Atheistforums.com

So apparently this is a thing and I didn't know about it. Last year, Richard Dawkins and Niel deGrasse Tyson were at some conference, they had a minor disagreement over each other's styles, and the atheist community threw a shit fit over who was better. So what do you think, Atheist Forums? Is Tyson not enough of an activist? Is Dawkins too abrasive? Are the people wasting their time with this argument a bunch of poopy heads?

Damned.. And here I was thinking Dawkins had taken up boxing. :-k  You had my hopes up for  a minute there.

Give me 20 on Dawkins in the 15th round.
Honestly though, I really don't know much about Tyson, so.... Bonobos I guess?

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Honestly though, I really don't know much about Tyson, so.... Bonobos I guess?

Well he's a well-known astrophysicist who likes to get out there and talk to the public about science. He hosts a weekly radio show called StarTalk that you can listen to for free via podcast (and is totally worth listening to every word of), and he's making a new Cosmos set to premier on March 9th. Basically, someone you should know about if you like science.

Okay, thanks.
Still voting bonobos though.

I lol'd when I saw the title of this thread.  I thought it was referring to Richard Dawkins vs Mike Tyson.

When I clicked and read it, I lol'd more.

Niel deGrasse Tyson to win in the 3rd round with a KO

Tyson never really talks about atheism nor admits he is one ("I don't believe in god, but I'm not an atheist"), so I don't think there is any competition.

Nothing wrong with Tyson saying he is an agnostic (imo), but if we are arguing which is the better spokesman for atheism... Tyson isn't one so there is no reason to put him in competition.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"So apparently this is a thing and I didn't know about it. Last year, Richard Dawkins and Niel deGrasse Tyson were at some conference, they had a minor disagreement over each other's styles, and the atheist community threw a shit fit over who was better. So what do you think, Atheist Forums? Is Tyson not enough of an activist? Is Dawkins too abrasive? Are the people wasting their time with this argument a bunch of poopy heads?

Dawkins isn't an activist. He is just simply stating the truth. Although I like Tyson, he is somewhat a sellout. Dawkins is a real brain that Tyson couldn't come close to matching. Personally I couldn't stand to be around Dawkins, but he is correct and he having the habit of pointing out flaws is just irritating. Tyson is gentile and is more socially acceptable, but that hinders revealing the truth. I don't say that Tyson lies but he won't argue a point unless pushed to do so.

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"So apparently this is a thing and I didn't know about it. Last year, Richard Dawkins and Niel deGrasse Tyson were at some conference, they had a minor disagreement over each other's styles, and the atheist community threw a shit fit over who was better. So what do you think, Atheist Forums? Is Tyson not enough of an activist? Is Dawkins too abrasive? Are the people wasting their time with this argument a bunch of poopy heads?

Dawkins isn't an activist. He is just simply stating the truth. Although I like Tyson, he is somewhat a sellout. Dawkins is a real brain that Tyson couldn't come close to matching. Personally I couldn't stand to be around Dawkins, but he is correct and he having the habit of pointing out flaws is just irritating. Tyson is gentile and is more socially acceptable, but that hinders revealing the truth. I don't say that Tyson lies but he won't argue a point unless pushed to do so.

Tyson is an Astrophysicist and is brilliant in his own respect, as is Dawkins with his Evolutionary Biology.

Difference is Dawkins is more of an activist than Tyson.  I wouldn't say "Tyson can't touch Dawkins" and I don't think they think that of eachother either.

This thread just be re-titlled as "The lovefest of Dawkins & Tyson".   :P

I like em both, but I voted bonobos because some guy named De Waal wrote a book, Bonobos and the Atheist, wherein is spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing Dawkins on science and atheism, but not bonobos.  He apparently had his nose out of joint for not being as famous an atheist as Dawkins or something, so he figured starting a fight would be the best thing to do.  However, I don't think Dawkins ever responded.  After all, De Waal who?  There was interesting stuff about bonobos in the book, and De Waal could have limited it to his area of expertise, but I guess since he had an audience, it was a good time to take some shots at other atheists.  I don't know if he challenged Tyson or not.

Actually, I never read the book, but I understand it's a good book, if you ignore the other bullshit.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Dawkins isn't an activist. He is just simply stating the truth. Although I like Tyson, he is somewhat a sellout. Dawkins is a real brain that Tyson couldn't come close to matching. Personally I couldn't stand to be around Dawkins, but he is correct and he having the habit of pointing out flaws is just irritating. Tyson is gentile and is more socially acceptable, but that hinders revealing the truth. I don't say that Tyson lies but he won't argue a point unless pushed to do so.

I'd say that's more due to Tyson's mindset of an educator. I can say from experience that you can't really educate someone if they're in a mood to argue. Dawkins does educate, yes, but he's not usually trying to educate the people he's talking about; he prefers to use his targets, the fundamentalists, as an example of how ridiculous religious anti-science thinking is.

Tyson himself has recently stated on live television (//http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/21/neil-degrasse-tyson-explains-why-he-believes-faith-and-reason-are-irreconcilable/), on the subject of reconciling science and religion, "I have essentially zero confidence, near zero confidence, that there will be fruitful things to emerge from the effort to reconcile them." He is no fan of religion. However, unlike Dawkins (whose method I outlined above), Tyson is more interested in going straight for the folks who need informing, and that requires a rather different approach than Dawkins' confrontational one. He's the one going in and giving people they information they need in order to break them out of that religious mindset.

To use an example that might make this clearer: If we think of religion as a virus, Tyson is more your vaccine, while Dawkins is your anti-viral meds. The latter goes in and tries to attack the problem, while the former is trying to keep there from being a problem in the first place.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Tyson himself has recently stated on live television (//http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/21/neil-degrasse-tyson-explains-why-he-believes-faith-and-reason-are-irreconcilable/), on the subject of reconciling science and religion, "I have essentially zero confidence, near zero confidence, that there will be fruitful things to emerge from the effort to reconcile them."

Why must there even be a reconciliation?  How would it help?  

Science wants nothing from religion.  It works completely independent of religion.  It does so without an agenda or malice.  It just keeps finding things out through investigation.  When it disproves a religious claim, it's not like it's won a debate.  It doesn't care about winning.  It's just about finding things out.

This has been a thorn to religion, especially in the last 600 years, as man has learned so much through investigation, rather than by consulting holy books.  Religion could make this problem go away right now, by simply not repeating the mythical speculations from the imaginations of the ancients.  It could quit making hollow armchair proclamations that can't stand up to new information.  It's like each time one of their empty doctrines is proven false, they get an egg on their face, but they keep hanging on to the undisputed claims which haven't been challenged yet, as if no one will ever possibly find them flawed.  They have made the same mistake over and over for a millennium, and now they want a reconciliation?  Forgiveness, maybe.  But not a reconciliation.

They need to learn that they can't keep teaching bullshit as if no one will ever know the difference.  It hasn't worked that way since the enlightenment.  The loss of religion's precious claims to truth are not the result of some kind of winner take all contest.  It's just an inevitable consequence of progress.  The dull witted and the non-thinkers will get left behind because they are too lazy to keep up with the rapid growth of information and understanding.  They stubbornly want to do it the old way, even though that path kept everyone in the dark for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I agree with Hijiri, Tyson may believe his job is to educate those willing to listen, and in order to do that you must convince them to listen, and that sure is easier if you don't go about bashing their beliefs. Dawkins preaches to the choir. Won't get new members that way.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, imo, is the new Carl Sagan. Dawkins has become the posterboy for "new atheism".

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Damned.. And here I was thinking Dawkins had taken up boxing. :-k  You had my hopes up for  a minute there.

At first I thought that too.

What is the reason for the bonobo option, anyway?

Quote from: "SGOS"What is the reason for the bonobo option, anyway?

Because "neutral" is boring.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

I prefer Dawkins because his arguments make sense, and the truth hurts, and just because people want to feel good isn't an excuse to hate the messenger.  The truth is always the truth whether people accept it or not, and will never go away just because people want to feel good. :roll:  Solitary

I prefer Tyson because he focuses on scientific principles and discoveries. Every time I hear from Dawkins he is discussing atheism, and really how much more is there to say?