I'm not as familiar with this British comedian as I am of others, but the points presented in this are still quite valid & tho they should have been clarified by now, obviously still need to be addressed...
I feel like this vlogger is a little too hung up on semantics. There are plenty of differences between atheists and agnostics, and that whole idea of "knowing," is just a small part of it. For me, personally, it's the sense of mystery.
I felt he was just responding to Mitchell's mis-understanding/characterization. That's how I took it, anyway.
I understand what Tyson is saying here, I do feel he's being a bit disingenuous, tho.
He's pretty funny. I will just enjoy the comedy and leave it at that.
David Mitchell is funny, and his sketch show was hilarious. But, yeah, he seems to assume all atheists are strong atheists. I realize we're all informed to some extent by our social circles and that we can have a misapprehension about a topic based upon narrow experience, but he seems to be on a crusade against the big, bad atheists without having a complete understanding of other people's atheistic views.
Can you imagine getting everyone to agree to these descriptors? That seems to be the problem.
Really seems straightforward to me, tho, Atheist, one who does not believe, usually for lack of evidence. Agnostic, one who does not have knowledge of a god. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I don't 100% know, but I don't believe.
@phxbillcee When I first heard the term agnostic - it meant "Someone who does not believe in organized religion". So yup. Hard to define.