No, did you misread mine? Richard Dawkins attempt at redefinition of Atheism aside, the point is that what an individual believes is not objectively harmful, how they apply those beliefs and if they force those views on others against their will then we have potentially at least, objective harm. This is true of religion and non-religion constructs within society.
Carl Sagan did not see Atheism as Richard Dawkins does, he ascribed to a traditional view of agnosticism as defined by Thomas Huxley, he was, as Huxley was, a free-thinker...he had no active position on whether God was extant or not...
Huxley wrote:
“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
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.”
Richard Dawkins, by his own admission, feels he has 'more or less' attained a level of knowledge on whether God exists or not...(99.9% or 6.9 out of 7 sure of his convictions is how he phrases it on his 1-7 scale in that debate with the Arch-Bishop I think)...this is not how Huxley defined agnosticism, nor is Huxley's Agnosticism how Carl Sagan defined Atheism either.
While there are many definitions and re-definitions floating about for a range of philosophical positions including Atheism, you quoted Sagan, so we should really maintain the context with which Sagan defined Atheism.
Personally I think ultimately Atheism and Agnosticism are both flawed insofar that they both hold that the question "does God exist" is a valid proposition in the first instance...until there is a universally coherent definition of God that is actually testable, the question, in my opinion, is pretty meaningless on any practical basis.
I also feel that people get too invested in whether God exists or not, when really the questions, scrutiny and criticisms are really to do with how we manifest our beliefs, whether they are theistic or otherwise. There is a difference between atheism, agnosticism and theism and what most people are actually arguing about, which is a modern form of Anti-Clericism....and in that, whether you believe in God or not is immaterial.
Anyway, that's what I believe, although unlike Prof Dawkins I have no arbitrary scale to ascertain its truth value, I simply remain a sceptic... and it's now time for my bed. Goodnight all, and try to be nice to each other.
Last edited:
I myself am not religious, hatchings, matchings and dispatchings are my main resons for going to church. We support the schools (4 kids) and church as they do good things in the community. 
