Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[CleanShavenJesus]

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

Goddammit, it was Gale Boetticher's writing, not Gus'. I didn't really like you or hate you before, but now I despise you!

[Bob Kelso]

It seems to me that this Vinny character, and I certainly hope that it is in fact an internet 'character', is quite hung up on Sagan's definition. I could be wrong but I feel this needs to be brought up anyway.

What is definition?

Merriam-Webster defines it as such;
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.

: a statement that describes what something is

: a clear or perfect example of a person or thing

Now while there are official definitions for the sake of upholding language integrity, we cannot throw out the fact that people also hold personal definitions... especially pertaining to belief systems. One cannot take atheists and tell them they are not atheists because some scientific celebrity gave an ad-hoc personal definition of what atheism meant to him. Now while Sagan did not come out and say there were no such things as true atheists for a lack of hard evidence of the non-existence of god(s), people will use this to say just that and it seems Vinny had intended to do so in the first place in order to attack atheism as a whole.

That being said the definition of atheism is as follows according to the dictionary;

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Now as we can see this definition is led with the elder definition that pertained to (what can only be) a theist view of atheism, refute this or take it as you will but it speaks volumes to me about how far religion has corrupted things around us even unto our language but that is neither here or there. The second definitions are what most atheists, in my experience at least, identify as.

Now personally I could give a shit less about what Sagan had to say about the subject.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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

Goddammit, it was Gale Boetticher's writing, not Gus'. I didn't really like you or hate you before, but now I despise you!

Dude, I don't care about this whole religion vs atheism thing. But if you diss my Breaking Bad fandom I will throw a tantrum.

edit: You were right, it was Gale's gift to Walter. My bad. Consider this an official retraction.

Tantrum rights still reserved.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Dude, I don't care about this whole religion vs atheism thing. But if you diss my Breaking Bad fandom I will throw a tantrum.

edit: You were right, it was Gale's gift to Walter. My bad. Consider this an official retraction.

Tantrum rights still reserved.

If there are two things I know everything about in this world, it's Breaking Bad and Big Lebowski! I was once incredibly knowledgable about United States history, but unfortunately the majority of that knowledge faded with age.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Dude, I don't care about this whole religion vs atheism thing. But if you diss my Breaking Bad fandom I will throw a tantrum.

edit: You were right, it was Gale's gift to Walter. My bad. Consider this an official retraction.

Tantrum rights still reserved.

If there are two things I know everything about in this world, it's Breaking Bad and Big Lebowski! I was once incredibly knowledgable about United States history, but unfortunately the majority of that knowledge faded with age.

Not to worry, I've forgotten much of US History myself. I'd rather brush up on my Mandarin for when we get assimilated by the People's Republic Debt Collection Agency.

[Lemonvariable72]

Okay vin why do we have to use your definition of atheism instead of the one that people have redefined to better describe their belief. Do you ever go to a Christian and say ahh your not a Baptist your a Pentecostal?

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.

How is that a inaccurate representation, I mean its not like there was a huge conference or anything, it is just that nearly every atheist you speak to defines it this way

[Simon Moon]

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.

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?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

How is that a inaccurate representation, I mean its not like there was a huge conference or anything, it is just that nearly every atheist you speak to defines it this way

Maybe you genuinely don't see the problem so I will lay it out for you.

1. Can you speak on behalf of the "whole community"? No.
2. When you refer to the "whole community" your statement suggests that nobody in the atheist community disagrees with the definition. Can you know that for certain? No.
3. When you claim the whole community has decided, you must know that deciding something involves deliberation. Can you really say that the whole community deliberated on this decision? No.
4. The "community of nonbelievers" are not just atheists. They include agnostics, deists and even the religiously unaffiliated. Can you speak on behalf of this larger group? No.
5. Technically, I am a part of the "community of nonbelievers". Did your claim represent me in any fashion? No.

I know it looks like I'm being nitpicky here, but you used such a poor choice of wording in your statement that at worst, you can be accused of being a dishonest revisionist.

But I know you didn't intend that. Maybe you just didn't phrase the sentence in the best way, and thus suggested something very different than was actually the case. It's still irresponsible, and I'm still mystified that you don't even get it. Perhaps English is not your first language, in which case, I'll be a lot more understanding.

But I'm not so disappointed in you. I'm more disappointed in the other people here who saw the claim and didn't even bother to correct it. They sat idly by as lies were being told and instead of correcting the statement decided to defend it to score argument points. To me this is ethically questionable character.

Anyway, I'm sure you're tired of discussing this. If you really still don't get it, there's nothing else I can do to help.

[Angrboda]

[Lemonvariable72]

How is that a inaccurate representation, I mean its not like there was a huge conference or anything, it is just that nearly every atheist you speak to defines it this way

Maybe you genuinely don't see the problem so I will lay it out for you.

1. Can you speak on behalf of the "whole community"? No.
2. When you refer to the "whole community" your statement suggests that nobody in the atheist community disagrees with the definition. Can you know that for certain? No.
3. When you claim the whole community has decided, you must know that deciding something involves deliberation. Can you really say that the whole community deliberated on this decision? No.
4. The "community of nonbelievers" are not just atheists. They include agnostics, deists and even the religiously unaffiliated. Can you speak on behalf of this larger group? No.
5. Technically, I am a part of the "community of nonbelievers". Did your claim represent me in any fashion? No.

I know it looks like I'm being nitpicky here, but you used such a poor choice of wording in your statement that at worst, you can be accused of being a dishonest revisionist.

But I know you didn't intend that. Maybe you just didn't phrase the sentence in the best way, and thus suggested something very different than was actually the case. It's still irresponsible, and I'm still mystified that you don't even get it. Perhaps English is not your first language, in which case, I'll be a lot more understanding.

But I'm not so disappointed in you. I'm more disappointed in the other people here who saw the claim and didn't even bother to correct it. They sat idly by as lies were being told and instead of correcting the statement decided to defend it to score argument points. To me this is ethically questionable character.

Anyway, I'm sure you're tired of discussing this. If you really still don't get it, there's nothing else I can do to help.

All I get is that you are trying to impose a definition that we disagree with. Maybe every atheist out there uses that definition, but everyone that I have encounter does.
However I fail to see why you reject our usage of it.