Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Bob Kelso]

It seems to me that this Vinny character, and I certainly hope that it is in fact an internet 'character', is quite hung up on Sagan's definition. I could be wrong but I feel this needs to be brought up anyway.

What is definition?

Merriam-Webster defines it as such;
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.

: a statement that describes what something is

: a clear or perfect example of a person or thing

Now while there are official definitions for the sake of upholding language integrity, we cannot throw out the fact that people also hold personal definitions... especially pertaining to belief systems. One cannot take atheists and tell them they are not atheists because some scientific celebrity gave an ad-hoc personal definition of what atheism meant to him. Now while Sagan did not come out and say there were no such things as true atheists for a lack of hard evidence of the non-existence of god(s), people will use this to say just that and it seems Vinny had intended to do so in the first place in order to attack atheism as a whole.

That being said the definition of atheism is as follows according to the dictionary;

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Now as we can see this definition is led with the elder definition that pertained to (what can only be) a theist view of atheism, refute this or take it as you will but it speaks volumes to me about how far religion has corrupted things around us even unto our language but that is neither here or there. The second definitions are what most atheists, in my experience at least, identify as.

Now personally I could give a shit less about what Sagan had to say about the subject.