I know it's been said there is no atheist community, but that's still more than what agnostics have. Agnostics don't know if we have a community or not, and even if wanted one, we wouldn't know how to find it.

I pay no more attention to prominent atheists than I do anyone else. I don't believe I've ever heard anything Tyson has said. I know there are videos around, but they're not really of interest to me.

My atheism requires no support from other atheists.

I DO know he is a great scientific thinker and spokesman.

Either way, that's bad. Bad, I tell you. Can't have that. He's also black. Double whammy.

Love ya MM

creationists and Bible literalists. Good for him, although I pay no attention to such debates. They really just add to the noise. People trying to prove the unproveable are boring to me, mostly.

attempts to educate?

not that my belief will change anything at all. Kinda like believing in a fictional god character, right?

either way, so it's sort of an ideal thing if one's goal is to attack Tyson. I don't believe either side, actually, and won't until more information is available.

to more than he said/ she said

I'll wait to see what transpires, but won't be watching for it while holding my breath.

Like I said, I've never seen Tyson speak, nor have I read any of his books. And I'm a follower of things like cosmology and physics. I just don't read popularizations any longer. I read more technical material. I'm an atheist, too, but I don't read books by prominent atheists any more, either. I do my own thinking these days.

But he's definitely been a great science educator. A charming fellow with the ability to make the staggeringly arcane into something more comprehensible.

I hope the allegations turn out to be untrue, but that's about all I can really say. I'm sure Descartes has a proof where he must be innocent because that would be a good thing, but I can't quite go that far.

We've had many, and the more the merrier, I say!

On another note, I wonder how many creationists & anti-science evangelists out there have been guilty of the same things Tyson is being accused of. Hypocrites, licking their chops ...

I don't like to think about it.

His science is correct and that crazes some folks more than his indiscretions.

If it comes to it, allow the Courts to settle the matter.

As for the investigation, Fox is on the case so I'm sure a fair and balanced review is under way.

a New Age nutter. Who is speaking about "recovered memories"
https://tchiya.wordpress.com/.

The other tells the same story as Tyson. Thier perceptions of the event are different. I believe her when she says it made her feel uncomfortable. I believe him when he says it was an innocent encounter.

another graduate student he met at the same school. I remember grad school. I dated several people then, and married one of them, my ex-wife. We were married for 17 years. I didn't marry the other women I knew then, but there were any number of sexual encounters during that period. All consensual. There were also some awkward moments, as I recall.

Sounds like people in their 20s to me, somehow. I'm betting we all have different memories of those times.

Egyptian faith healing?!?

The person driving this current narrative is an ardent self-promoter who appears to have injected themselves into this. This person is not a Ronan Farrow. More akin to Avenatti with a mixture of Wohl.

There are currently 4 women with complaints against NDGT. The first is a rape complaint from the early/mid 80's. The others are possible situations of sexual misconduct within the past few years.

I believe the women from the past few years. One lady - the tattoo one I think was just NDGT being creepy. The other two share a consistent narrative. I think NDGT exhibited improper behavior. However, to his point, he did ask and did respect "no means no". I personally think he and his wife need to have a very long discussion as he seems to be seeking an extra-marital relationship.

The first lady seems to have other issues. This is not a case of not believing her. I do not quite get NDGT's comments about this being an implanted memory, though I see why he would say that, I think based on comments by her daughter and her husband, she has clearly had a break at some point.

The big takeaway, she is clearly affected by something or somethings which occurred during this time of her life. Whether it was NGDT, or something else seems to be very much in doubt. The fact she seems to have altered her story over the years is not helpful to her case against NDGT.

...much less raped anyone.

Oh. wait.

...and you can hear it in his own voice/statement here:

https://samharris.org/podcasts/thinking-in-public/

Between at the 00:38:00 and 00:39:10 marks (I've done the work for you).

If you require a label, then call him a Scientist.

What he's saying is he doesn't use that label to describe himself. He has elaborated as to why in other interviews. That doesn't mean he doesn't fit the definition.

...as per your understanding, he explicitly stated that if you must label him, the closest word for him is Agnostic, and he would rather you call him a Scientist.

"There has got to be some other word for me, but not that word."

And to the point that Harris raises with regard to the word Atheist, it is philosophically empty.

That doesn't make them any less of an omnivore.

I understand the problem both of them have with the label, but that doesn't change the definition. I suspect both of them understand that which is why neither claim they aren't an atheist.

...means you know what he believes.

He says the best word, the closest description, that describes what he IS, i.e. what he believes, is Agnostic and explicitly says it is NOT 'Atheist'.

Why can you not accept his definition of himself on this point?

Do you KNOW what he believes, better than he does?

What is the basis of this knowledge that leads you to contradict his own understanding of his own beliefs?

My claim was he didn't say he isn't an atheist which is demonstrably true by the same podcast you posted. As I stated previously NGT is rejecting the label of atheist. That doesn't mean he isn't one. He's saying he identifies more closely as an agnostic (while rejecting that label also). Meanwhile those two terms aren't mutually exclusive. One can be both.

I don't know what NGT believes or doesn't believe. That's for him to decide and if he chooses not to identify with any labels it's pretty hard for anyone else to claim they know what he believes or doesn't believe.