Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[DeistPaladin]

Let me know, I don't want to be too hard on you.

Don't worry about that. I don't take anything you post seriously anyway.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Let me know, I don't want to be too hard on you.

Don't worry about that. I don't take anything you post seriously anyway.

Word. Internet > reality, amirite!

[DeistPaladin]

Word. Internet > reality, amirite!

Can you state your argument in complete sentences? It would be appropriate to use proper grammar as you've taken a condescending attitude.

Do you wonder why you're not taken seriously?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Deist, if you don't get my argument after reading my response to your criticism, you're not reading any of my posts.

You're just getting your panties all up in a bunch and having an emotional outburst towards them.

Put away the fainting couch and read my view for what it is.

[Mothonis]

Deist, if you don't get my argument after reading my response to your criticism, you're not reading any of my posts.

You're just getting your panties all up in a bunch and having an emotional outburst towards them.

Put away the fainting couch and read my view for what it is.

Your views? This coming from the coward who tell anyone what he believes.you should be banned.

[Lemonvariable72]

The term that carl sagan is rejecting is the old definition of the word, we as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate that old definetion and redefine to something that better describes what the word refers too. Why is that wrong, or so difficult to understand.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The term that carl sagan is rejecting is the old definition of the word, we as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate that old definetion and redefine to something that better describes what the word refers too. Why is that wrong, or so difficult to understand.

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

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.

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

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.

I don't think you are doing this on purpose. I don't want to say you are intellectually dishonest because I don't know your motives.

But surely if you look at your own views carefully you will notice you are adding to the facts certain elements that are not supported by any evidence, supporting my view that this definition of atheism was engineered surreptitiously.

[Mothonis]

The term that carl sagan is rejecting is the old definition of the word, we as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate that old definetion and redefine to something that better describes what the word refers too. Why is that wrong, or so difficult to understand.

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

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.

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

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.

I don't think you are doing this on purpose. I don't want to say you are intellectually dishonest because I don't know your motives.

But surely if you look at your own views carefully you will notice you are adding to the facts certain elements that are not supported by any evidence, supporting my view that this definition of atheism was engineered surreptitiously.

The coward ounce again ignores Esquilax post.second not everyone believes things without evidence,just because you can't comprehend that doesn't mean others don't do it.

[Esquilax]

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

[Brakeman]

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.