Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Oh, okay.

So "We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better..."

equates to "the usage just changes over time gradually..."

And you expect me to believe that? Seriously? Do you even believe the first claim looks anything like the second?

I am saying that your use of gross oversimplifications, as usual, has led you to espouse a cartoonish parody of reality rather than anything accurate. I'd like to think this is unintentional, but I know you live in the real world where things aren't these stark black and white things, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're just throwing out strawmen in place of having real arguments.

The way you characterized it was like there's some kind of atheist senate where we all come together and deal with issues like definitions, and that's not true. The definition of the word atheism evolved over time to one that better encompasses the actual feelings of the members of that group, and delineates between strong and weak atheists, in the same way that christians describe themselves by denomination. It's just specificity. In this way, the term changed to reflect the consensus of the people who most use it, without being some conscious effort borne of a decision you can definitively point to.

I also note with interest that your claim here that there hasn't been a conscious coming together of atheists to decide this thing, while accurate, conflicts with statements you've made in other threads, where you accuse us of using this new definition as a "dodge" to avoid some burden of proof we might otherwise have. Which is it, Vin? Is this new definition a ploy, or not? Or are you just making whatever argument is convenient at the time?

Please, save your credibility. Tell me they are not saying the same thing. I want to take you seriously. Please...

Well, that just got embarrassing for you.

I love how willing you are to roll with your uniformly wrong assessments of our arguments all the way down the hill. It's much more rewarding, rebutting someone who pursues incorrectness with such gusto.

WHA WHA WHA WAIT!!!

So you're telling me they DO say ONE AND THE SAME THING?

Joey Tribbiani, take over for me real quick



Okay, hold on let me catch my breath. Right. So I get that you're confused by how I believe "Atheists have consciously misdefined atheism" and yet reject "We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better...". I mean, anyone can see the two sentences are making two overlapping and yet broadly distinct sets of claims. But maybe you don't see how the claims are different...

But damn...I...Esquilax...to not even acknowledge that the Lemonvariable's claim is totally different from yours...I...

Agent Hank Schrader finding Gus Fring's writing inside the front cover of Walter White's Leaves of Grass, take over for me real quick



This...I...Where's Tracy Morgan? He's not here? Alright, give me Donald Glover.



I...Esquilax, I...

At least show me you're making an effort at having a good-faith conversation here, man!