Carl Sagan denied being an atheist. So what did he believe? [Part 1]

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/


Astronomer Carl Sagan prepares for television series ‘Cosmos’ in 1981. He co-wrote the PBS series with his wife, Ann Duryan.

By Joel Achenbach July 10 at 8:49 AM

Every so often I get an e-mail out of the blue about two sentences in a story published in The Post in 1996. I quoted Carl Sagan: “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”

People who contact me want to know where the quote came from. Answer: He said it to me in an interview. (I might even have it on tape somewhere in the bottom of a file box). He said identical, or similar things, many times. You can find such material in his voluminous papers now archived at the Library of Congress. For example:

To Robert Pope, of Windsor, Ontario, Oct. 2, 1996

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?” [It's a bit puzzling that Sagan specifies the Abrahamic faiths in his definition of an atheist.]

To Stephen Jay Gould, Dec. 18, 1989, after a newspaper editorial referred to Sagan and Gould as “dogmatic” on the question of whether there is a God:

“Do you understand how – assuming either of us ever did say ‘The universe can be explained without postulating God’ – this could be understood as dogmatic? I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence. That attitude, it seems to me, is undogmatic.”

more at link

[Jim__]

1. So Carl Sagan didn't believe in God yet denied he was an atheist.

I wonder if he'll be condemned by the usual suspects as not understanding the simple and only possible meaning of the word.

[cbayer]

2. Wouldn't you just love to see that debate?

According to some, both Sagan and deGrasse Tyson have no idea what these terms really mean.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I'd take on Sagan or NDT about the meaning of the word.

I think I'd fair pretty well. I wouldn't get anywhere near a debate/discussion of astrology, but I'm pretty confident given my degrees that I can handle a debate about the meaning of words with them. I competed in and coached college debate and definitional arguments were one of my specialties.

[hrmjustin]

17. I think you would do great in a debate.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Thanks, boss

As long as it was about language. What I really know about astrology prepare me to discuss it with very few people.

[rug]

141. How are you at astronomy?

[Goblinmonger]

148. Yeah realized that after I posted

On my phone so too much of a hassle to edit on a lazy Friday. Maybe when I'm on my laptop.

[rug]

150. The fault, dear Goblinmonger, is not in our stars,

But in our phones, to whom we are underlings.

[Goblinmonger]

190. I smiled at the John Green reference

Probably the only smile in this OP. Thanks.

[Nitram]

49. You must have some powerful degrees Goblin!

Knowing how to win a debate provides no evidence that any particular opinion of yours is correct, as your knowledge of logical fallacies should tell you (cf. appeal to authority).

[Goblinmonger]

66. I was responding to cbayer's desire to see a debate.

Of course one could win a debate and still be factually incorrect. I'm well aware of that.

[Nitram]

79. So why mention your degrees?

Now you're being disingenuous.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Sagan is an scientist and has degrees in sciency things.

For cbayer to claim that Sagan would kill people in a debate about the meaning of a word seems to ignore the fact that many of us here have degrees in those types of things. I have degress in English and Communication. Much of my emphasis in area of study is specifically about definitions and what words mean and why. To claim that Sagan is somehow better suited for a debate about those things just because he is Sagan is incorrect. I have done graduate study in just those things while I imagine Sagan and NDT have not. Therefore, my academic training and study has uniquely prepared me for a debate on those concepts. That is why they are important.

[skepticscott]

158. So was this supposed to be one of those intelligent and civil contributions

to the discussion that you claim to prize? Hope not, cause you kinda failed there, Tack.

Bigoted? Not really. Dickish? Yeah, you pretty much hit a home run on that

And if you want to alert on me for that, go right ahead. I'd love to see what a jury thinks. Or you could just shoot off another reply that reflects your true self.

[Starboard Tack]

160. "Sagan is an scientist and has degrees in sciency things"

You get funnier with every post. Your understanding of the English language is only surpassed by your communication skills. Priceless!

[edhopper]

182. I found that

A wonderful Buffyesque turn of phrase by Gob. His meaning was clear.

[Goblinmonger]

188. Thank you. That was the intent.

Clearly lost on some who may have a stick too far up their ass.

[edhopper]

191. When they are reduced to making fun of

your iphone auto complete typos, you know they have nothing of substance to say.

[skepticscott]

199. And to accusing people

of buying their degrees on the internet. This from a person who dares to talk to other people about rude, dickish behavior here.

It seems that all of the religionistas were cheering it on, though.

[Starboard Tack]

233. By Gob, it was clear indeed.

A wonderful example of both language and communication skills, acquired only by those with advance degree kinda thingies.
A toast to Gob and all his fans

[Goblinmonger]

189. Don't ever talk to me about tone in here again.

You and your wife go on about how mean and nasty the "anti-theists" in here are yet she starts this thread which she knew had to be jamming a knife into an old wound and would start this clusterfuck (I mean, she can't really be that dumb to not know it, right?) and you make more dickish comments than anyone (yeah, you can self-delete but even the ones you left are still pretty bad). And perhaps even worse is that the others who jump on your tone policing don't say a damn word to you and your wife about your attitude and tone.

[okasha]

221. The devil made you do it.

I guess you believe in possession after all.

[Goblinmonger]

225. what the fuck are you talking about?

[Starboard Tack]

234. I don't think I have ever talked about "tone"

You need to lighten up there Gob. You tend to get carried away with yourself. Don't flaunt your advanced degrees if you can't take a ribbing when you make a fool of yourself. Humor is the best medicine. Learn to laugh at yourself. Beleieve me, it works wonders, especially when sprinkled with a touch of humility.

[skepticscott]

235. So you never said this?

If you really want to raise the tone of civility around here, quit with smears and address those who want to communicate with you. Trying to provoke those you alienated long ago will get you nowhere.

Sound familiar?

[Starboard Tack]

236. Giving you a lesson in manners is hardly "talking" about tone

But I'll bow to your diligence and ability to search. Bravo!
Unfortunately, you still haven't learned anything, so back to the margins you go. You can huddle with Gob and compare your sciency creds with his communication and english creds. How about that for some Sunday fun!

[skepticscott]

237. Only you or a member of your clan

Could say the statement "If you really want to raise the tone of civility around here, quit with smears and address those who want to communicate with you" is "hardly talking about tone" with a straight face. Intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy must be contagious around your dinner table.

And if you're going back to applying disparaging nicknames, Tacky...be my guest. That game can be played too. Or you could try to inject something other than your usual content-free snark in your next post. Not holding my breath, though.

[rug]

252. Oh, he didn't have to search.

He has them all bookmarked and categorized, waiting . . . .

I hope he dusts them off periodically.

[Starboard Tack]

155. Really? You think Sagan was an astrologer?

What were your degrees in again?

[okasha]

161. Maybe he had a Secret Life.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Maybe he was a "closet" atheist astrologer.

You know how those "sciency" guys can be.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. To take a step back from the monkey-shit-fight for a second

yes, the term 'atheist' has political baggage. I can fully understand why neither man might embrace either term.

But strictly speaking, both were atheists. End of story. They did not believe. Atheism is the state of non-belief in god/gods. Whether they choose the word to wear as a label or not, their actual position, is non-belief. AKA: Atheist.

And being intellectually honest men, one can also assume them to be agnostic about that non-belief as possibly a lack of evidence, even though the subject may, actually, in fact exist.

[Nitram]

77. Atheism is not the state of non-belief.

It is the state of belief that the existence of god is unknowable. Sagan was not an atheist, much as you'd like to claim him as one of your own.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. You'd like that wouldn't you?

Because if I held the positive belief that the existence of god is unknowable, I would have to prove it.

You are attempting to substitute a rocket that didn't launch, with a rocket that launches in all directions, distances, and times, simultaneously, while remaining on the Launchpad.

Theism: belief in god.
A-Theism: non-belief.

Keep spinnin' though. Fun to watch. Maybe someone can devise a way to use your posts as an alternative energy source, if we can harness that spin to some sort of shaft or pulley.

[Nitram]

85. Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Claiming that your statements are logical and your opponents are "spin."

[AtheistCrusader]

92. To me, the last refuge of a scoundrel is to sieze upon a detail like that and completely ignore

the fact that I also offered a material objection to what you said.

[Nitram]

99. Sorry Crusader

Non-belief in god is not the same as believing that god does not belief. You really don't understand that agnosticism is a suspension off belief and disbelief in god due to lack off knowledge. As Sagan is quoted in the article: "Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?"

Please stop putting word in the man's mouth and beliefs in his head.

Uh, oh, I feel an attack of the f-word that trumps all knowledge coming on. I'd better duck.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. YOU'RE RIGHT.

I'm an atheist, but I don't hold a POSITIVE BELIEF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Why? Because I can't prove it. But I remain an atheist, because no one can prove to me their claims about god/gods existing.

This shit is not hard.

[Cayenne]

226. Agnostic is not Atheist

Atheism is a positive and certain belief that there is not god, full stop. Agnostics will argue it is not knowable ( a=>no gnostic=>knowlege no knowledge). Atheists are capable of the same bigotry as any other religion despite their contempt of them.

[skepticscott]

242. Please stop telling atheists

what the fuck they believe. Most atheists lack a belief in any gods because they find no evidence to convince them, but are open to the possibility of such evidence coming out in the future. Period. Full stop. Saying that god is "unknowable" is simply intellectual cowardice.

And yes, I'm bigoted against religious traditions that regard homosexuals and woman as less than full human beings. Cope. I suppose you think all of those beliefs are equally valid and above criticism.

[AlbertCat]

223. Claiming that your statements are logical and your opponents are "spin."

Is it the last refuge when it's true?

[Goblinmonger]

86. That is just no true

even given the posts you have made.

[phil89]

159. Atheism is not a statement of belief of any kind.

It is lack of belief. If the burden of proof has not been met, there is no reason to believe. Show me evidence of a god an I'll believe. Show me evidence of Santa and I'll believe.

[cbayer]

171. Why would you think that anyone wants you to believe?

Who do you think needs to provide you with evidence? You don't believe. That's cool. Call yourself anything you want.

[edhopper]

186. Extraordinary claims require

Extraordinary evidence.
This is the crux of what Sagan is saying and why he said he is not an atheist.
He was challenging believers, by keeping a neutral position.

Why do you find it so hard to understand that statements like phil's, even though in the first person, are obviously general statements about believers and nonbelievers?

[cbayer]

230. They would require extraordinary evidence if one was claiming they could prove it.

But that really isn't the case with religion. That is why it is based on faith and belief. There is no proof.

You are right about what Sagan is saying. To claim there is no god or gods is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, which no one has.

Statements like phil's make broad based judgements of believers and nonbelievers and perpetuate a belief that all believers are trying to convert non-believers, which I do not think is true. He also equates god with santa, a rather juvenile but very popular thing to do in these discussions.

It's not about my difficulty in understanding at all.

[phil89]

240. Nothing juenile about comparing god belief with santa.

They're both made up (I guess there was a real St. Nick) and have no evidence of their existence. What's juvenile is telling people they're facing eternal damnation if they don't believe in god, which many religious people do.

[cbayer]

241. Can you provide evidence that they are both made up?

Are you a gnostic?

If no, then it is extremely juvenile to make the comparison and is only used as a mechanism to belittle the religious beliefs of others.

But I think it makes the user of these comparison look like the little one.

[trotsky]

247. But that's not how it works.

Both "Santa" and "god" are claims. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence. It isn't necessary for the person who isn't convinced by the evidence provided, to have to come up with their own evidence the claim is made up.

No matter how much you, or anyone else, wishes that were the case.

[skepticscott]

248. Oh, not true

There is a mountain of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, and more continues to pile up. Far more than for the existence of Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Coyote, or any of the multitude of other "gods" that people believe in.

Cbayer is just being disingenuous. She claims not to be a believer, but she really has no idea, and will say whatever serves her agenda at the moment.

[AlbertCat]

224. You don't believe. That's cool.

Baloney. You don't think it's "cool".

[cbayer]

229. Say what? I think it's perfectly cool.

You are working off a misperception that has deep roots and an active fan club.

If you want to be a person of reason and logic, you should look outside that shallow hole and think for yourself.

To be clear, what I don't think is cool is being an anti-theist or anti-atheist. I challenge you to back up your statement.

[phil89]

239. I think they want me to believe so I won't burn in hell

plus, they tell me what I'm missing by not believing. And they tell me they want me to believe. The person making the claim (or threat of hell) is the one who must provide evidence. Evidence needs to be provided by the person trying to tell me there are magic, invisible beings or any of the absurd biblical stories are true accounts.

[cbayer]

243. Well for those that tell you that they want you to believe, I think it makes sense to

tell them that you will do that when you receive evidence of it's validity.

But most believers really don't give a crap whether you belief or not and generally don't threaten you with hell.

It's important to be able to distinguish the people from one another, or one runs of the risk of just throwing them all into the same basket.

[cbayer]

96. Strictly speaking, you don't get to define them...

or anyone else.

I would love to see you debate Sagan on this, but he is no longer available. Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson would be interested.

This is such a silly debate and really only about who are the shirts and who are the skins.

Foolish.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Tyson has already settled this, in a video I have repeatedly supplied you with, and you have not

watched.

The one in which he laments that the number of people in the National Science Academy who believe in a personal god is not 0%.

Tyson is clearly an atheist, whether he chooses that label for himself or not. And I would be happy to discuss it, however, given that he has been hounded so much by people on both sides with impure intentions, he is not amenable to spending time/effort on the subject.

[cbayer]

137. I watched that video way before you posted it and I don't think it's settled in the same

way you do.

It's such a silly argument. This is not a soccer game. Tyson is whatever Tyson says he is. No one else gets to define him.

[skepticscott]

108. Why would you love to see that?

Are you totally certain that your idols couldn't possibly be wrong or have a blind spot on this issue? Or do you just need to believe that someone else could smack down the people who regularly get your intellectual goat? Do you fantasize about your gallant heroes riding in to smite your enemies with their vastly superior intelligence and logic?

And as far as it being a "silly debate", YOU'RE the one who posted this issue, cbayer...and not for the first time. But of course, you don't want actual debate and discussion of the type that's happening (for obvious reasons), just a few people to agree and say what a Good Read it was, and then move on to the next OP from an internet hack. Well, you have Interfaith for that.

[trotsky]

121. "This is such a silly debate"

So why did you post it?

Foolish indeed.

[trotsky]

3. Who could blame him?

Thanks to the world's believers, "atheist" might as well have been a synonym for "Satan worshiper" for most of our history.

Lots of people, not just these "usual suspects" (nice dig! stay classy!) to which you refer, think that "atheist" simply means lacking belief in gods. There is no doubt that much has changed since Sagan passed away - atheists have been able to reclaim the word from those who used it as a smear. Hard to say what he might call himself today.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. 'the usual suspects' - such a classy way to state your argument.

Sagan provided the "hard atheist" position, also known as strong or positive atheism, as the "atheist position", likely knowing full well that this was not the case, Sagan not having been an idiot. Dawkins, that great boogeyman of the religiously inflicted, is, for example, not a hard atheist.

Since you don't appear to understand the not particularly complicated range of atheist positions, here is a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

[LostOne4Ever]

5. Or...

He didn't want to have to deal with the stigma attached to the word. Which is pretty much the reason NDT gave when he mentioned not wanting to be associated "with those who wear the title proudly."

Regardless this is just a huge argument from authority fallacy.

Now back to my self imposed vacation from this board.

[Nitram]

6. Jim, I guess you are not familiar with the term "agnostic."

An atheist denies the existence of god, while an agnostic leaves the possibility open until there is evidence for or against a deity's existence. I know it is hard for non-scientists to understand the possibility of a third approach to the question, but some people are more comfortable with the gray areas between black and white than others.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. A person can be both an atheist

And an agnostic, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Technically, anyone who does not hold a position as being true is denying that position. So by your own definition, the agnostic is also denying the existence of god and is also an atheist.

[skepticscott]

9. I guess you need further education on the meaning of "atheist"

Can you find us an atheist who, when asked the question directly, will state with absolute, 100% certainty that there are no gods of any type whatsoever, anywhere in the universe?

The "agnostic" that you describe is an atheist, and holds the same position as many self-identified atheists, but due to fear of stigma or intellectual snobbery declines to accept that label.

[Nitram]

12. Yes, I know several.

You are dead wrong about the meaning of agnostic, and it is clear that you know it because you base you opinion on claiming to know what agnostics "really" think. Lame.

[Goblinmonger]

13. For your consideration

How about you let us know how we are "dead wrong" and you are completely correct. Actually put that in the form of an argument rather than just throwing out "Lame" which does very little to prove your point.

[Nitram]

16. Your Venn diagram is simplistic...

...and obviously influenced by a mainstream christian point of view. Agnosticism at heart is the open-minded willingness to accept that a god may exist, but that until there is evidence one way or another, the question is undecided. Both the terms agnostic theist and agnostic atheist are a contradiction in terms. Agnostics believe either that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. That speaks to the mind of man, not to the existence or not of a god.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Um, no, it isn't. That venn diagram is 100% accurate, and you have no idea what gnostic/agnostic

means.

Literally no idea what you are talking about.

[Nitram]

26. AtheistCrusader

You get awfully exercised when you are out of your depth philosophically and linguistically. Looks like you need to go back and hit the books. Try to wean yourself from simplistic and totally erroneous little diagrams.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. I don't need to 'hit the books', there's a simple synopsis of the history of these words here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Oh dear, that was hard to find.


"Your Venn diagram is simplistic...and obviously influenced by a mainstream christian point of view. Agnosticism at heart is the open-minded willingness to accept that a god may exist, but that until there is evidence one way or another, the question is undecided. Both the terms agnostic theist and agnostic atheist are a contradiction in terms. Agnostics believe either that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. That speaks to the mind of man, not to the existence or not of a god."


Lets see, should I take all that BS you just wrote, or the opinion of the man who actually coined the terms (to the best of our historical knowledge)?

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took."

Hmmm. Decisions decisions.

An atheist can be agnostic to the existence of a god. I am, myself, because I cannot positively prove that no gods exist. If an omnipotent god does not wish to be perceived by us, by definition, it cannot be perceived by us, so I would be unable to prove either way. My default position is 'atheist' because I do not believe any supernatural claims have passed muster as being credible evidence, but I must remain open to the possibility because I do not, and possibly CAN NOT know for certain. Not being able to perceive that hypothetical shy god, doesn't prove that god doesn't exist.

If I said, I am an Atheist, and I know for sure there is no god, the burden of proof would be too great a load to bear.

[cleanhippie]

44. "Literally no idea what you are talking about."

Nailed it.

And when did trolling become so transparent? It used to be an art-form or sorts.

[Nitram]

52. Trolling?

Sounds like a variant of Godwin's Law.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Sure, if you're just going to kep making up words as you go, it can mean anything!

What fun!

[LostOne4Ever]

75. No, it is your definition that is a contradiction.

Above, you defined atheism as a disbelief in god. I gave you links to various dictionaries defining disbelief as holding a position to be untrue. You then claim agnosticism is a position between theism and atheism.

Well theism is defined as believing in god, and belief is defined as the psychological state of holding a position to be true.

Thus the question of the existence of god is as follows:

T=true
-T=Not true
A:Theism
B:Atheism

A:T
B:-T

B=-A

Agnostic: not A and not B so its

Agnostic -(A) /\ -(B)= -A /\ -(-A)= -A /\ A

According to the rules of mathematical reasoning

Agnostic: -A /\ A=contradiction

Which is the definition of a contradiction.

QED

[skepticscott]

23. Please point them out

And have they actually been pressed on the question? I doubt it.

And talk about lame. I said nothing about what the term "agnostic" means, so I can hardly be "dead wrong". You're the one claiming to know what all atheists and agnostics think (and getting it dead wrong, to boot). I simply said that YOUR characterization of an "agnostic" describes an atheist, whether that person has the self-awareness to realize it or not.

Try again.

[Nitram]

27. Scott, I am sticking to the accepted meanings of English words

You are stuck in a dogmatic stance that is divorced from history and linguistic understanding.

[skepticscott]

110. In other words, you can't back up your horseshit claim

And are now trying to distract from that fact with even more bizarre statements.

I'd say the diagnosis of you is spot on. I just wonder if it's been made before.

[Joe Turner]

255. Actually that is not true

Agnostic is having no idea whether God exists or not. It is not your presumptuous opinion that they are atheists afraid to admit they are atheists. Personally I lump hard-line atheists in the same category as bible thumpers. People taking extreme positions on matters that are way past our intellectual ability to understand.

[rug]

256. +1

Especially the presumptuous opinion part.

[Jim__]

11. Actually, I'm quite familiar with it.

I'm also quite familiar with the fact that many people use atheist in the manner that you describe. However, there are numerous people on this site who have repeatedly claimed that atheist has one and only one meaning - lack of a belief in god; and repeatedly mocked and condemned anyone who has used it in the way Carl Sagan used it. Many of these same people also claim that their knowledge is scientifically based.

[LostOne4Ever]

22. No no no no no

Lets get this straight.

The definition that "many" people use is a person who believes there is/are no god(s). The correct definition, the one used by the Oxford online dictionary, religious tolerance, by wikipeida, and by the two major atheist organizations in this country (AA and FFRF) is lack of belief.

And it is those who try and insist on the former definition that are being exclusive. Lack of belief includes those who actively believe there is no god, as well as those hold neither that position nor the position that there is at least one god as being to be true.

Those pushing the former definition (that atheists believe there are no gods) are trying to tell us that they know what we think better than we do. Further, many of them are trying to undercut our representation and marginalize us. Others are running from the stigma of the word. There are many reasons why they do it, but when they try to redefine the word that affects me, and I am not going to sit here and let it go unchallenged.

If someone does not want to identify as an atheist, that is their perogative. I won't call them that. However, that does not give them the right to redefine the word, and strip me and others of our identity based solely on their preferences. It is not mocking to push back from this affront, it is a well deserved reaction in our own defenese.

This is a matter of definitions, not science. There is no use of the scientific method in determining the meaning of words. It is a matter of semantics and ultimately, on this issues, Carl Sagan is wrong.

[Jim__]

24. Here is what the Urban Dictionary has to say.

From UrbanDictionary:

Atheist

There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

They note that the definitions carry political implications. In another post, I gave the definition from Merriam-Webster. The word has multiple meanings. You may not like that; but, it's really not up to you.

[LostOne4Ever]

36. Urban dictionary is hardly an authorative source

And I replied to your use of MW dictionary.

But in regards to your link

1) I am an implicit (negative) atheist and I define myself by the former definition.
2) Theist, are not atheists, and what they think is irrelevent. Your MW dictionary is by a theocrat and also defines us as being immoral.
3) In the modern english language a means without, and theism means belief in god. Thus "Without belief in god" not "belief in no gods." If there was a term for that, it would be contratheist.
4) Oxford does not give multiple definition, nor wikipedia, nor just about any other modern dictionary.
Finally:
5) ACTUALLY IT IS UP TO ME, BECAUSE AS AN ACTUAL FUCKING ATHEIST I GET A SAY IN THE DEFINITION.

Do you identifiy as an atheist? Maybe the person who it not really up to....is you.

[Jim__]

38. Well, based on your claim, I also get a say in the definition.

And I say, and multiple dictionaries agree with me, that the word has multiple possible meanings. As noted in Urban Dictionary, both meanings are in common use.

[LostOne4Ever]

42. Multiple?

Try one and one psuedo dictionary.

ALSO MY DEFINITION works with both groups. Meaning it does not directly contradict any dictionary definition. YOURS directly contradicts several...

Your specific definition is also at odds with every atheist group in america, but you are in total agreement with the conservapedia every right wing religious bigot in the country

Nice company you keep.

[Jim__]

51. Yes multiple.

[LostOne4Ever]

54. I hope they have more repute than the ones you listed so far

Especially since you are going against the OED...

Mind listing them? Some not so bigoted that they list wicked and immoral as definitions would be swell.

[Jim__]

59. Two references in agreement with Sagan's use are sufficient to establish the point.

[LostOne4Ever]

61. And the OED, as well as the statements of AA and FFRF is sufficient to refute that point. (nt)

[Jim__]

64. It's usage. Two dictionaries and Sagan's explicit usage confirm that it's a common use.

Sorry, but I'm not going to play is too - is not any more. If you have something useful to discuss, I'll respond to that.

[cbayer]

71. This is a debate in which you are entirely correct but will never win.

In short, a waste of time.

[Jim__]

88. I know. Thanks.

[LostOne4Ever]

80. No.

One dictionary, and one psuedodictionary. As for Carl Sagan, he was not a lexicographer so his opinion means shit.

So it comes down to the MW dictionary vs OED....the OED wins.

Fact that I am an actual atheist and identify as one telling that your definition is wrong should be a clue that you are wrong. Define yourself however you please, but you don't get to define me. Don't like the definition, then don't identify as one.

Besides, your definition is rooted in bigotry, and that will always be a losing position.

I would quit responding as well if I was losing as badly as you are currently as well.

[rug]

147. Are AA and FFRF the authoritative voices of atheists?

[LostOne4Ever]

175. They represent thousands upon thousands (maybe even millions) of atheists

I think that is a bit stronger than the word of one or two men.

[rug]

176. Are there any other representatives of millions of atheists?

If there are, it should be known.

[LostOne4Ever]

179. Well there are the libertarian atheists

But I don't think they are organized into any groups.

The Military version of the FFRF?

[okasha]

81. Merriam Webster

is a standard dictionary, probably the one most commonly used. The claim that it's "by a theocrat"--no modern dictionary is by a single person--is simply silly. And calling it a "pseudodictionary" is--well, let's just say it's ill-informed.

In general, argument based on dictionary definitions is pretty weak. What counts is how the words are actually used. Modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[LostOne4Ever]

89. It is derivative upon his dictionary

and further retains offensive and obsolete definitions as its first entry (it even admits they are archaitic) which is supposed to be the main definition. Further, the atheist stub contradicts the atheism stub.

Further, the OED is considered the authorative source on the english language and it contradicts it.

http://www.oed.com/
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

[okasha]

95. Who is "his"?

[LostOne4Ever]

106. Noah Webster

And some more sources

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist14.htm

How many sources do I need to link to show that definition is wrong? Shouldn't the word of AA and FFRF be the equivalent of thousands upon thousands of atheists?

See, our definition only excludes those who believe in god. It includes those that it would be limited to by their definition as well. Thus the opposing definition is the one violating the other sources.

Their definition is exclusive of thousands of self identifying atheists as if they don't matter. His UDictionary source even admits that most atheists use the defintion from the sources above, and its the religious right who supports his definition.

As we on DU going to start taking the word of conservapedia (I am not linking to that POS) over the OED, wikipedia, liberal groups like AA, FFRF, Religious tolerance.org, etc?

Why on a liberal website are even debating this?

THIS IS INFURIATING!!!

[TM99]

116. You have strong feelings about this.

It is hard then to argue rationally with someone with strong feelings.

I am not even certain from what you are writing any longer what you are actually in opposition to?

Even your links quite clearly state the difference between agnosticism and atheism. They are different terms about the same thing and are exclusive of each other.

Modern Atheism is a movement. It is political. It considers bias and assume facts about biases based on whether a dictionary was started by a 'theist' or not. No dictionary today is run by one single individual, and you know this.

Words have meaning. Groups can try to change those meanings, however, you can not expect that there won't be some push back against such change. And that change may not succeed.

Find the right term that works for you. Trust your own experience and confidence enough to just 'be it' yet remember you are not your own labels.

I know that you are young. I do not mean that in a negative way. I mention it because I understand. At 9, I used one word for what I believed. At 19, I used another. At 30, I used still another. And pushing 50, I have new experiences, awareness, and use a new word. The words never changed their meanings and nor did I try to force the words or others to accept 'new' meanings of them. I changed, and I sought the word with the closest meaning I could find to what I know, belief, and experience.

Is it possible you are a circle trying to force yourself into a square hole?

[LostOne4Ever]

127. Yes I have strong feelings about this.

Which is the ONLY reason I am even posting in this forum atm. I am about to take a break from this place before it gives me a stroke.

No, the links I am giving very clearly state what I am saying.

AA link:

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

FFRF:

Is atheism/humanism a religion?

No. Atheism is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

FreeDictionary

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
atheist (ˈeɪ?ɪˌɪst)
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
ˌatheˈistic ˌatheˈistical adj ˌatheˈistically adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
a•the•ist (ˈeɪ ?i ɪst)

n.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
[1565–75; < Greek áthe(os) godless (a- a-6 + -theos, adj. derivative of theós god) + -ist]
a`the•is?tic, a?the•is?ti•cal, adj.
a`the•is?ti•cal•ly, adv.
syn: atheist, agnostic, infidel refer to persons lacking religious belief or a particular religious faith. An atheist denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether there is a God without sufficient evidence. An infidel is an unbeliever, esp. one who does not accept Christianity or Islam; the word is usu. pejorative.

Note that in all of these disbelief, deny, etc do not mean hold the contrary belief. It simply means that one does not hold it as true. IE Not True. There seems to be some people who seem to think disbelief or deny means holding the contrary view. Even MW does not define it that way.

Now ReligiousTolerance.org (good articles on this here though they also misidentify the meaning of disbeleif):

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

Here is what it says about "agnostic atheists"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic2.htm

Can an Agnostic also be an Atheist?

Theists believe in the existence of a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Agnostics believe that the existence of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven.

However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

1. Strong Atheist: A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. E. Haldeman-Julius suggests that:
"The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming." 1
This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.
2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as most people believe that a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists.

Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic. Such confusion is common throughout the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog among Agnostics, Theists, and Atheists very difficult. In fact, when such a dialogue is attempted, it should be preceded with a long session to agree on a set of definitions.

As currently defined, most Agnostics hold the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They would be willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subsets of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

On agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]

Seriously, how much more supporting evidence do I have to post? I post link after link after link and I am told no that is not enough by people offering either crappy dictionaries that contradict themselves (Webster) or a lot of nothing with people stating their opinions like facts. I think I have earned the right to be (more) upset.

"Atheism" is not a movement. It is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is just a lack of belief! Nothing more. Nothing less. You don't see people making movements about not playing chess do you?

Words have meaning. I AGREE!!! And in this case it is very obvious it means lack of belief!!!

Young? I was never young. My youth was stolen by constant illness of family member after family member. I had to be old before my time. I am not a circle trying to force myself into a square hole. I am a person who is trying to argue a point and support my position with proofs, sources and evidence after more proofs, sources and evidence and I feel like its all being ignored.

I feel like people are not dealing with me here honestly and are pushing an agenda. Some with good intentions and some with less than good intentions. I feel like I am on the verge of being the very stereotype I have tried to be an example against.

The Angry atheist.

I was planning on taking a break from this forums for a while, and now I am a hair away from trashing this place permanently. Simply put:

[TM99]

138. How to reply to this?

Perhaps you do need a break.

You say 'atheism' is not a movement, yet quote sites devoted to atheism as a movement. You quote sites whose very agenda is to decide that dictionary definitions of words used for centuries are now 'incorrect'. Perhaps all sides in this discussion have an agenda?

Everything you are posting are new attempts to redefine already defined words.

A-theism - without god or gods. The very term can not exist in reality outside of the proposition god or gods/not god or gods. No matter how hard you try to deny it, that is just reality. Denial is disbelief. You can not even exist as an 'atheist' or 'agnostic' if there were no 'theist' to stand in opposition to. It seems to me that you might be better served discussing this in the philosophy forum as that is what this is. This is abstract rather than practical.

Illness or not, many in your generation seems to think y'all grew up somehow faster than any other. No matter which generation we are ultimately from, we are all young, we are all older, then we are older still, and then we die hopefully a hell of lot wiser than when we were younger.

Bluntly, you sound like an ignostic. Your 'system of personal belief' is not dependent even on the proposition of god/not god/maybe god or not god. I felt much the same way as you seem to be expressing here. I also may be wrong in my assumption of your feelings and thoughts.

However, once I stepped outside of any needing to acknowledge personally the proposition god/not god, wow, was I free to truly explore things I never considered possible. I can value religion. I can value science. I can value philosophies devoid of theism as much as I can those that include it.

I also found myself joyfully free from any label - neither theist, nor atheist (hard, soft, or anywhere any between), nor agnostic. This is what I mean by a circle in a square hole. Why expend such energy and effort to redefine and try to control others beliefs all the while claiming that you are innocent and that only 'they' are doing that to you?

[LostOne4Ever]

144. I'll respond tomorrow

Not in a good place mentally ATM. Hope u understand.

[TM99]

170. Absolutely.

Even on 'hot topics', I know we have always had good discussions.

So take your time in responding.

[LostOne4Ever]

178. Back

Yes, I do need a break

That is why I am going to see this thread through and then I am going to trash this forum. It is no longer enjoyable anymore, and I have had enough.

The sites I listed are atheist civil rights sites. I quoted them because they represents thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of atheists when combined. IMHO, To call them as evidence of atheism as being a movement is like citing NAACP to say being an african american is a movement. They are civil rights groups. Is there a civil rights movement? More specifically a civil rights movement for atheist? Yes, but that does not make atheism itself a movement.

Further, according to (excuse me for being super consistant here) oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/movement) a movement is a group of people working together for a goal. Atheism is a lack of belief. There is no goal, no working together. We often work against each other. There are conservative and liberal atheist, objectivists and humanist, skeptics and religious, ect. There is no common goal, no working together. Atheism does not fit the definition of a movement in any way.

I cited dictionaries themselves , and wikipedia is an online encyclopedia so I don't see how there can be a campaign to change terms that already agree with us. If you mean MW...yeah I would campaign for them to change their definition. Religious tolerance purpose has nothing to do with changing the definition of anything. Its goal, its agenda, is to promote interfaith cooperation and to end religious discrimination of all religion. It goes over this same topic of definitions for agnostics, christians, muslims, and so on.

Every side does indeed have an agenda. Its almost impossible for an individual or a group to not have an agenda. Mine is simple, to see the facts through and to see to it that I am correctly defined. No one knows me better than me.

A-theism. Breaking it apart and using the rules of modern english it can have a variety of meaning. A-meaning without or lacking. Theism means belief in gods. Thus without or lacking a belief in gods. We can take it further. Break theism apart we get theos and ism

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ism?q=ism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism

The suffix ism meaning system, philosophy, process, opinions of, ideologies,etc.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/theo-?q=theo
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theo-

According to this it means gods, or religion.

Put altogether we get the additional definitions of without or lacking a system/philosophy/opinions of gods/religion.

None of this contradicts lacking belief in gods. Nor, I would argue, does that position exist outside the proposition of gods/not gods. It encompasses both not knowing and not having gods both. If there was a unique term (as opposed to strong or explicit atheist) for someone who explicitly believes there is no god, then I think that particular term should be something along the lines of anti-theist or countra-theist. Antitheist, though, already has a definition as a person who opposes theism. Contra-theist exists in no dictionary that I know of, and it does tend to mix greek and latin. I would ammend it to countra-deist but that sounds like they are opposing deism as opposed to beliving there are no gods. Regardless, no one person gets to determine language. I am sure we ALL agree on that.

If there were no theist, then nobody would have a belief in gods. The needs for the term would go away but I would say that what it describes would still exist.

Let us clear terms on young and old so as to avoid not understanding one and another. Are we talking physical age or mental? Physically, it is simply a matter of revolutions around the earth. Mentally, one can be old before their time. There are men in their 50s and 60s with the mentality expected of a young child, and children with the maturity and worldliness of someone of advanced age. Ultimately, in the latter, it depends on their thought processes and responsibility.

While I do admit to having many ignostic thoughts and tendencies, when I mention the word god I usually have a certain archetype in my mind. Philosophically I came to my lack of belief through theodicy. I simply can not believe in an all powerful benevolent god who allows the tragedies we see in the world to exist and do nothing. I even find it hard to believe an indifferent god would not intervene, though I can see it as being possible thus why I am not a explicit atheist. That said, going back to ignosticism, I do see that the term god varies quite wildly depending on the person.

I proudly wear the labels of agnostic and implicit atheist, and I would not object if you want to add ignostic to the list as well. But I do object to people trying to take the atheist label away. If the posters in this thread were not trying to make me choose between the agnostic and atheist label, I would have no issue. If they don't want to identify as an atheist, then I won't call them that. If they just want to be identified as agnostics fine. But that is not what they appear to be trying to do here. To me, they are trying to redefine the term atheism and I object to that. They are trying to claim one can not be both an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Again, I object to this STRONGLY.

I think many of them are doing this primarily because the term atheist carries a huge stigma and they don't want to be attached to that. In so doing, however, they are affecting us.

I am free now. I can do that you describe now. I am also free to define myself and label myself as I see fit. I like defining myself in that way. That is why when someone comes and tries to redefine me I get angry. I can not control
language, if I felt they had a point I would accept it. I don't feel they have a point. Thus, I provide supporting evidence after supporting evidence after evidence to back my position while showing the problems with their "evidence."

If they cite one person, I will cite thousands (AA and FFRF). They cite one dictionary and a psuedodictionary (talking about UD here), I cite 3 other dictionaries, an encyclopedia, and a cite devoted to interfaith dialog website. I will explain my logic, till I am understood. I show them my issues with their sources, and explain mine.

Part of me feels likeI don't feel like I am arguing with people in good faith anymore. I left a political facebook group I was a member of for years and years over this exact same discussion. Where the main libertarian over there responded to my evidence simply by stating his opinion as fact. His opinion was the same as the one espoused by Sagan in the OP.

I expend that energy because I believe I am right. I expend that energy because I feel like the hole is a circle but people are trying to fill the space up with mud and claim it is a square when its not. Because I actually believe what I am saying.

I expend that energy because there are not 5 lights...

[TM99]

203. I am sorry, I have a busy weekend with a conference.

I will reply Monday to your post.

[LostOne4Ever]

206. No problem take your time (nt)

[TM99]

270. Back now as well.

Up front, I am arguing with you on a philosophic and linguistic level, and I am fairly certain you realize that. If not, I do want to clarify.

Overall, I respect your agency to label yourself how you see fit. I respect your feelings, and I can listen to your anger, frustration, and confusion.

With that said, I still am in disagreement with you. Choosing to label yourself with two words that have for centuries had specific denotations and connotations that do not mean what you and many moderns want them to mean will cause communication problems. You and others are going to argue. You and others are going to butt heads about this. That is just reality. You may indeed be 'right', and guess what? So might others be also.

Your path is your own. And that ties into what I meant about age. Yes, physical age does not always equal maturity. However, we have much more life experience that can and should lead to psychic maturity as we physically age on this beautiful ball of dirt and water. I wonder what conversation you and I might have about this same topic, say, twenty five years from now?

As someone who has never been a 'believer', as many define it, for well over 4 decades, I still see 'modern atheism' as a movement in the 21st century. It just is. There is nothing wrong with that, but to deny that it is becoming one seems to me to be disingenuous. And I do have a very big problem with considering it a civil rights movement particularly in America where biases are real but just not the same as LGBT and POC issues. I have dealt with both issues in my life, and they are just not the same. Sorry.

We aren't going to agree, however, I am not going to argue with you either. I hope that is ok.

[LostOne4Ever]

283. That is absolutely fine with me

I can accept a difference of opinion when it is put up politely and conversationally.

This thread has been heated, but our conversation has stayed cool and polite. I greatly appreciate that. It is nice when people of opposing views can converse with one another in such a manner and makes participating on such a board much more enjoyable.

I still plan to trash this group after this post, but I expect we will encounter one another again on some of the other boards and can have similar polite conversations in such a manner there as well. I hear a new pokemon game is coming out, maybe there will be a thread about that somewhere here on DU in the future and we can talk about that

Take care till then, and may good luck follow you where ever you go!

[TM99]

284. It isn't always easy to disagree

and remain civil and communicative. I am working on it constantly. And it does take two in order to make it possible.

So, yes, I appreciate your willingness to be the same way with me. Thank you!

I can definitely respect 'time off' from things, and yes, I am certain we will see each other in other forums for other conversations.

And yes indeed, I already have Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire wishlisted. My friends and family have been instructed that my Christmas gifts MUST include both of those games.

Stay sane and be well.

[Jim__]

94. Of course you're right about modern dictionaries being descriptive.

My understanding is that's because they believe a word's usage determines its meaning.

[okasha]

98. Exactly.

That's something you get drilled into you the first week of Intro to Linguistics.

[LostOne4Ever]

113. Soooo

you think all of us atheist are immoral bastards. Thats the usuage.

And that the definition we are supporting is not used? Ever? Cause your whole argument rests on it not existing. If it is used that way anywhere then calling Carl Sagan an atheist is 100% appropriate...cause that is the usuage.

Your definition is easily able to work with mine as a subset. People who believe there is no god obviously also have a lack of belief in a god. But you have to say my usuage is completely wrong in all aspects for you to say he is not an atheist by that line of reasoning.

That is something that is not possible for you to do by any means.

[Jim__]

118. No. There are 2 meanings in common usage.

Your first claim is on a definition that was identified as archaic. So, no, it's not the usage.

No, I did not claim that the definition you are using is not used. The UrbanDictionary explicitly cited it as a common usage. Carl Sagan is entitled to use the word the way he sees fit. He explicitly stated that he does not believe in god and he is not an atheist. I accept him at his word.

No, I don 't have to, and am not, claiming that your usage is wrong. I'm claiming that it's not the only usage - as documented. People use it to mean these 2 somewhat different things. People are not ignorant or wrong because they use the word differently that you do.

Language is complex and the ambiguity of statements is frequently a cause for disagreement. It's can be quite helpful to clarify terms at the beginning of a discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Except the OP jumped the shark with the subject line itself.

"Carl Sagan denied being an atheist. So what did he believe?"

He didn't believe. End of story. Also, that makes him by default, an atheist.

You can ask his wife:

"Carl faced his death with unflagging courage & never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief & precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive & we were together was miraculous — not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous & so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space & the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me & it’s much more meaningful…


The way he treated me & the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other & our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."

Edit: Also:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal/dp/0143112627

[Jim__]

125. The article is explicit about what Sagan meant by "not being an atheist."

It is also explicit that Sagan did not believe in god and states that calling him an agnostic was not strong enough - he was close, even by his definition, to being an atheist.

"Jumped the shark"? A cliche and, in this case, nonsense.

[trotsky]

126. It's also clear what he meant about being an atheist.

"An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God."

So if this is all about what Sagan says, why aren't you defending that definition? It would basically mean that any member of a non-Abrahamic faith is an atheist. Do you think that's a good definition?

Clearly all this was, was an intentional attempt by cbayer to stir up shit, open old wounds, then pour salt in them.

Classy all the way.

[LostOne4Ever]

184. I am fine with there being more than one usuage.

What I object to, is trying to say that the one I am using is invalid, I am not an atheist, and that yours is the only correct one. My definition, includes the other. One who believes there is no god obviously lacks a belief in a god. I am also fine with you using your preferred definition so long as you do not claim the other is not correct. So long as you do not redefine me. A simple I mean it in this sense, but I do know that it can be meant in another sense will surfice and I will do the same.

So long as you acknowledge that, and respect that (and again to which I will return the same courtesy) then at long last we have come to a resolution on our disagreement.

I am still going to respond to your other post with my logic proof, as I am that much a math nerd though =P

[okasha]

164. I've read your posts throughout this thread,

and rather than scatter responses here and there, I'm going to post two replies. This one is about dictionaries.

The Merriam Webster's American English dictionaries are highly regarded and are routinely used by scholars and writers. MW is the dictionary of choice with the Chicago Manual of style. It's commonly recommended to college and freshman comp students for its ease of use and disambiguation of near-synonyms. It is not in any sense a "pseudodictionary."

Current editions of the MW are compiled by contemporary, professional linguists and lexicographers, with input from scholars in all disciplines. Very little if anything remains of Noah Webster's original work. Current editions are related to his work in the same way hawks are related to dinosaurs. They've evolved from it, but are barely recognizable as descendants.

MW places the archaic definitions of words at the head of all entries to which they apply. They're there for readers of non-contemporary works. They're not there to offend or insult anyone. It's purely a matter of format. The actual first, preferred usage is the one with the "1" in front of it. You seem to agree with their actual first usage for "atheist. "

The Online OED, which gives only one or two meanings for a word, is not the premier dictionary. The premier dictionary is the full edition whose great value lies precisely in the fact that it does give multiple definitions of words. It not only gives contemporary usages but traces a word's history back to its first appearance in English, using dated examples. The archaic meanings of "atheist" are in there, too.

And finally, even the Online OED supports the definition of "agnostic" you disagree with so strongly. Give it a look.

[okasha]

166. Addendum: I'm puzzled

why you call Noah Webster a theocrat when his readers for children are credited with secularizing American education. What gives?

[okasha]

169. Second post.

Back in the 1980's there was a huge, hair-pulling, eye-gouging fight in the gay and lesbian community about whether there was actually any such thing as a bisexual. One side took the position that all bisexuals were actually gays and lesbians who were too cowardly or too far back in the closet to be honest with themselves. People were either gay or straight. No middle ground.
Bisexuals weren't allowed to define their own identity.

The current LGBT acronym tells you how that eventually shook out.

As an atheist, you certainly have every right to define yourself. But you're trying very hard to force your definition on people who identity as agnostic and maintain that they are, indeed, not the same thing you are. Why aren't they also allowed to define themselves? You're attempting to obliterate someone else's identity.

[Goblinmonger]

254. That's probably the most interesting point on the thread for me

Forgive me for not knowing a lot about this issue. Help me out. Were the people fighting against the "bisexual" label doing so because they thought that those people were using it as a "less offensive" label than gay? Again, I may be ignorant on this, but isn't there some serious question as to people being bi-sexual (I don't mean by idiots, but I thought I saw a couple thing that I should have obviously read more fully).

I have no problem with Sagan saying he is an agnostic. Or that he isn't an atheist. He can define himself however he wants. Doesn't mean he's right. It doesn't mean he gets to change the meaning of the word. I really think he chose to not call himself an atheist because of the stigma attached to it.

[LostOne4Ever]

185. Compiling my responses

My reply of psuedo-dictionary was in regards to the Urban dictionary, not MW. When I said 1 dictionary, 1 pseudodictionary, and Sagan I meant Websters dictionary (as the real one), and Urban dictionary (as the psuedo-dictionary). I hope that clears up any confusion.

That said, while I aware of its reputation, the fact that with regards to that one entry they refuse to update it despite complaints about it (check the comments), shows a strong bias in my mind, especially given all the other modern dictionaries it is in conflict with on this particular definition. Speaking of which, the fact that its definition of Atheism is in direct conflict with its definition of atheist furthers my questioning of the MWD on this particular issue. On other definitions it may have a solid reputation, but here I see reason to question its particality.

For the word knowledge they seem to have no issue putting an archiac definition around number 3.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge

It is my understanding that the order of words is supposed to be from most common to least. Number 1 should be the most used. But I can't seem to find anything on their site discussing the ordering of definitionos (I keep getting the definition of the word definition ) If this is the case why is an archaic word above non archaic words? And why is an obsolete word at the top in knowledge?

And why is it not giving but one definition here?

Anyway the oxford version:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge?q=knowledge

Three definitions including the archaic definition and its origin, etc.

Here is a look at all three from a free sample (not paying $200+ for the full book...I am not that egotistical )

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/52325
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary?q=dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictionary

As you say, they don't offer anywhere near the number of definitions as the Official OED (or the sources or background....wow) but it does seem to take the most common one and paraphrase it somewhat.

The definition for agnostic seems to follow closely to my preferred definition of the word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic?q=agnostic

I know this won't help my case (but I mentioning it anyways because I want to deal with people in good faith) but I think they changed it recently because I am fairly certain it used to give the other definition as well. Anyway, I identify as an agnostic as well. But I do so under a different defintiion. I feel that the other definition is contradictory, but so long as they don't try and redefine me or change the definitions I use I am more than willing to let live. But it seems like some people are sooo desperate to avoid the Athiest label they want to go about redefining words without consideration for those of us who identify with the other definition.

This is why I am calling Webster a theocrat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster#Religious_views

As an asexual (I guess....still not really sure) I (kinda) understand the example you are giving, but from my POV its the opposite. It feels like Implicit atheists such as myself are the ones being called not "real" atheists and having a set of explicit atheists and agnostics (mainly the latter) trying to push us out. If someone does not want to be called an atheist I am fine with that. I would be more at ease with it if I knew their objections are more philosophical (ala TM99) rather than due to the stigma around the word atheists. But I am fine with it. They don't want to be called that, then I won't call them that.

What I am not so fine with redefining the word. When they do that, they are redefining me, and undermining the representation of atheists in America which only helps marginalize us. If they want to say they are using the other definition fine. But they should expect me to push back just as hard if they try to claim the one used by almost all self-identifying atheists is not valid either.

[cbayer]

46. I think he understands that.

There is a longstanding circular debate in this room in which some people rather dogmatically insist that agnostic can only be used as a modifier and that one either is a theist or atheist. What they maintain is that once you are defined as one of those things, then you can add the modifying gnostic or agnostic term.

OTOH, there are those of us that feel it is perfectly reasonable to say that you are an agnostic and that it has a meaning all of it's own. Not everyone is a theist or atheist and many of us live in a very grey area.

As did Carl Sagan, apparently.

[trotsky]

48. Or one could put the shoe on the other foot...

and say that there are some people who rather dogmatically insist that others must not and cannot use agnostic as a modifier and that it is a separate classification of belief unto itself. What they maintain is that to be an atheist one MUST have an active disbelief in gods.

OTOH there are those of us that feel it is perfectly reasonable to say that everyone either believes in gods (theist) or doesn't (atheist), and has relatively degrees of certainty thereof. Instead of having to create false black-and-white extremes so as to arrogantly put oneself in the so-called sensible middle.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. It is NOT a modifier. It speaks to a different question entirely.

Theist: belief
Atheist: non-belief
Gnostic: knowledge
Agnostic: unknowable

This shit is not hard.

Whether one has faith in a god or gods, and whether one believes they can know for certain about those gods, are two entirely separate questions.

If someone answers the question "Do you believe in god" with 'agnostic', they haven't actually answered the question.

[cbayer]

69. Lol, same circular argument, different day.

Not going to go there. It's a semantic argument with no winners, just losers.

So, as usual, I will let people define themselves as they please.

And if they define themselves as agnostic and neither atheist or theist, I am perfectly fine with that.

Yeah team!!

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Someone's going to lose, all right.

[cbayer]

90. Woohoo!!!!

This is my favorite!

[MannyGoldstein]

183. I don't like that one, at all

I think I was at that game. It sucked.

Just for that, I'm changing my position on the word "atheism" and now disagree with you.

[cbayer]

227. Lol. I did not really notice the score until you just said this.

Whoops! I think I remember that game as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

228. IIRC, it was *the* game in 2011 where the Sox imploded

gFfor the season.

[cbayer]

231. I have seen far too many games like those, but I have also seen

them rally in an unbelievable way.

No matter what happens, they will always have my heart.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So when people use "literally" wrong

(and they do quite a bit lately), do you think that they have the ability to use that word however they want. Even though they are using it in a completely opposite meaning and should be using figuratively?

I get that words are just symbols and we can have them mean whatever we want and they change. But in order for those symbols to work for communication, we have to agree on the meaning. The term atheist is becoming meaningless from the way it is being used. In my opinion, many people don't want to have the stigma Christians have attached to the word put on them (Sagan, NDT) so they make it meaning some group of people that is getting smaller and smaller. Soon there will be nobody that can call themselves and atheist by the way people are trying to use it when it just means that you don't have a belief in a god. It has NOTHING to do with proof. That's gnostic.

[Nitram]

14. Agnostic and gnostic are two very different things.

Gnosticism was one of the many competing spiritual world views co-existing in the last century B.C. Gnostic scrolls (see Dead Sea Scrolls) show a strong overlap with New testament texts. While there were many varieties of Gnosticism, one unifying belief was that the one true god created the universe, but an evil demi-god he created made the earth and rules over humans using fear as his weapon. The true god has sent emissaries down to Earth to enlighten us, including Jesus, but we humans tend to mistake the message or forget it over time.

[Goblinmonger]

15. You are confusing the religious viewpoint with the word it is based on.

"agnostic" is actually "a-gnostic" with the "a" meaning without. Like apathy. I'm hoping you don't need further instruction in Latin/Greek stems but I can if you wish.

Gnostic is about having knowledge. "a"gnostic is "without knowledge."

[Nitram]

18. I am aware of the meaning of the root language involved.

You seem unaware that we are discussing the meaning of an English word. If we are translating the bible, we have to stick to the original meanings of Hebrew, and Greek roots. The word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, in 1869 to define a particular approach to the knowledge of the existence of god. That is, that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. You have confirmed that you are approaching the whole discussion from a bible-study point of view. The term agnostic does not appear in the bible and is not tied literally to the Greek roots of the word.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Who the fuck are you to presume anyone was only speaking about Christianity?

Put those goal posts down. They aren't yours to move.

[Nitram]

25. When someone defineds the word agnosticism based only on the Greek roots

it is clear to me they are approaching the question from a bible-study point of view. The word agnostic is not in the bible and has a unique English definition. And I didn't realize we were playing football.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Wrong.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took."

Inspired by, but not limited in any way; to. The term is equally applicable to any religious mythology, not just christianity.

[Goblinmonger]

30. So are you arguing that the English word is devoid of any draw from another language?

Because that seems to be your point.

So why do you think Huxley chose to use the "a" prefix on that word? Are you arguing that he just randomly took a word that meant knowledge and put a Greek prefix on it and didn't intend to use the meaning that came with either?

And your definition

that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable

fits exactly with what I have said and with the Venn diagram. One could be an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist.

[Nitram]

45. Wrong Monger

Saying that god is actually the direct opposite of saying either god exists or god doesn't exist. Try to wrap your goblin mind around that.

[Goblinmonger]

68. I have no idea what that sentence is getting at.

Saying that god is actually the direct opposite of saying either god exists or god doesn't exist.

To me, reads like word salad.

[Nitram]

76. OOps

Sorry for the typo. should have read "beliefin" god etc.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Knowledge and belief aren't the same thing

Huxley's definition of the word comports with everything AC has said thus far.

[Jim__]

19. Yes, I believe that people have the ability to use "literally" however they want.

It seems like a difficult fact to deny. I'm not saying they should use it however they want; just that they are able.

As to the meaning of atheist, here is the full definition from merriam-webster:

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

: a person who believes that God does not exist
: one who believes that there is no deity

I don't believe that is the only acceptable definition of the word; but, you're really going out on a limb to claim that a dictionary definition - and a definition that is accepted by many people - is just plain wrong.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. The definition of Atheist From the Oxford English online dictionary

Considered to be the PREMIERE english dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

atheism
Syllabification: a·the·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm /
NOUN

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
Origin

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

The definition of Atheism from your source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1405089494

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

I really think a dictionary whose first used definitions (which it admits are archaic) are insults is obviously unbiased on the subject... Given that this is from Noah Webster, i question its impartiality.

BUT, lets look at definition 2. Disbelief. How does it define disbelief?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Full Definition of DISBELIEF

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
See disbelief defined for English-language learners »
See disbelief defined for kids »
Examples of DISBELIEF

She stared at him in utter disbelief.
<their story explaining their absence was met with frank disbelief>
First Known Use of DISBELIEF

1672

Hmmmmm....it means not holding the belief to be true. It does not mean holding the contraposition as being true....ie it means lack of belief. So the definition of Atheist and Atheism are not in full agreement.

Again, I question your source's partiality especially given how many complaints about the definition are in the comments.

[Jim__]

34. Did you miss this under disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue?

That seems quite consistent with the previous definition.

When you're trying to claim that dictionary definitions are wrong, it's time to re-think your argument.

[LostOne4Ever]

37. Untrue

Untrue does not mean holding the contraposition.

If you see me heading north and then later someone says they believe I was heading west you disbelieve them. You hold that position as untrue. That does not mean you believe I am heading East either.

When you base your defiinition on a dictionary by a theocrat, that directly contradicts itself, and is contrary to the Premiere english dictionary in the world....its time to re-think your argument.

[Jim__]

53. Yes, I disbelieve you. I believe you are not heading west.

[LostOne4Ever]

56. Thus a lack of belief

You do not hold the Contra-position.

[Jim__]

60. No. Thus a positive belief that you are not heading west.

[LostOne4Ever]

62. Again

it does not imply or in anyway mean you believe the opposite. Just that you do not hold the statement to be true. Your positive believe would be that I am heading north.

If you did not see me, you would have no belief at all. LACK OF BELIEF.

[Jim__]

114. Once more and that's it.

I reject the claim that you're heading west as untrue - i.e. I believe you are not heading west.

Let a represent an agent capable of believing, let R represent the relationship believes and let w represent the state he's heading west.

aRw means: a believes he is heading west.
~(aRw) means: a does not believe he is heading west.
aR(~w) means: a believes he is not heading west.

~(aRw) is lack of belief

aR(~w) is a belief that not w

In this case, we have aR(~w)

People can read this and draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to continue the is too - is not on this piece of the discussion. As before, if you have something meaningful to add, I'll discuss it.

[LostOne4Ever]

117. You ignored the point again

Not believing does not necessitate believing the converse.

Your entire premise lies in disbelieving in god means believing there is no god. The converse belief. You are claiming I am going west.

This is not an is too/is not debate. This is you not getting/or ignoring the point and acting like you answered it.

Feel free to leave. But we both know the reason you didn't before, is because you are having doubts...otherwise you would have addressed the point rather than focus on something that has nothing to do with my argument.

[Jim__]

120. Try refuting the logical statements in post #114.

[LostOne4Ever]

129. Why?

What does it have to do with the point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=139419

Untrue

Untrue does not mean holding the contraposition.

That was the entire point of our discussion. Now you want me to disprove something that has nothing to do with it? Something you never disproved and now are ignoring?

There is nothing to disprove as that was not the discussion we were having...it is a tangent you are using to obscure the actual point.

[Jim__]

130. It eliminates the ambiguity of natural language.

If you'd rather put your argument in logical form, go ahead.

You keep saying I'm ignoring your point. I'm not. Logical language will clarify the issue.

[LostOne4Ever]

181. Here goes

Okay. You are saying that untrue means that atheists believe the contraposition (opposite position) of beliving there is no gods. I am saying that holding a position to be untrue does not mean one believes the contraposition is true.

Using symbols and T and False values. In this case T and F shall represent the statement is true or not true as according to the dictionary definition of false

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/false?q=false

By common speech false sometimes means holding the opposite position. But I am using exact language here to avoid any possible twisting of my words and am working based off the math reasoing class I took a while back. The book of which you can look up/purchase here if you are so inclined:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Advanced-Mathematics-2nd-Edition/dp/0130167509/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1405159738&sr=8-4&keywords=introduction+to+advanced+mathematics+second+edition



A=believes I am heading north=(T)rue
B=Believes I am heading east=(F)alse
C=Believes I am heading West=F
D=Believes I am heading South=F
P=Believes I am not heading north=F
Q=Believes I am not heading East=T
R=Believes I am not heading West=T
S=Believes I am not heading South=T

Operations

- = not

/\=and

\/=or

=> = implication

<=>=if and only if



My argument is that the implication that (NOT believing I am heading West mean you believe I am heading in the oppsite direction of east) is false.

An implication can only be false when the initial premise is true and the conclusion is false. So in mathematical logic form I saying this is false:

Q=>B

Lets replace the lets with their truth values.

T=>F

Which is again, by definition of implication, false

F

I said the implication was false and this is a proof of it.

QED

I also made another implication. That disbelieving in the existence of at least one god (or in other words, holding the position there is a god to be not true) implies a lack of belief in the existence of gods. Now before we go to the proof, lets go over if Believing there are no gods also means that one lacks belief in gods, and whether hodling neither position to be true means lack of belief.

Again, false means not true. Lack means without or not enough of something.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/lack?q=lack

Belief is holding a position to be true.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief?q=belief

So lack of belief literally means without holding a position to be true. The definition of disbelief and false.

If one hold neither position to be not true then one holds them both to be false. By definition, that means one holds the god proposition to be untrue/false. One lack belief in gods.

Now if one hold that there are no gods (gods=0) then by definition one hold the position there must be at least 1 god (gods>=1) to be false. Again by definition this means that one lack a belief in gods.

Now in mathematical logical form

A=I Believe there is at least one god=F
B=I Believe there is no gods=F
C=I do not believe there is at least one god=T
D=I do not believe there is no gods=T

Q=I lack of belief in gods= -A /\ (B \/ C \/ D)

Solving for the truth value of Q:

Q= -F /\ (F \/ T \/ T)=T /\ (F \/ T \/ T)=T /\( F \/(T \/T))=T /\ (F \/ T)= T/\T=tauntology (always true).

So Q=T

My implication in math terms that -A=>Q

which in truth values -F=>T

Which equals T=>T

Again an implication is only false if T=>F, thus my implication is true.

Now lets say I actively believed there were no gods. Again:


A=I Believe there is at least one god=F
B=I Believe there is no gods=T
C=I do not believe there is at least one god=T
D=I do not believe there is no gods=F

Q=I lack of belief in gods= -A /\ (B \/ C \/ D)

Solving for the truth value of Q:

Q= -F /\ (T \/ T \/ F)=T /\ (F \/ T \/ T)=T /\( T \/(T \/F))=T /\ (T \/ T)= T/\T=tauntology (always true).

So Q=T

Again, my implication in math terms that -A=>Q

which in truth values -F=>T

Which equals T=>T

Again an implication is only false if T=>F, thus my implication is true even if I did actively believe there are no gods.

QED!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Had some more proofs but since from our conversation from post 118 (im about to post a reply there if you end up reading this first) I think we might be coming to some sort of resolution.

Thank Joe Pesci!

[skepticscott]

136. Try phrasing the statements without using the weasel word "believe"

Since for rational thinkers, "belief" does not enter into it.

Try:
A is convinced a god exists
A is not convinced a god exists

[Jim__]

139. From post #119 down, this subthread is about "belief" and "disbelief."

A good part of the entire thread is about belief and disbelief. Changing words at this point makes no sense.

[skepticscott]

151. I can't help that an inappropriate word was used up to now

Maybe that's why your so-called "logic" leads to a silly conclusion.

But if you can't ram the same argument through using the correct words, I understand. Atheist is not about belief, and any argument that assumes the existence of it as part of my thought process and worldview about "gods" is flawed.

[trotsky]

131. Technically...

a(~R)w should be used to mean a does not believe he is heading west

[Nitram]

29. Jim, youre right.

Atheism is a firm belief that god does not exist. An agnostic believes that the existence or not of god is not knowable. That is what the words mean outside of the larger political and religious fray. I am familiar with religious people who contend that makes agnostics atheists. And I am familiar with theists who want to add agnostics to their numbers.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Those two words deal with two different things.

Theism (both sides) is about belief. Gnosticism (both sides) is about knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. To call oneself just "agnostic" does not address whether one actually beliefs in a god or not.

[Jim__]

35. Thanks Nitram. Welcome to the Religion Forum.

People tend to get a little excited about discussions sometimes.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. When people are trying to misrepresent an entire group

And put their head in the ground when THAT SPECIFIC group tells them that they are wrong....the group has every right to get excited.

But insisting on a definition when members of that very group tell you it is wrong...that is the definition of intolerance.

[trotsky]

40. Yeah, they do.

Especially when the room's chief enforcer of "you don't get to tell people how to use words" steps up to say "I'm telling you how you get to use that word!"

Hypocrisy tends to rile people up.

[Nitram]

43. I'm not surprised.

I just object to people accusing Sagan of being a closet atheist without the courage to admit it. And insisting that agnosticism is the same as atheism, a common canard used by both some religionists and some atheists.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Can you point to someone here using 'agnosticism' as the same as atheism?

I realize there's a speech by Dawkins doing something along those lines, but he's not here right now, and I would take issue with his claims in that speech as well, if he were.

[Goblinmonger]

67. Nice strawman you built

Nobody is claiming agnostic and atheist are the same thing. Those arguing against you are telling you that they describe different things and are not mutually exclusive.

[Nitram]

78. Atheism and agnosticism are indeed mutually exclusive

See "difference between knowledge and belief".

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Fucking. Face. Palm.

[Nitram]

91. there you go again with that irreffutable logic of yours

[Goblinmonger]

87. How does that even make sense?

So if I have a belief in a god, I can't be sure or unsure about that belief? Or if I'm not positive that there is a god (i.e. I don't have the knowledge), I can't have a belief in that god?

Do you even know what mutually exclusive means?

[Nitram]

93. Monger, belief is a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

Miriam-Webster

Do you doubt something that you "are sure" is true?

do you even know what.....oh, never mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Who the fuck is Miriam-Webster?

[Nitram]

103. Merriam-Webster

Obviously you've run completely out of steam since you all you can do is resort to childish profanity, accusations of spin and a cute little obsession with spelling.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Spelling? Please, you can't even get whole WORDS right.

"Non-belief in god is not the same as believing that god does not belief."

[Goblinmonger]

101. So you are saying that if someone says they belief in god

they are saying that they are absolutely correct.? That their knowledge is solid?

You don't think there are two different questions?

For me, I don't believe in a god. Therefore I am an atheist.
I don't necessary think I am 100% right. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't have the knowledge to make that claim. Therefore I am an agnostic.

I'm an agnostic atheist. There are gnostic atheists as well as gnostic theists. And agnostic theists.

Surely people have tried to make "agnostic" mean they aren't nasty like atheists and it's just this "I don't know" kind of word, but that is not what the word really means.

[Nitram]

105. Ok

If you want to be both, go ahead, knock yourself out. But it was obvious all along you just think agnostics are atheists who lack the courage to admit it. If that's your little axe to grind, enjoy. But leave Sagan out of it. You can't speak for the man. I let him speak for himself. and he's really good at it.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Except several of us have pointed out groups that are theists that are also agnostic.

You are super-determined to make this about something it isn't actually about, aren't you?

[Goblinmonger]

111. Not what I'm saying

I'm saying that is someone identifies as an agnostic, that that has no impact or distinction as to whether they believe or not. It does not answer the question of belief. If someone tells me they are agnostic, they could still believe in god. I know that isn't what they probably mean, but that is more because of how people have incorrectly used the word.

Sagan can call himself a Martian for all I care. Doesn't make him right on the issue. If someone asks him "Do you like pie?" and he says "I eat food" that doesn't answer the question. He can think he answered the question, but he hasn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Quick, you better delete this wiki page for being a contradiction in terms!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Derp

[Warren Stupidity]

153. which would be a good time to bring up

Christian atheists
Jewish atheists
Buddhist atheists

All of whom exist, are religious, and are atheists.

Then again you got alert trolled, of course, so you can't participate in this cluster fuck.

[immoderate]

163. Can't speak for the others, but I'm a Jewish atheist, and not religious.

My connection to the religion is mostly gastronomic. That is I'll attend religious observance where the food is good. But unlike the others, being Jewish is a tribal identity. Can't say if that's a good thing.

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

167. I think that would make you a secular/cultural jew. There are religious jewish atheists.

Buddhism, at least in its original form, has no gods. There is an atheist branch of Christianity - the "god is dead" folks. There are Hindu atheists as well.

[immoderate]

168. You flatter me.

Because I associate being Christian with a belief in particular, I see some cognative dissonance there. OTOH I have a good friend who labels herself a Pagan Atheist.

--imm

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Atheism is non-belief, not necessarily a positive 'firm belief'.

"An agnostic believes that the existence or not of god is not knowable."

And a theist can be agnostic if he or she does not believe the precise nature or current status of the creator/god they believe in, is knowable.

Deists often fall into this category, particularly those that think god has fucked off and abandoned the universe. They still believe in a god, but believe the god cannot be perceived, because it's not around or interested, or understandable to us.

[Nitram]

122. Congratulations, you are an agnostic, Agnostic Crusader!

Atheism is indeed a firm belief that god does not exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. I'm an agnostic atheist.

You don't get to make up meanings of words.

Edit: Well, you can try, but as the man said 'that which can be asserted without evidence, can be fairly dismissed without evidence.'

[immoderate]

165. I'm an atheist, and I have no firm beliefs.

Get real, and give up the philosophical gubbish.

--imm

[randys1]

152. Kurt is your avie, didnt know we could have him as an avie...

found out I am related to him somehow...he and George Carlin are the two greatest Americans of the 20th century, maybe FDR too

[Jim__]

154. He's still available as an avatar - under people.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to use him.

[rug]

258. Boy, did you ever predict that one.

On the money.

[Jim__]

264. Who knew?

[WovenGems]

259. Well then

Is an agnostic really an atheist? Nope.

[haele]

41. He believed in what he believed in, when he thought about it in private.

and when he spoke in public as a professional scientist, he spoke for the need of artifacts that could be tested or analyzed and actual evidence when dealing with facts, and apparently did not want to muddy his professional reputation with any potential personal inconsistencies that someone else with an agenda could use as a "gotcha".

My only comment to this is that my personal take is that he thought it should be only his concern what he believed in, because there was a great, big universe far beyond him and his immediate influence. I may be right, I may be wrong , and it doesn't matter what I think because only Sagan knew what spiritual form he might have believed in if he believed in one at all.

Personally, I know through evidence that the universe is much larger and far more diverse than what I see explained in most religions or "personal relationships" with known gods or other spiritual dealings, so I take comfort in what I believe acts in my own personal world, and leave it at that. I suspect many "hard" scientists feel the same way.

Haele

[cbayer]

74. "he thought it should be only his concern what he believed in"

That is a great statement and one that we should all embrace.

As long as my beliefs or lack of beliefs stay off of your toes, it's really of no concern to you.

People should really stop labeling each other. As you point out, this is an issue that is so vast and diverse that simple labels do a great disservice to each individual.

[TheSarcastinator]

58. Sagan was a scientist

and as such refused to speculate beyond the data. Both of these statements make that position very clear.

Anyone who thinks this fact is somehow a victory for religion in any way has completely missed the point.

[TM99]

109. True, and anyone who thinks this

fact is somehow a victory for atheism in any way has completely missed the point as well.

Sagan grasped what few seem to be able to do. Science is objective and can provide only so many answers about the 'outside' world. Religion, belief, philosophy, what have you are subjective experiences. Science can not and should not try to answer those questions. Only each individual person can ask the question and state their own answer to such questions of belief, ethics, metaphysics, etc.

And long before the internet and social media confused persona management with genuine intimacy and identity, certain subjects were shared not with the world at large but rather with those intimate with us in private or simply with ourselves alone.

[skepticscott]

115. Oh, you're so right

Hardly anyone understands the boundaries of science. Only a handful of humans have even been able to understand what kinds of questions science can answer and what kinds it can't.

If not for those damn scientists all over the world trying to answer questions of ethics with the scientific method every day, it would be SUCH a better world.

[pinto]

124. Makes sense to me.

Science seems to be as much about what we don't know or prove as what we do know and prove.

[Maedhros]

133. Neil Degrasse Tyson made an exceptional point in Cosmos.

He said that scientists are comfortable with not knowing everything, as the existence of the unknown provides opportunity for exploration.

I think much of the friction that arises between science and religion originates from the perceived hubris of the religious who claim access to unique, revealed truth and who criticize advocates of science on the grounds that science can never achieve total understanding of the universe.

I have a friend and philosophical conversation partner that beats me over the head with this constantly. He dismisses science out-of-hand, because mankind's accumulated knowledge is insignificant in the context of the infinite cosmos. I try to keep telling him that scientists know and accept this fact, but he is very dogmatic and willfully disregards arguments that don't support his conclusion.

[pinto]

142. Neither science nor religion can achieve total understanding of the universe, imo.

Yet both are significant to much of the world. And both provide opportunities for exploration. Agree, there's a value in that.

[LostOne4Ever]

128. Why did you post this?

I thought you hated divisiveness like this. I thought you hated this very topic.

I don't get it.

[trotsky]

132. Best post of the thread. n/t

[skepticscott]

134. She's posted just above

that it's a "silly debate". And yet she feeds it. Hard to regard her OP as anything but divisive shit-stirring of the kind she claims to abhor.

Our friend cbayer doing exactly what she decries in others..shocking!

[cbayer]

135. Of course you don't

You have decided this is a team sport and have chosen your team.

I get it.

[trotsky]

140. You have no answer, so you go for the personal attack.

If you stay true to form, you'll play the victim card in your next response.

[LostOne4Ever]

143. Thanks for the response

Take care, and May good fortune follow you.

[cbayer]

145. You were at one point so able to relate to others across a wide range.

Then you decided, for reasons that are not clear, to become intensely partisan.

It's really too bad, but that is your bed and you will lie in it, I guess.

Take care, and may good fortune follow you as well.

[trotsky]

146. Really? A parting shot like that?

LostOne4Ever said nothing like that to you, but you had to get one last dig in.

No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

[LostOne4Ever]

187. Thank you!

For both this post and the one before that!

[rug]

149. This thread needs a soundtrack.

[MellowDem]

156. Carl Sagan was wrong on his definition...

He even says atheists just don't believe in the Abrahamic gods. Hmmm.

Not too surprising, give that atheism has been demonized as a dogmatic, crazy position by those exact three religions, which have the most influence, so in that context it makes some sense.

But atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing more or nothing less. That infuriates many theists, because they see the weakness in their argument and want to avoid it by proclaiming everyone suffers from the same weakness.

[TM99]

173. Yes, I am certain Carl Sagan was wrong and

you are right.

After all, Sagan had a Ph.D. in Astronomy & Astrophysics. He lectured at Harvard and was a full professor at Cornell. He also worked for NASA as a consultant. And from the onset until the time of his death, he taught a course on critical thinking at Cornell.

Naturally, he was wrong in his definition. Or could it be that your arrogance, which has been demonstrated numerous times in various threads, does not allow you to realize that you are wrong?

[skepticscott]

174. And which of those things would preclude him from being wrong?

Seriously? That's your argument? Sagan was a Really Smart Guy, so he couldn't possibly be wrong about this? He had no blind spots? No biases?

This is just a lame argument from authority, not an argument based on the facts of the issue.

[rug]

180. Teaching critical thinking, for one thing.

Frankly, I hope he flunked anyone who resorted to using "just a lame argument" as a response.

[edhopper]

192. From the same people

who constantly tell us how wrong Dawkins is despite his degrees and chairs.

[skepticscott]

195. Yes, I wonder how our friend

with his fingers in his ears would diagnose that?

[Goblinmonger]

207. So you are fine with his definition of atheist?

I mean, you musty because because he's so smart and had degrees and everything.

So you will from this point forward refer to all Hindus as atheists, right. Anyone who believes is a god that isn't the god of Abraham is an atheist. I'm sure you will.

[MellowDem]

288. How many logical fallacies can you fit in one response?

Want to appeal to authority a few more times? Maybe throw in a few more ad hominems?

If you agree with Sagan that the definition of atheism is an active disbelief in only the Abrahamic gods, then you are just as wrong as him, except it's worse given you have modern context he didn't.

Atheists now are much more open than even Sagan's time, we've rejected the many demonized labels and definitions that were given to us by those Abrahamic religions, definitions that only fit with the presumption that those religions are the default.

The only people I see going by that definition of atheism nowadays are conservative fundamentalists, the same people that say atheists don't exist.

You'd have to be exceedingly naive, arrogant, and privileged to defend such a definition, to tell non believers that their non-belief isn't really non-belief until measured up against a specific dogma.

[TM99]

291. There are several meanings of the words atheism and agnosticism that have been mentioned

in this thread.

Some are accurate. Some are very inaccurate.

Please refrain from the tired tripe of 'privilege' with me. I am not a theist, never was. Correcting you and others arrogance in assuming that you are 'smarter' than men and women (like Sagan) who actually do know what these terms have always meant and continue to mean is neither arrogance, nor naivete, nor 'privilege'. Many who throw that last one around use it as a 'buzzword' to attempt to justify their experience as being the only real or true one when it is not. And if someone disagrees with them or corrects their errors, then that gets brought out to justify their mistakes.

You claim special knowledge of a term that has a specific set of meanings that you now wish to deny. It is arrogant to state that Carl Sagan, a rather intelligent and learned man, was somehow wrong in his understanding of the word 'atheism'. You did this same behavior in the thread on psychology and religion, once again claiming knowledge that was flatly wrong and arguing that those who were right, simply were not & worst were 'privileged'.

I will only play this game so long with you again in this thread.

[MellowDem]

293. Look up appeal to authority...

It's not a good argument.

I don't claim special knowledge, etc. etc., just correct knowledge. Theism is a belief in gods. Atheism, by the very meaning and definition of words, is a lack of belief in gods. Anyone who presumes "gods" only means Abrahamic gods has a very narrow, ethnocentric idea of theism and atheism.

Anyone who presumes all atheists are gnostic atheists doesn't understand gnostic vs. agnostic.

Both presumptions are heard over and over by conservative theists. People who hold this definition of atheism, nowadays, is usually a bigoted asshole.

[TM99]

295. You really don't know what you are talking about.

That has become quite clear.

Atheism has connotations and denotations, in other words, correct definitions and then the context both historical and contextual for which they exist.

There is no concept of 'atheism' in philosophical/religious traditions other than the Abrahamic ones here in the West. Hinduism has no dualistic philosophy of god/not god. Buddhism has no proposition of god/not god for a simpler reason - the Buddha purposefully concerned his teachings with practices and not speculative metaphysics including ultimate 'truths'. Indigenous religions have no duality either. This is truly a unique by-product of the history of the Abrahamic Western culture and the later Enlightenment philosophy and later still logical positivism and scientism of the 20th century.

Agnostic has a specific meeting within the same context. Gnostics are a specific type of religious tradition in the west, not the opposite of an agnostic in normal discourse.

Modern atheist movements are redefining terms for political and social reasons, and therefore, actual discussions of philosophy, religion, and science are convoluted messes especially here in this forum with the group of toxic 'atheists' of which, yes, you are definitely a member blather on with insults and juvenile attempts at 'logic'. Take your fundamentalism elsewhere. I am placing you on Ignore.

[Act_of_Reparation]

298. Nope.

Cicero, in De Naturam Deorum, described Diagoras as an "atheist".

Athenagoras, in his apology written to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, addresses three charges brought against Christianity by Pagan Rome: incest, cannibalism, and atheism.

Atheism, denoting a belief in no gods, is older than Christianity itself. Your claims, therefore, remain specious.

[MellowDem]

299. Only the West has concepts of atheism?

You are ignorant. And ethnocentric.

[Act_of_Reparation]

294. These are nonsensical claims.

There are several meanings of the words atheism and agnosticism that have been mentioned. Some are accurate. Some are very inaccurate.

Given what follows, I'd be curious to know which "meanings" you find inaccurate. The only ones I've seen that bear little or no resemblance to litany of literature regarding this topic are those colloquial definitions pulled from online dictionaries and, humorously, that of Sagan himself.

It is arrogant to state that Carl Sagan, a rather intelligent and learned man, was somehow wrong in his understanding of the word 'atheism'.

Yes, Sagan was a smart man. That, however, does not make him an expert in any and every field upon which he saw fit to comment. His area of expertise was physics, not philosophy. Not epistemology. Not psychology. Not any of the fields of study to which the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" are of particular interest. His words, in effect, carry no more weight than do mine, yours, or anyone else's here. That is, except, those of us who do happen to specialize in those fields. In which case, you really should be taking their word over Sagan's.

Perhaps Sagan did understand the definition of "atheist", but if he did, the OP is in no way indicative of that, as in his quote he necessarily ascribes attributes to the term that are not held by the mainstream. He limits atheism to a certain disbelief in a very specific god. What definition of atheism -- besides Sagan's -- necessitates certainty? What definition of atheism -- besides Sagan's -- is limited solely to the disbelief in the Abrahamic deity?

There are none I can think of. Even the author of the article admitted some confusion at Sagan's choice of words.

[hrmjustin]

162. Sounds like he just didn't know and he didn't like labels.

It is a shame this thread went downhill.

[edhopper]

193. I think he dismissed the label to make a point about

extraordinary claims. It's not that he believed there were any gods, or given the evidence thought it remotely possible. He was making a scientific argument about claims and evidence.

[skepticscott]

197. Went downhill?

It was shit-stirring flamebait from the OP, dude. Even cbayer admitted that it's a silly issue, and her side of it is ridiculously wrong to boot, as has been demonstrated many times.

[hrmjustin]

198. I have no doubt you will argue your point well.

[skepticscott]

200. I have no doubt you'll be sitting by your computer all afternoon

ready to respond to anything posted with content- free passive-aggressive one-liners.

Thanks, I'll pass. Anyone who cares to actually think about it can read my post 196. No hope for you, though.

[hrmjustin]

205. If you don't want to hear me then don't respond to me.

Put me on ignore if you don't like me.

[rug]

209. But they he wouldn't be able to attack you with actively aggressive insults.

He has a dilemma.

[hrmjustin]

216. He seems angry at the fact I answered him in seconds.

How dare I respond so quickly!

[rug]

218. You hardly had time to soak in the profundity of his comment.

[hrmjustin]

219. I feel so ashamed!

[rug]

220. Tsk. "No hope for you, though."

Sometimes on the subway random crazy people would come up to me and lecture me for a minute and then walk away. I feel your pain.

[skepticscott]

260. So why did you say you didn't read this thread?

When you actually did? And why did you say this thread didn't interest you, and then ask questions about it?

Could you possibly be any more dishonest?

[hrmjustin]

261. I read the op and a few of the early responses. I am sorry I was not clear on that.

Coukd you tell me whst upset you and others here?

[skepticscott]

262. I thought you weren't interested in this thread

Were you being totally honest when you said that?

And the answer to your question is all over this thread. Read the fucking thread if you're really interested in understanding anything (which I doubt).

You should have plenty of time for that, since you seem to be doing your usual hitting refresh every 30 seconds, looking for something to respond to.

[hrmjustin]

263. Ok you want to make this personal. I don't. I am asking you and no I don't want to read over 200

responses.

[skepticscott]

265. You've already been answered in posts directed at you

so stop BSing and stop wasting my time. Read the answers for yourself or don't.

[hrmjustin]

266. Another poster was kind enough to answer me in the other thread.

Ignore is your friend. If I waste your time then don't bother with me. I don't post as much as I do in this room as I used to.

[CBGLuthier]

177. I think that if Carl Sagan did not consider himself an atheist that would have been

CARL SAGAN's business. How rude for some people to declare HE WAS an ATHEIST.

No damn it, HE WAS A SCIENTIST. Scientists like evidence for their beliefs. Now me. I am not a scientist so I call myself an atheist. but I am doing so on "FAITH" alone. That and a few thousand years of science that prove there is no need for a god for the universe to exist. But that is still not proof there is no god. I could still turn out to be wrong so I sure as fuck ain't gonna insist that someone else call themselves an atheist.

[edhopper]

194. He was an atheist

in that he lacked any belief in a God or gods.
But you are right that he was a scientist, so he phrased it in terms of science, which for him was a better argument than a philosophical or theological one (where he might have seen the term 'atheist' belongs)

[skepticscott]

196. The fact that he didn't consider himself one

doesn't mean he wasn't one. Words mean things, whether you like it or not. If he didn't believe in any gods, he was an atheist. Period. If he didn't want to call himself one publicly, that's his business, but it doesn't change the fact.

Would you accept the same argument from all of the Republicans who say "I don't consider myself a bigot"? If someone says that, does it automatically mean they aren't a bigot, and that it's wrong for anyone here to say that they are? Seriously? Is that really what you're arguing?

[edhopper]

201. Well bigot is

a word most wouldn't call themselves, and I hope Sagan didn't see "atheist" in that way. I think Sagan was making a point about science and critical thinking in the way to look at God, instead of saying "I don't believe". which makes it an opinion instead of an objective concept.
To your analogy, I think it is like someone who only votes for Republicans and supports everything in the Republican platform and then says they are not Republicans. They are Republicans in everything but self-nominally.

How many threads on GD say the Tea Party are just Republicans, and know one on DU objects to that?

[skepticscott]

208. Well, Sagan may have wished

that he didn't have to regard the label of "atheist" as a negative, but it still is, to a very significant degree, even now, so you can be sure that it was even more so in his day, something he certainly knew (since we've been told how infallibly smart he was). And he wasn't just some astronomer laboring in relative obscurity. He was a highly visible public popularizer of science, whose worthy efforts might have been compromised if he'd just come out openly and said "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any of your gods, so cope".

In any case, the bottom line is that, just because someone says "I'm not an X", or "I don't choose to call myself an X" that doesn't mean they aren't one. My example was just one that even the religionistas could get their heads around, if they are even marginally progressive.

[edhopper]

211. yes, he was an atheist

whatever he called himself.
Though i understand the way he framed it.

NGT uses a similar tone. Being how public they are, I wouldn't want to criticize their approach, seeing how effective they are at presenting science to the public.

[Tikki]

202. I don't believe in god(s)...including Dr. Sagan...

Respect for the man, though...

Tikki

[djean111]

204. I take issue with this statement - " An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is

no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God."
In my opinion, there is no compelling evidence either way.
I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a deity. I don't need to justify that, and theists, of course, are free to believe whatever they want, (having no compelling evidence either), as long as their theism does not affect my life. In today's world, though, avoiding theism is getting pretty difficult. Ugh. Hatred towards other theists, hatred of gay people, etc.

To be as plain as possible, why would anyone need to debate about something that cannot be proved either way?
Just posturing, on both sides.

[edhopper]

212. I wonder if that is out of context

since it seems to be in response to someone.

[djean111]

213. It does seem like an oddly illogical statement to me - neither "side" has proof of any kind,

just belief or non-belief.

[edhopper]

214. Well I disagree with his definition of atheist

Last edited Sat Jul 12, 2014, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

An atheist needs no proof for the nonexistence of something.
To quote Sagan himself;
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Burden of proof is on those who claim there is something.
Which is his point about God, I think.

[djean111]

215. That's what I am saying - his definition of "atheist" is incorrect.

Just finished a novel about how the Catholic church was doing everything it could to suppress the theory/fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. The church had a firm grip on science, in that science had to agree with their interpretation of their bible. People died for this, before the church accepted it. Few centuries back, of course. But it looks to me like the church felt that science needed to affirm the church - no separation.

[edhopper]

217. I agree that his definition in incorrect

what's more he meets mine for an atheist.

[rug]

210. I can't wait for Part 2.

[cbayer]

274. I know! He might discuss his predilection for corn flake fried chicken.

The all hell is going to break out.

[rug]

276. I hope the interview took place in an Olive Garden.

[cbayer]

282. Only if there were pit bulls with open carry breasfeeding kittens.

Only then can I get properly outraged.

[AlbertCat]

222. Carl Sagan denied being an atheist.

And you fell for it!

[cbayer]

232. Who is the you that you are addressing here?

[Gore1FL]

238. Neil deGrasse Tyson says the same thing. So does Richard Dawkins when pressed.

So do I. No one can be completely sure.

Now that we've clarified this little piece of pedantic pretentiousness out of the way, Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins, and I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in God. Call it what you want.

[cbayer]

244. I think we are in need of a new nomenclature.

When those most intensely invested in these words can not agree on their meaning, you end up with circular arguments that never get resolved.

Plus both atheist and theist have taken on much greater meanings than they were ever intended to have, and much of that is heavily layered with very strong emotional content.

I like believer, non-believer and "i just don't know", but I am sure that will have trouble as well.

But it probably wouldn't be worse than people feeling that they have some kind of right to label others.

[pinto]

245. I think belief, don't know and non-belief are all parts of a connected spectrum.

Sort of a unified field theory of making sense of the world and our places in it. As we understand it.
Institutional issues aside, I'm good with that.

[cbayer]

246. There has got to be better solution, right?

One where the lines aren't so clearly drawn and the grey areas are much more friendly.

The way things are set up now, choosing a side becomes critically important.

But it is also critically divisive.

[trotsky]

249. It definitely is divisive.

As you already knew. But you opened up that wound anyway by posting this thread. Way to go, forcing people to choose sides and fight. Great job!

[pinto]

250. The line I think we can all support is separation of church & state. I strongly support that.

The other stuff - I agree it's pretty divisive. We all, as progressives, liberals espouse the value of embracing diversity. Valuing it.
I'd suggest that diversity in matters of faith, belief, non-belief be included in that picture. Doesn't seem a stretch to me.

Institutional issues are a hurdle. I think we all get that. Yet the rank and file for the most part move on. And the younger generation (I'm of an age where I can say that. LOL) will define where we go from here. I'm really optimistic seeing the views of my younger cousins, nephews and nieces. A small sample, but they have friends who have friends who have friends, etc.

My take from a US perspective. How it goes in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia may have a different course.

[cbayer]

251. I'm with you, pinto, and remain confused at times as to why this seems such a

difficult goal to achieve.

I think the hard liners have set up such a "we win, you lose" mentality that it's going to take some time to move past that.

The rank and file do move on, or they attach themselves to groups that reinforce extremism. It is that second group that I have the most trouble with. They are invested in having enemies, even when those enemies are really on their side.

I think they need to be left by the side of the road stamping their little feet and screaming "look at me!!!!".

If we just keep moving along, we won't even be able to hear them after a while.

[rug]

257. For someone who posts drivel constantly

I'm surprised you haven't been electrocuted by your keyboard yet.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

267. Not sure why you'd post something like this

Knowing the sort of shit-storm it would stir up. I guess all that talk about tone was complete bullshit then. When considering your future tone patrol maneuvers, this thread will be duly noted.

[rug]

268. A Washington Post profile of Carl Sagan' beliefs or nonbeliefs is perfectly apt for this Group.

Not sure why you'd infer malicious intent. Better look elsewhere for the cause of shitstorms.

And this:

When considering your future tone patrol maneuvers, this thread will be duly noted.

is simply laughable.

[cbayer]

269. I had no idea that an article about Csrl Sagan's religious views would stir up a shit storm.

And even if I had, I think it may be a shit storm worth stirring up.

Certainly it's a better shitstorm that those that get stirred up by the latest crime committed by some poor psychotic person who had a religious delusion and must, therefore, represent all of religion.

Talking about how people define themselves and what those definitions mean is a perfectly reasonable topic for this group.

What talk about tone and tone patrol maneuvers? You mean the talk about treating each other civilly and having a discussion without making it personal? I fear that the playbook about me may need some updating, as the same memes are getting very stale. Surely you can find something new and refreshing to personally attack me for.

Duly note away! I'm sure it will make you feel fully justified in allowing free for all personal attacks on me in the group you host.

[trotsky]

271. "psychotic person who had a religious delusion and must, therefore, represent all of religion"

But who actually said that?

You knew full well what a divisive topic this is, because you've been right in the fray every time it comes up. Too many people know, cbayer, for you to play the innocence card.

This was hurtful and totally unnecessary and it's a pity you evidently you think it was deserved as some part of a twisted quid pro quo.

[hrmjustin]

272. Your hurt because she posted this op? why?

[rug]

273. It disrupts his narrarive.

[rug]

275. Do tell, then, why those articles are posted.

And do tell, then, how many religious people they represent.

And a discussion of Sagan's thoughts is neither hurtful nor unnecessary unless you have an aversion to discussion.

[djean111]

277. I do think that believing one can ascertain a dead (or alive) person's thoughts and beliefs is

kind of creepy, though, even if not "hurtful".

[rug]

278. Not if you use their recorded words.

Maybe there should be no further discussion of Hitchens.

[djean111]

279. Fine with me!

Even with recorded words, we might not know the context or whatever.
I don't like to read biographies that purport to know what someone else was thinking, at all - this is not a tit-for-tat thing.

[rug]

280. I like biographies.

What drives me up the wall, though, is when the biographer recounts verbatim dialogue.

[djean111]

281. Ha! I like verbatim dialogue a lot more than reading what the biographer decides the person was

thinking. Ugh. Becomes fiction at that point, for me.

[okasha]

290. I think rug means verbatim dialogue like this:

That evening, Henry followed Anne up the stairs to her bedchamber, where she wished him a firm "Good night, Your Majesty."

"What the fook!" exclaimed the King. "You REALLY MEANT I wouldn't get any without a wedding ring?"

[djean111]

292. Ah! Yes, imagining what they said as if it was actually verbatim.

Verbatim, to me, is an actual quote.

[Warren Stupidity]

285. reply #2 cbayer chuckles about how badly this thread of hers is going to go.

but she had no idea.

[trotsky]

286. Pure innocence, y'all!

Just wanted to have a conversation topic!

[Dorian Gray]

296. I wouldn't post this OP

bc I would think it was "shit-stirring." But I wouldn't post the myriad OPs that show crimes from people having delusions about demons talking to them, either. (And I say mock bc there is a level of... see! Religous delusion!... about those threads.)

I think discussion from this, definitions of words, and the ability for an individual to define who they are despite what they believe are all valid discussions to have. If this was posted as a "gotcha!"... not cool. But still a discussion could be had.

Could a case be made for Sagan that he's not an atheist bc he says he's not, despite his beliefs being defined as atheistic? Did he evolve on the topic? It was one interview and one statement. Can we take that as his definitive views throughout life?

I like to think of life as one long learning process. Who knows what I'll believe in five years from now?

[trotsky]

297. Regarding the delusion threads,

there's a subject that unfortunately gets buried every time one comes up. And I don't want to risk resurrecting this stinky turd of a thread by starting a new battle about everyone's favorite D-word. But the question is, how can we tell the difference between sincere religious belief and mental illness/delusion in some of those cases? Belief in demonic possession and the need for exorcism was just reinforced by the single largest Christian church in existence. Can we truly be surprised when people embrace that and use it? And who is to say whether it's being used "rationally"? It isn't even a rational belief to begin with - how could you draw the line anywhere else?

And just to be on the safe side, let me state that I am *NOT* equating all religious belief with mental illness!!!

Oh, and regarding Sagan: we'll never know. The world has changed a lot in the time since he died - (remember around that time, then-prez George Herbie Bush says that atheists aren't patriots). Theists controlled the word "atheist" for a very long time, deciding how it was going to be used. There is still a lot of baggage left from that. More and more atheists feel comfortable calling themselves that now, because we are agreeing that it simply means we don't believe the claims of the theists.

[Dorian Gray]

300. I'm in a hurry

but I didn't want to let this go without a response. I'm happy that people can be out and proud atheists now (or more so than years ago). Any type of discrimination is abhorrent. And I know that it seems to be one of the last acceptable vestiges of bigotry. That's not cool. At all.

Society is changing for the better. Sure, bickering and distrust will still be out there. But I hope that all discrimination that atheists face in this country is permanently ended.

[gcomeau]

287. He believed, incorrectly,

...that "An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”


An atheist is someone who *does not believe* there is a God. Which is a completely different statement. Even Sagan screwed up sometimes.


And from his other statements on the issue, he was an atheist. He just didn't know what the word meant and that it described his position.

[MellowDem]

289. Further OP ideas for people that don't understand atheism...

Post an article that says atheism is really the positive disbelief in Abrahamic beliefs.

Post an article that says that says out atheists are militant.

Post an article that says atheists don't really exist.

Post an article that says agnostics are chill and cool, and totally different and separate from those mean old atheists.