Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Okay, if we're going to do Carl Sagan quotes regarding God, here's a few more to consider:

-'Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods.'

-'If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.'

-'Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?'

-'The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God," one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'

-'Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever it has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?'

-'Anything you don't understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.'

-'Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.'

If Sagan wasn't an atheist, he was near enough as makes no odds.

Boru

Vinny G. wasn't trying to be honest and correctly characterize Carl Sagans opinion. No, he was intentionally being dishonest to score what is in his mind a quick "forum point."

In addition, Carl Sagan was a busy scientist who did not enter into the large atheistic debate community where he would have been more exposed to theistic slander, otherwise he would probably have chosen other words.

I didn't want to say this earlier to spare BrianSoddingBoru4's dignity.

But since people are jumping on his post, I'm gonna have to point out what a failsauce it is.

That quote attributed to Sagan was not made by Sagan at all. It was made by Emmett F. Fields in his "Atheism: An Affirmative View" Read his paper here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/e...heism.html

And you can direct your heartfelt apologies to me in private message, Boru.

Brakeman probably doesn't even know how to put his socks on, so I don't expect him to say much else.

---

I don't think this is true for a number of reasons.

Color me surprised.

First of all, it's obvious that there has not been a whole, conscious coming together of nonbelievers to decide on definitions. There has been no turning point, no meeting, no nothing.

There generally isn't, when it comes to evolving language. The usage just changes over time gradually via the nomenclature of the group in question. I find it interesting you feel the need to go to the most simplistic possible position in a complex world, however.

So to claim "we have decided" appears to be a false depiction of consensus that does not correspond to historical facts or specifics.

Why do you feel the need to fight us on this? What do you gain?

You seem to want to demand... well, what do you want? We're not likely to suddenly alter our position to fit the version of atheism you find easiest to fight against, and changing the word isn't going to get you one step closer to rebutting our actual position. Are you really that childish that a victory over a word is so meaningful to you? Or are you that arrogant that you think you can demand to us what our position actually is?

I hate to say this, but it sounds very much like atheists like to create their own narrative- to shape the story to suit their point. In this case, it sounds like a rewriting of history and misrepresentation of reality in order to shore up defense of this definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaK2VIDN5fI

Oh, okay.

So "We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better..."

equates to "the usage just changes over time gradually..."

And you expect me to believe that? Seriously? Do you even believe the first claim looks anything like the second?

I don't even...

Please, save your credibility. Tell me they are not saying the same thing. I want to take you seriously. Please...