but where we can run into trouble is in situations like the one I described before, where someone for some reason feels a need to insist they are one and the same. 

 

A little more context for that conversation, the other person was essentially arguing that atheist was the only opinion any rational person could have on the topic of a deity. So in this way, the insistence that an agnostic has to include themselves under the umbrella of atheistic is kind of a positive, because it's allowing that agnostic is a rational stance.

 

I am cool with any given person believing whatever it is that they believe, except when that belief includes disdain or condemnation of others, for not sharing the belief. That goes for devotees of any given religion believing everybody else is going to hell or whatever, because we're not a part of their religion, but it also goes for your kind of hyper-atheists, who believe that everybody who is not an atheist must be some kind of immoral idiot. That still just looks like intolerance to me, and I'm not down with it.

 

(Just to be clear, not at all meaning to suggest you have said anything suggesting you hold any sort of opinion like that. This is more me going on a tangent on the topic.)

[GingerRose]

2 hours ago, R_1 said:

Atheism would not exist as a concept if there were very few religious people.

I agree.

[GingerRose]

Just now, GingerRose said:

I agree.

Also There needs to be a belief in God for atheism to exist.

[LeChat]

I listened to the Youtube clip twice and didn't hear Tyson say that "agnostics and atheists don't usually get together."

 

I heard him talk, mostly, about how he'd, apparently, had bad experiences with atheists he knew, how they were "in-your-face activists" who'd get together and that, as an agnostic, he wasn't into any of that.

 

Personally, I felt bothered by the clip, how he was, basically, saying things like, "...many atheists do this...," "...most atheists do that...," how they were "claiming him as an atheist," etc.

 

It sounded like a negative rant against atheists.

 

I'm not an "in-your-face" atheist; I've never been to any atheist groups (I didn't know of any that existed, growing up; my relatives told me that they keep their non-belief to themselves and told me not to mention it to others because most people believed in a religion.

 

I only, physically, saw and knew that churches with different religious beliefs in a God(s) existed; my classmates and friends would mention they were Christian and attended church); I only had one friend whose family happened to be atheist, but that was it; we didn't get together to talk about atheism (we didn't go around talking about it to any of our religious classmates, either).

 

I really don't like hearing all atheists grouped together like that, giving others a negative impression. It's just not fair when my relatives and I always keep our atheism to ourselves.

 

Okay; so, apparently, there was someone or at least a few people out there, who, apparently, mistook Tyson's agnosticism for atheism. Well, that's not all atheists doing that; I didn't do that to him or anyone else.

 

My relatives told me the difference between atheism and agnosticism, when I was a kid; so, I never confused the two of them.

 

It almost feels like it's getting to the point where, I guess, I'm being forced to not call myself an atheist and will have to think of a different term to call myself, instead, like non-religious, since others are going to automatically group me as a negative stereotype, based on a few atheists out there that bother others about their religion, who are activists, etc.

 

...very, very tired of atheists/atheism being trashed, all of the constant, negative stereotypes and gossip that I don't have any control over because I keep to myself, as an atheist...

[daveb]

Yeah, as with any group, it's the ones who are vocal and visible that most people notice and base their whole concept of that group on unless they really get to know others in the group. I am what I would consider a very strong dyed in the wool atheist, but I rarely bring it up when talking to people (when I actually talk to people  ). I don't tell other people what to believe. The main times I talk about atheism is when the topic is beliefs and it's appropriate to mention mine, and when atheism itself is the subject of a conversation. Same goes for asexuality. 

[SorryNotSorry]

On 3/8/2021 at 7:26 AM, GingerRose said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist, said that he doesn't see a point in calling himself or anyone agnostic or atheist because people usually don't get together and discuss what they don't do. Like people who don't ski, don't call themselves non-skiers and have meet-ups to talk about it.

 

So does it make sense or have a point in us coming together to discuss that we don't have sex?

Of course it does. If we didn't come together to discuss that we don't have sex, it would be like the internet never existed for us. Each individual asexual would pretty much be a cry in the wilderness. A lot more of us would think there's nowhere we could turn to. And to paraphrase Voltaire, AVEN would need to be invented. We'd have to muddle through that whole societal non-acceptance mess for the first time. Luckily for us, we've got nearly 20 years of that to draw on nowadays.

[Sally]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:12 PM, SocialMorays said:

To be clear, these aren't mutually exclusive ideas either -- agnostic atheists are also a thing, and I'd consider myself one. I don't consider it possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of what we'd consider a deity, which makes me agnostic, but I also am inclined to reject all of the currently existing deity hypotheses based on the available evidence we do have, which makes me an atheist.

 

no, it doesn't.  An atheist has a belief: there is no god.  According to what you say, you simply reject all of the current hypotheses that there is a god, and thus there may come a time when there may be an hypothesis that you don't reject.  

[daveb]

No, according to at least one dictionary, atheist is defined as

Quote

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I can dig up other examples, sites, etc., that might make AVEN definition debates look tame. A lot of it is about self-identification and self-definition. But the gist is that a legitimate definition according to various sources is that atheism is "A lack of belief in gods".

[Snao Cone]

39 minutes ago, daveb said:

I can dig up other examples, sites, etc., that might make AVEN definition debates look tame. A lot of it is about self-identification and self-definition. But the gist is that a legitimate definition according to various sources is that atheism is "A lack of belief in gods".

See, just like the asexuality community, the atheist community has fostered its own culture of splitting hairs and yelling at each other, and I think that's beautiful.

[daveb]

10 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

community has fostered its own culture of splitting hairs and yelling at each other

I don't know of any community or group of people that doesn't do that (well, maybe not literally yelling).  

[Guest]

Step back and look at the big picture on a very simple level.

 

"Asexual" is only definable within the context relative to "sexual". To explain what I mean further go think about your favorite household pet, perhaps a cat. Your can call this fuzzy, passive aggressive lump of cuteness a "cat"...so that leaves everything in the world beyond that which is your cat as "not a cat". That is framing a binary option of "cat" and "not cat". Now, imagine cats had never existed and that you had no concept of them for the sake of argument. "Not cat" is now meaningless. You no longer have the ability to frame your dog relative to your cat, because cats do not and have not existed. 

 

Treat sexuality the same way. If there was no such thing as "sexual", then there would be no way to delineate "sexual" from "not sexual/asexual". 

 

The existence of "that which is..." creates a logical requirement for the existence of "that which is not...".

 

"Atheism", or the lack of a belief in God, is undefinable without the equal and opposite concept of Theism, or the belief in God. 

 

Had Theism or Sexuality not existed, then their a- counterparts would not be definable. 

 

I'm not even sure if this is coherent, because it's 6AM and I need some coffee.

[Tetus]

@SocialMorays and @daveb have already made this general point, but I'm going to restate it slightly differently anyway because as a white male, I feel the need to claim ownership over topics that I'm invested in. Also I got carried away because I guess I'm desperate to not be at my job anymore, so sorry about all of this.

 

An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in the existence of gods. It is weird to position atheism as a reflection of theism, because it isn't really a belief system, it's just saying "no, I don't think that's true." There are of course people who yell about how irrational it is to believe in God, and that can be annoying, but to be fair, there are plenty of theists who do the same thing, and presumably theists writ large would not like those people being used as the exemplars for their worldviews.

 

But most atheists don't even feel that strongly about it - and, aside from frustration with particular religious people or institutions, why should they? It's not important to them, because it doesn't carry any important connotations. I think that a lot of nonconfrontational atheists say they're agnostic to avoid conversations that are a lot more important to the other person than to themselves, and they honestly just don't want to deal with the negative associations with the word 'atheist'. I understand the motivations behind this, but I think it does perpetuate the negative stereotypes, because then the only people who publicly identify as atheist are the shouty ones.

 

So what is atheism like to an atheist?

 

It's like if someone came up to you, and asked you if you believed that there was a movie that came out in the 90's called 'Shazaam', starring Sinbad. If you say, "no, I don't believe that movie existed", are you taking a stance that is equivalent to the stance that it did exist? No, you're just saying, basically, "I don't really know why you brought this up, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and are you sure you just aren't confused about what is going on because there WAS a movie called 'Kazaam' starring Shaq, so that seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for why you were mistaken."

 

This isn't an agnostic belief about 'Shazaam', but I don't think it's unreasonable. And, if confronted with convincing evidence that there was a dimensional rift through which the concept of 'Shazaam' entered our world, you would probably say "Oh, crazy, I guess that was a thing the whole time! Wild."

 

For most atheists, the issue at hand is a lack of evidence, rather than specific evidence against the claim that gods exist. They tend not to believe in things without reason: for instance, if you said there was a planet full of cotton candy, they would say something like "Why do you think that is true?" and if you couldn't provide a satisfying answer, they'd say, "Okay, well, I don't think we have any reason to believe that's true." It would be way LESS reasonable to say, "You know what, there are far too many planets for us to ever explore them all, so we can never answer that question definitively, and therefore, I'm forced to say that I take no stance whatsoever on cotton candy planets."

 

On 3/10/2021 at 12:23 AM, Sally said:

no, it doesn't.  An atheist has a belief: there is no god.  According to what you say, you simply reject all of the current hypotheses that there is a god, and thus there may come a time when there may be an hypothesis that you don't reject.  

I think it's a safe bet that most atheists would be convinced by a convincing argument or evidence for the existence of a god or gods. The fact that someone might change their mind later doesn't say anything about their current beliefs.

 

Again, I think that a lot of people are taking as their exemplar for 'atheist' the internet talky man what shouts a lot about the Chrizzos. I would remind you that there are way more irritating people we could choose to be the exemplar for 'theist', but I don't think that an escalating war to find the worst member of each group to hold up and shake in the other person's face is very productive.

 

To end, here's a quotation from Life of Pi (a book I enjoyed because the author very clearly laid out the symbolism for me at the end and I felt smart for finally understanding how that works in literature), about atheism and agnosticism: "I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted to doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."