Again, I dispute your definition because I think your “methodology” of deriving it is flawed. However, I believe Sagan has the right to define his views how he sees fit and I agree it’s unfair to claim after the fact that he was an atheist. It might be acceptable to me to say “under my definition, Sagan would have been an atheist,” but if he rejected the label then that rejection should be acknowledged.

” Or do you support a political ideology”

I don’t support political ideologies period.

(Dale Husband: Yes, I am referring to the former, because once you claim that atheism means “lacking belief in God” [which was certainly true of Sagan], then it follows logically from that that Sagan was indeed an atheist. The fact that he publicly denied being one thus makes him look like a liar and a coward decades after the fact, when in reality he was using the older definition of atheism commonly understood in his [and Huxley's] time. And here is a video showing exactly that claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU )

I’m not particularly interested in moral philosophy, not least because moral philosophy doesn’t seem to have any impact whatsoever on the real-world events that we describe as “im/moral behavior”; I guess that makes me repulsive.

(Dale Husband: Are you a racist, sexist, homophobe, or anti-Semite? Or do you support a political ideology that denies freedom and justice to any group of human beings for the benefit of another group, like Fascism and Communism did in the 20th Century or social Conservatism does now? Many professed atheists might, because rejecting Theism does not automatically make you free from prejudices against other human beings. If no to both questions, I have no quarrel with you.)

Corliss Lamont, in his book the Philosophy of Humanism, stated in the introduction to its sixth edition (1982):
http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.pdf

Speakers for the Moral Majority insist that all Humanists
are pernicious atheists, although Humanists have more and
more tended to call themselves nontheists or agnostics. Humanists
find no adequate proof of a supernatural God functioning
upon this earth and guiding the human race to a divine
destiny; but the immensity of the universe makes them
cautious about absolutely denying the existence of a God
among the billions of galaxies billions of light years away,
and all containing billions of stars, many of which might
have planets where some form of life could have developed.

I support atheist and non-theist people that are moderated by Humanist philosophy. Those that are not are repulsive to me.

(Dale Husband: Insisting on dealing fairly and logically with historical reality is “needlessly dogmatic and silly” according to you.

Your credibility just went out the window.)

And New Atheists should also stop saying that no one can ever “know” there is or is not a God and therefore nearly all atheists are also agnostics. That was not Huxley’s point.

And later reported on my experiences with the New Atheists here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/02/pz-myers-pisses-some-atheists-off.html

http://newatheism.org/

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion.
Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

That’s exactly what COMMUNISTS would have said half a century ago! If it is unacceptable to force religion on people, how can it be acceptable to force IRRELIGION?

As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest.

I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html#comment-219719

truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 2:53 PM

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise – and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it – promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

Yes, that’s bigotry, because he doesn’t distinguish between harmful beliefs that can be disproven and harmless beliefs that cannot be disproven. Even skeptic champion Carl Sagan said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” To be a New Atheist, you must endorse the opposite assumption.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/louisiana_gives_up_on_the_gulf.php
Senator Adley! There is no god. Pray all you want, it will avail you nothing. Instead of wasting your effort in making pleas to the nonexistent, go down to the beach with an eyedropper and a thimble, and pluck up a little globule of oil — and you will have accomplished more.

Oh, no, that’s not dogmatism, it cannot be absolutism, it will never be bigotry, merely because they say it is not! But you put those statements in religious terms:

It wouldn’t matter if all atheists behaved like Mother Teresa. It is still based on the premise that there is no God. As long as it starts with that premise – and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be atheism -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it – promoting unbelief as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

P Z Myers! There is a god. Deny him all you want, it will avail you nothing. Instead of wasting your effort in making insults to him, go down to a homeless shelter, and give a child there a single M & M — and you will have accomplished more.

How do they sound now?

Some atheists have gone further and asserted that atheism merely means “lacking belief in a god”, but that is illogical since what would follow from that is all newborn babies would therefore be atheist (they are born with NO beliefs at all) and this actually makes the term atheist useless for statistical purposes as well.

Last time i heard a “new atheist” use the term so liberally like that, the reaction he got from the person (a christian) was “All I can say is ‘Kids, say no to drugs.’” Wouldn’t say the same thing, but . . . I agree with you here.

–