RE: Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism
October 16, 2013 at 8:37 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 8:43 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 16, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You don't HAVE to.
You just have to acknowledge that you have to represent things accurately to have a useful conversation.
The following statement:
"We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better..."
simply isn't an accurate reflection of the facts. It's a gross distortion. It never occurred this way.
Hey Vinny.
Should we go back to the original meaning of 'atheism' used by the Greeks who coined the term?
You know, when they defined the Christians as atheists because they didn't believe in their gods.
Or maybe we should use the definition used by Merriam Webster (an evangelical Christian) in his original dictionaries as "godless"? His definition presupposed the Christian god existed.
Quote:simply isn't an accurate reflection of the facts. It's a gross distortion. It never occurred this way.
How is it not accurate?
Let's go to the etymology:
The 'A' prefix means 'without'. As in 'asymmetry', without symmetry.
The word 'theism' means 'the belief that at least one deity exists'.
Put them together you get 'without the belief that any deities exist'.
How is that different than what we've been stating?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.