Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Brakeman]

Lemon, definitions are not defined by the vote of four dozen people.

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?

Simple, because his pat arguments depend on that other definition..

[ManMachine]

Atheism is not a lack of belief nor a denial. Both of these require the premise that the existence of a deity is the norm from which we deviate. Atheism is an assertion that deities do not exist, which is a rejection of the premise entirely.

No, the claim that a deity/ies does/do not exist is 'antitheism': the opposition of theism (the claim that a deity/ies exist).

'Atheism' is most strictly and accurately 'the absence of theism'.

I accept your point on the broader definition of atheism but I disagree with your interpretation of antitheism. Ant-theism, for me is distinguished by an opposition to deities or organised religion, etc. The position that they do not exist does not necessarily imply opposition.



MM

[Lemonvariable72]

No, the claim that a deity/ies does/do not exist is 'antitheism': the opposition of theism (the claim that a deity/ies exist).

'Atheism' is most strictly and accurately 'the absence of theism'.

I accept your point on the broader definition of atheism but I disagree with your interpretation of antitheism. Ant-theism, for me is distinguished by an opposition to deities or organised religion, etc. The position that they do not exist does not necessarily imply opposition.



MM

If you define it like that though even a deist could be a anti theist, which is a kinda interesting thought.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

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.

[Lemonvariable72]

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.

Whilst I see your point, we have a huge number of atheists who define as I described, and allot of Christians/theists who want it described another way. Is it fair to allow them to define the term for us?

[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."

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Whilst I see your point, we have a huge number of atheists who define as I described, and allot of Christians/theists who want it described another way. Is it fair to allow them to define the term for us?

I totally get where you're coming from and I can understand why the issue might be sensitive to some people.

Thing is, I couldn't give a toss how people describe or define me. It doesn't change anything. If someone wants to play semantics, then it provides me with an amusing distraction while they figure out which label to apply. I describe myself as an atheist more as a convenience than anything. I've seen several definitions of the word and it's partly because of that, that I list my religious views as pantheist loneshark. If I come across a more apt description, I'll use that instead. But which ever label is used, I'm still the same.

[Lemonvariable72]

Whilst I see your point, we have a huge number of atheists who define as I described, and allot of Christians/theists who want it described another way. Is it fair to allow them to define the term for us?

I totally get where you're coming from and I can understand why the issue might be sensitive to some people.

Thing is, I couldn't give a toss how people describe or define me. It doesn't change anything. If someone wants to play semantics, then it provides me with an amusing distraction while they figure out which label to apply. I describe myself as an atheist more as a convenience than anything. I've seen several definitions of the word and it's partly because of that, that I list my religious views as pantheist loneshark. If I come across a more apt description, I'll use that instead. But which ever label is used, I'm still the same.

I do, and it really pisses me off when people behave that way

[Ben Davis]

I accept your point on the broader definition of atheism but I disagree with your interpretation of antitheism. Ant-theism, for me is distinguished by an opposition to deities or organised religion, etc. The position that they do not exist does not necessarily imply opposition.

I get your point but it depends on your definition of the word 'opposition'. Using 'opposition' to mean 'holding a contrary position/antithesis', the statement 'god/s do not exist' is in direct opposition to the statement 'god/s exist' therefore is 'anti-theism'. Once you take 'opposition' to mean 'resistance or dissent expressed in action or argument', then your point comes in to play. Strictly speaking, saying there are no god/s is anti-theism; saying that you have no belief in god/s is atheism.

[Walking Void]

Conservative fundamentalists can be antitheistic. Not all religious followers tolerate other sects, as obvious as that is.