It is no hypothesis, it is just a s-o conclusion. Without you (subject), no universe for you and no grand scheme for you. (No objects for you) It is different to: Without you, no universe and no grand scheme. (what is true anyway, but hypothetical)
Do you happen to live in the USA by chance, that you have this strong desire to disassociate yourself from the word atheist? I know they have this hysteria there, almost like a witch hunt, where you are immediately looked down upon if you even say the word atheist, you can't run for office, etc. - truly medieval. I stand by my point. Atheists are agnostic, but an agnostic is just an atheist who is either afraid to say it or secretly believes but is also afraid to say that. You either believe in the supernatural or you don't. You _still_ haven't understood the meaning of a-, it's not anti-, it's non-. So if you are _not_ a theist, you're an atheist by definition. It's not the claim that there is no god. It's the lack of belief for good reasons. If you fully accept science, hate organized religion, are a humanist, i.e. exhibit all the "symptoms" of atheism, but at the same time there is still a glimmer of hope for or belief in something supernatural, then you're a deist or a theist. That's what these words mean. It's one of those things that are truly binary. If you are not one, then you are the other, by definition. The problem is just the label. You are also an a-unicorn-ist, an a-leprechaun-ist and an a-toothfairy-ist (I assume). It's just that there is no separate label for these things, because there aren't a billion people running around claiming with vigor that these things exist. The kangaroo makes good points about Tyson's stance: https://youtu.be/Fm-guj-QsNM?t=229 Edit: One commenter makes the point "He doesn't want to alienate himself from a lot of people that would stop listening to him if he associated with the Athiest label." and I agree. I understand why he doesn't want to label himself, that doesn't mean he isn't an atheist by the meaning of the word. He just is. Or another one: "Have you seen the video where he openly mocks the 7% of scientists in NAS who believe in a personal god? That was Tyson being frank about his views. This clip was Tyson being guarded and politically correct. "
I think you're high by smoking something illegal. Atheists aren't agnostic!!! Agnostic is the neutral ground the atheist is the negative and the theist is the positive, and no I don't live in USA. And that video you linked to has got an idiot who is just trying to label everyone to suit himself. It's like when George W Bush made the comment "Either you're with us or against us". That's the hallmark of a true idiot, no neutral ground, tag and bag everyone to suit himself. Everything has a neutral and the agnostic is the neutral in the God debate. And if you want to go and add another big block of text to rant again I will say case closed. I will not respond to anymore nonsense it is clearly explained.
Do you live your life as if there was a personal god watching (theism) or as if there was a god that is resembled in everything around us (deism), although you know neither? Then you're a deist or a theist. End of story. Don't you live your life that way and you don't know either? Then you're an adeist and an atheist (as well as the usual aunicornist, atoothfairyist, ...). Do you reject organized religion and a personal god? Then you still might be a deist, but you're certainly an atheist. It doesn't matter if you label yourself, you're either one or the other, _by the very definition of the words_. All animals are ahuman by definition. You either match the definition of human or you don't. This has nothing to do with the Bush statement at all. Human society is governed by thousands of agreements and rules and to say that you are against us if you're against a single rule, is simply a fallacy. The problem comes when people attach _other_ meaning to labels than what the label itself strictly entails. If you think atheists are immoral or cold or whatever, that is something that you apply besides the label, out of an irrational thinking. So if you avoid to label yourself atheist out of a fear that others will attach their "baggage" as Tyson called it, that's fine. It doesn't change what you are, though. Your lifestyle and your most secret thoughts determine what you are. To be truly agnostic means that you simply ignore everything we know, too. It's a bland, intellectually lazy and useless position, because no consequences arise from it. You simply exclude yourself from the discussion. That's why I find it fascinating as an atheist to be attacked by an agnostic, which comes across more as an agnostic-deist or deist.
Complete BS , you are impartial until there is enough evidence to go one way or the other. Note that inaction is also an action !
I wonder what's the point to have people statically classified. Deist, theist, atheist.... It has a touch of the will to apply prejudices...and to say :"I know the way they are...." For Buddhists there is no god. Anyway the essence of Buddhism is the same as other religions. I don't care what I am of those definitions. In other words: I am that what others think about.
I had no idea how old you were... Now let's bathe in ignorance and enjoy that racist comic and laugh at those silly "indians", while pretending that religion keeps us open-minded and totally not "us vs them". Simple folk will be simple. I'm sorry for that. It's more like pity that I feel.
oh please, take a chill pill and enjoy the comic value. you can defend the rights of somebody tomorrow
If it isn't possible anymore to use topic related arguments egos even use far-fetched 'arguments' to discredit religious people. Here it seems a funny comic is enough for the little ego to use it against them. Very very scientific....
C'mon TCM. You know that the easiest solution to your dilemma is to bury your head in the sand. OH Wait.
If God is Omniscient then Human is not free - this has haunted me for the past few days and I didn't understand why until I realized it: although God is Omniscient, God is The Spectator. God prepared the stage, the actors, but didn't write the script, because God loves to watch the play unfold. God ignores the outcome. The outcome is never important. The play in itself is the most important. The Hindus see the Universe as Shiva's Dance, but they say that The Dancer and the Dance are One. The Dance and the Dancer disappear once the Music stops. God is The Dancer, The Dance and The Music -God is the Ultimate Child. Luke 18:16: "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."