Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Brakeman]

It is determined by the people that use the term. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we use the definition we gave you?

I disagree. I had this conversation a while ago with a "satanist" that didn't believe in satan. You can call yourself whatever you want, but the definition of the words you use remains the same (well, unless the dictionary changes ).

I could start using the term "pig fucker" to denote anyone that eats cucumber sandwiches. It doesn't change the fact that in order to be pig fucker, you have to fuck pigs.

Your example leans much more to Lemonvariable72' position. As a cucumber eater, I would be incensed to be called a pig fucker if I didn't have anything to do with pigs. Cucumber eaters would be closer to the action so to speak and would actually be the better judges.

The point that theists make hinges on their assertion that both the positive proposition and the negative position on that proposition are both positive propositions. This is an easy fallacy to make because so often there are opposing propositions. My claiming that your name is Jimmy against Mini's claim that your name is Ned is an example of opposing propositions. But, your name may not be either, and you must have the ability to address each proposition as true or not on their own. We need to be able to deny Mini's position that your name is Ned without having to find out whether all other propositions about your name are verifiable. The evidence against Mini's Ned claim that your name was told to him by a purple flying rabbit on the 31st of April is sufficient to deny agreement with him without having to take a position as to your actual name or the veracity of any other claims.

Most atheists are only united in denying the evidence for a god is sufficient. We are a very diverse group. We have differing opinions why we disbelieve the claims as we have all been exposed to different ones by theists. I don't need to hold an opposing position against each and every religious sect. I simply claim that no religious sect has ever shown me evidence to move me from my default position of "I don't know and your evidence doesn't persuade me."