Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Esquilax]

I don't think this is true for a number of reasons.

Color me surprised.

First of all, it's obvious that there has not been a whole, conscious coming together of nonbelievers to decide on definitions. There has been no turning point, no meeting, no nothing.

There generally isn't, when it comes to evolving language. The usage just changes over time gradually via the nomenclature of the group in question. I find it interesting you feel the need to go to the most simplistic possible position in a complex world, however.

So to claim "we have decided" appears to be a false depiction of consensus that does not correspond to historical facts or specifics.

Why do you feel the need to fight us on this? What do you gain?

You seem to want to demand... well, what do you want? We're not likely to suddenly alter our position to fit the version of atheism you find easiest to fight against, and changing the word isn't going to get you one step closer to rebutting our actual position. Are you really that childish that a victory over a word is so meaningful to you? Or are you that arrogant that you think you can demand to us what our position actually is?

I hate to say this, but it sounds very much like atheists like to create their own narrative- to shape the story to suit their point. In this case, it sounds like a rewriting of history and misrepresentation of reality in order to shore up defense of this definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaK2VIDN5fI