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...

[Esquilax]

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 am saying that your use of gross oversimplifications, as usual, has led you to espouse a cartoonish parody of reality rather than anything accurate. I'd like to think this is unintentional, but I know you live in the real world where things aren't these stark black and white things, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're just throwing out strawmen in place of having real arguments.

The way you characterized it was like there's some kind of atheist senate where we all come together and deal with issues like definitions, and that's not true. The definition of the word atheism evolved over time to one that better encompasses the actual feelings of the members of that group, and delineates between strong and weak atheists, in the same way that christians describe themselves by denomination. It's just specificity. In this way, the term changed to reflect the consensus of the people who most use it, without being some conscious effort borne of a decision you can definitively point to.

I also note with interest that your claim here that there hasn't been a conscious coming together of atheists to decide this thing, while accurate, conflicts with statements you've made in other threads, where you accuse us of using this new definition as a "dodge" to avoid some burden of proof we might otherwise have. Which is it, Vin? Is this new definition a ploy, or not? Or are you just making whatever argument is convenient at the time?

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

Well, that just got embarrassing for you.

I love how willing you are to roll with your uniformly wrong assessments of our arguments all the way down the hill. It's much more rewarding, rebutting someone who pursues incorrectness with such gusto.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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 am saying that your use of gross oversimplifications, as usual, has led you to espouse a cartoonish parody of reality rather than anything accurate. I'd like to think this is unintentional, but I know you live in the real world where things aren't these stark black and white things, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're just throwing out strawmen in place of having real arguments.

The way you characterized it was like there's some kind of atheist senate where we all come together and deal with issues like definitions, and that's not true. The definition of the word atheism evolved over time to one that better encompasses the actual feelings of the members of that group, and delineates between strong and weak atheists, in the same way that christians describe themselves by denomination. It's just specificity. In this way, the term changed to reflect the consensus of the people who most use it, without being some conscious effort borne of a decision you can definitively point to.

I also note with interest that your claim here that there hasn't been a conscious coming together of atheists to decide this thing, while accurate, conflicts with statements you've made in other threads, where you accuse us of using this new definition as a "dodge" to avoid some burden of proof we might otherwise have. Which is it, Vin? Is this new definition a ploy, or not? Or are you just making whatever argument is convenient at the time?

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

Well, that just got embarrassing for you.

I love how willing you are to roll with your uniformly wrong assessments of our arguments all the way down the hill. It's much more rewarding, rebutting someone who pursues incorrectness with such gusto.

WHA WHA WHA WAIT!!!

So you're telling me they DO say ONE AND THE SAME THING?

Joey Tribbiani, take over for me real quick



Okay, hold on let me catch my breath. Right. So I get that you're confused by how I believe "Atheists have consciously misdefined atheism" and yet reject "We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better...". I mean, anyone can see the two sentences are making two overlapping and yet broadly distinct sets of claims. But maybe you don't see how the claims are different...

But damn...I...Esquilax...to not even acknowledge that the Lemonvariable's claim is totally different from yours...I...

Agent Hank Schrader finding Gus Fring's writing inside the front cover of Walter White's Leaves of Grass, take over for me real quick



This...I...Where's Tracy Morgan? He's not here? Alright, give me Donald Glover.



I...Esquilax, I...

At least show me you're making an effort at having a good-faith conversation here, man!

[Zazzy]

Who gives a shit what Carl Sagan said once about atheism?

[pocaracas]

And there goes vinny flying off the roof, over what he sees as two conflicting statements...
This is getting old, vinny...

I guess we better talk in mathematical equations around this guy... and do try not to forget any sign... or he'll have your ass!

a.X + b = 0
a.X = -b
X = -b/a

[downbeatplumb]

I am an atheist and am certain there is no god or gods. However I could be swayed by sufficient evidence to contrary....but there isn't any.

In my view if can answer no to the question "do you believe in god?" you are an atheist.

I may have written this before.

[Anomalocaris]

And there goes vinny flying off the roof, over what he sees as two conflicting statements...
This is getting old, vinny...

I guess we better talk in mathematical equations around this guy... and do try not to forget any sign... or he'll have your ass!

a.X + b = 0
a.X = -b
X = -b/a

Vinny is incapable of dealing the central truth of his life, which is he is a really worthless little piece of shit. He thinks his histrionics will distract everyone else from seeing him for what he is, and if no one else sees him as the little piece of shit he is, then he doesn’t have to deal with the fact that he is just a little piece of shit.

[Simon Moon]

In my view if can answer no to the question "do you believe in god?" you are an atheist.

It really is that simple.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true.

Or as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly states it, "Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

If an individual does not hold the premise that a god or gods exist to be true, they are an atheist.

I wonder which god's existence Carl Sagan (a personal hero of mine) held to be true? If the answer was none (which is was), he was an atheist.

I may have written this before.

Yeah, we all have. And yet here we are still dealing with Vinny...

[Lemonvariable72]

I am saying that your use of gross ov Kuersimplifications, as usual, has led you to espouse a cartoonish parody of reality rather than anything accurate. I'd like to think this is unintentional, but I know you live in the real world where things aren't these stark black and white things, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're just throwing out strawmen in place of having real arguments.

The way you characterized it was like there's some kind of atheist senate where we all come together and deal with issues like definitions, and that's not true. The definition of the word atheism evolved over time to one that better encompasses the actual feelings of the members of that group, and delineates between strong and weak atheists, in the same way that christians describe themselves by denomination. It's just specificity. In this way, the term changed to reflect the consensus of the people who most use it, without being some conscious effort borne of a decision you can definitively point to.

I also note with interest that your claim here that there hasn't been a conscious coming together of atheists to decide this thing, while accurate, conflicts with statements you've made in other threads, where you accuse us of using this new definition as a "dodge" to avoid some burden of proof we might otherwise have. Which is it, Vin? Is this new definition a ploy, or not? Or are you just making whatever argument is convenient at the time?


Well, that just got embarrassing for you.

I love how willing you are to roll with your uniformly wrong assessments of our arguments all the way down the hill. It's much more rewarding, rebutting someone who pursues incorrectness with such gusto.

WHA WHA WHA WAIT!!!

So you're telling me they DO say ONE AND THE SAME THING?

Joey Tribbiani, take over for me real quick



Okay, hold on let me catch my breath. Right. So I get that you're confused by how I believe "Atheists have consciously misdefined atheism" and yet reject "We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better...". I mean, anyone can see the two sentences are making two overlapping and yet broadly distinct sets of claims. But maybe you don't see how the claims are different...

But damn...I...Esquilax...to not even acknowledge that the Lemonvariable's claim is totally different from yours...I...

Agent Hank Schrader finding Gus Fring's writing inside the front cover of Walter White's Leaves of Grass, take over for me real quick



This...I...Where's Tracy Morgan? He's not here? Alright, give me Donald Glover.



I...Esquilax, I...

At least show me you're making an effort at having a good-faith conversation here, man!

Okay vin why do we have to use your definition of atheism instead of the one that people have redefined to better describe their belief. Do you ever go to a Christian and say ahh your not a Baptist your a Pentecostal?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Okay vin why do we have to use your definition of atheism instead of the one that people have redefined to better describe their belief. Do you ever go to a Christian and say ahh your not a Baptist your a Pentecostal?

You don't HAVE to.

You just have to acknowledge that you have to represent things accurately to have a useful conversation.

The following statement:

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

simply isn't an accurate reflection of the facts. It's a gross distortion. It never occurred this way.