I often wonder what would 1 of the Great astronomers & cosmologists of 20th century, late Carl Sagan, would tell to all those Atheists...& why did he turn to Agnostic?

if he was alive, I would ask him that question...more than any other!

& 2nd Q would be: do u like what your baby, SETi has become?
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

I often wonder what would 1 of the Great astronomers & cosmologists of 20th century, late Carl Sagan, would tell to all those Atheists...& why did he turn to Agnostic?

if he was alive, I would ask him that question...more than any other!

& 2nd Q would be: do u like what your baby, SETi has become?
;)

Carl Sagan was a full Atheist.
This book may answer your question.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Found this bit of information on the net, not quite sure what to think of it.

http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2015/01/internet-trolling-and-the-war-against-god-2447756.html

The article is pure rubbish, seizing up on the natural fear of Christians that they are the ones being persecuted by a constant onslaught of attacks from "Satanic Zionists" (whatever that means), continues the fear-driven agenda by stating that the Schiff family financed the Russian Revolution that killed 60 million Christians - the same assertion that suggests JP Morgan and the Schiffs are part of the Illuminati, and in closing uses powerful words to evoke emotions indicating that there's a conspiracy to destroy everyone's very souls.

Of course, the article seems to do a good job of highlighting what most believers fear most of the Atheism movement in general, but even more so it emphasizes the great misunderstanding believers have about Atheism, and given my many discussions with believers in general, I'm starting to think there will never be an understanding from believers about what it is to be Atheist. Case in point: look at all the believer's responses in this thread.

Found this bit of information on the net, not quite sure what to think of it.

http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2015/01/internet-trolling-and-the-war-against-god-2447756.html

The article is pure rubbish, seizing up on the natural fear of Christians that they are the ones being persecuted by a constant onslaught of attacks from "Satanic Zionists" (whatever that means), continues the fear-driven agenda by stating that the Schiff family financed the Russian Revolution that killed 60 million Christians - the same assertion that suggests JP Morgan and the Schiffs are part of the Illuminati, and in closing uses powerful words to evoke emotions indicating that there's a conspiracy to destroy everyone's very souls.

Of course, the article seems to do a good job of highlighting what most believers fear most of the Atheism movement in general, but even more so it emphasizes the great misunderstanding believers have about Atheism, and given my many discussions with believers in general, I'm starting to think there will never be an understanding from believers about what it is to be Atheist. Case in point: look at all the believer's responses in this thread.

Well no surprise there given the website where it is posted.

See, this is why citizen news reporting is generally a bad idea.

I often wonder what would 1 of the Great astronomers & cosmologists of 20th century, late Carl Sagan, would tell to all those Atheists...& why did he turn to Agnostic?

if he was alive, I would ask him that question...more than any other!

& 2nd Q would be: do u like what your baby, SETi has become?
;)

Carl Sagan was a full Atheist.
This book may answer your question.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469

Steve

Carl Sagan openly spoke out against Atheists, but I think his bigger issue was with militant Atheism in general.

What many fail to realize is that every Atheist is really an Agnostic Atheist, and every Agnostic is really an Agnostic Atheist as well, but due to the taboo of the word Atheist and all the connotations it carries in any social circle, many agnostics try to distance themselves from Atheism in general.

The reason I make this claim is that what we are really talking about is the question: Is there a god? That single question can be answered in the philosophical/epistemological sense, in which no one truly knows if there's a God or not, so in that sense, we are all Agnostic (even believers).

So then you must change the question to get a more meaningful answer; Do you believe in (a) god? If you say yes, you have faith and are a believer. Any other answer of "I'm not sure" or "No" and you most certainly are an Atheist - making you an Agnostic Atheist.

It isn't that Atheism claims there is no god, but that there isn't enough direct evidence to support the idea of one (Brutus/Guy mentions several intangible evidence to suggest why he believes there's a god, but there's also many other natural explanations for the things he sees). The entire idea that Atheists claim there's no god, and thus it is on them to prove a negative, is hokum, and any Atheists that assert there's no god, I proffer are doing so from a puritanical perspective.


I don't know if there's a god, but given that the natural explanations for everything I see around me is acceptable, I'm OK with saying I don't believe there's a god. I know we don't have the answers to everything, and we may never have the answers to everything, but I do know the scientific method will take us the farthest in finding answers as best as we are able to comprehend the universe. I don't need anything else beyond that to feel satisfied with life.

I often wonder what would 1 of the Great astronomers & cosmologists of 20th century, late Carl Sagan, would tell to all those Atheists...& why did he turn to Agnostic?

if he was alive, I would ask him that question...more than any other!

& 2nd Q would be: do u like what your baby, SETi has become?
;)

Carl Sagan was a full Atheist.
This book may answer your question.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469

Steve

Carl Sagan openly spoke out against Atheists, but I think his bigger issue was with militant Atheism in general.

What many fail to realize is that every Atheist is really an Agnostic Atheist, and every Agnostic is really an Agnostic Atheist as well, but due to the taboo of the word Atheist and all the connotations it carries in any social circle, many agnostics try to distance themselves from Atheism in general.

The reason I make this claim is that what we are really talking about is the question: Is there a god? That single question can be answered in the philosophical/epistemological sense, in which no one truly knows if there's a God or not, so in that sense, we are all Agnostic (even believers).

So then you must change the question to get a more meaningful answer; Do you believe in (a) god? If you say yes, you have faith and are a believer. Any other answer of "I'm not sure" or "No" and you most certainly are an Atheist - making you an Agnostic Atheist.

It isn't that Atheism claims there is no god, but that there isn't enough direct evidence to support the idea of one (Brutus/Guy mentions several intangible evidence to suggest why he believes there's a god, but there's also many other natural explanations for the things he sees). The entire idea that Atheists claim there's no god, and thus it is on them to prove a negative, is hokum, and any Atheists that assert there's no god, I proffer are doing so from a puritanical perspective.


I don't know if there's a god, but given that the natural explanations for everything I see around me is acceptable, I'm OK with saying I don't believe there's a god. I know we don't have the answers to everything, and we may never have the answers to everything, but I do know the scientific method will take us the farthest in finding answers as best as we are able to comprehend the universe. I don't need anything else beyond that to feel satisfied with life.

What if like me you are sure that there is no god and feel that people who believe in god are a little bit delusional?

Of course a rational person will change their opinion if there is evidence, but I am not sure that qualifies as agnostic, unless you call someone who doesn't think that teapots can talk an agnostic because if they come across a talking teapot they will change their mind (or more likely go and seek professional help).

There is no god. The idea of a god is daft, especially when you examine all the religions of the world and notice how sure each adherent is that they have the correct one. Especially when you realise that we have evolved to see patterns in nature when there are none.

However, if it ended there and the people who believed in god left the people who don't believe in god alone than it would be fine. However, you just have to watch the American news to see how much misery Christians are inflicting on women and gay people because of their beliefs.

Atheists tend to leave people alone, but lots of christians (and muslims and jewish people) tend to try to inflict their views on other people and force them to live by their fantastical made up moral code. Just look at the republican primaries right now to see a bunch of christian fanatics desperate to force their views on other people.

---

Reality Internet Personality

What if like me you are sure that there is no god and feel that people who believe in god are a little bit delusional?

Certainly you can never be sure, not in the factual sense of the word. You can say you believe the odds are in your favor, you can say you believe the lack of evidence suggests it, you can even say that as far as your concerned you're certain there's no god (I take much the same stance), but if you were being intellectually honest, you know that you can't be factually sure.

However, if it ended there and the people who believed in god left the people who don't believe in god alone than it would be fine. However, you just have to watch the American news to see how much misery Christians are inflicting on women and gay people because of their beliefs.

Sorry but again, Atheists are not above that sort of behavior themselves. Atheist regimes have existed and generally they have not been very kind towards people who wanted to believe in God. And modern Western Atheism has a huge problem with sexism and racism, so they got that down as well.

Atheists tend to leave people alone, but lots of christians (and muslims and jewish people) tend to try to inflict their views on other people and force them to live by their fantastical made up moral code. Just look at the republican primaries right now to see a bunch of christian fanatics desperate to force their views on other people.

Atheists tend to leave people alone? Really? You mean they don't write books about how awesome Atheism is? Or go to conventions to talk about how great it is to be an Atheist? They don't get on the internet and argue with other people why they should stop believing in God? They don't make pretentious Youtube videos where they do their hardest to make sure they insult as many religious people as possible? They don't get into massive flame wars? Sure, not all Atheists are like that, but the same is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims or other religions.

As for made up moral codes, all moral codes are made up, all laws are man made and all of them are imposed by force.

The gist of it, a (lack of) belief in God has no causal link to whether you are a good person or not.

However, if it ended there and the people who believed in god left the people who don't believe in god alone than it would be fine. However, you just have to watch the American news to see how much misery Christians are inflicting on women and gay people because of their beliefs.

Sorry but again, Atheists are not above that sort of behavior themselves. Atheist regimes have existed and generally they have not been very kind towards people who wanted to believe in God. And modern Western Atheism has a huge problem with sexism and racism, so they got that down as well.

Atheists tend to leave people alone, but lots of christians (and muslims and jewish people) tend to try to inflict their views on other people and force them to live by their fantastical made up moral code. Just look at the republican primaries right now to see a bunch of christian fanatics desperate to force their views on other people.

Atheists tend to leave people alone? Really? You mean they don't write books about how awesome Atheism is? Or go to conventions to talk about how great it is to be an Atheist? They don't get on the internet and argue with other people why they should stop believing in God? They don't make pretentious Youtube videos where they do their hardest to make sure they insult as many religious people as possible? They don't get into massive flame wars? Sure, not all Atheists are like that, but the same is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims or other religions.

As for made up moral codes, all moral codes are made up, all laws are man made and all of them are imposed by force.

The gist of it, a (lack of) belief in God has no causal link to whether you are a good person or not.

Writing books and giving talks is hardly the same as making laws that impose their belief's on other people or blowing people up.

I am quite happy for religious people to go around talking about their faith and writing books. They can even be rude to people on the internet if they want. However, they need to stop making laws based on their beliefs.

Who do you think is really behind these stupid and dangerous anti-abortion laws? Who are the people that get really upset about gay marriage? Who the people that that rewrite school text books that ignore facts that go against their beliefs? Its not atheists.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Writing books and giving talks is hardly the same as making laws that impose their belief's on other people or blowing people up.

Every law that is ever written is someone imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Thats what laws are. Whoever is in favor of a law is automatically imposing that on everyone who is not in favor of that law. Once a law is adopted, people who don't like that law can't opt out. So is it fair to accuse religious people from doing that? Not really, because as soon as its an atheist making the laws, he/she is imposing their views on everyone else.

As for blowing people up, well obviously thats wrong, but its only a tiny group of religious people that does that. Its not fair to blame religion in general for that.

Also, if you want to account for all the bad things religion supposedly causes, you also need to account all the good things religion also causes. And in general, the overwhelming majority of religious people are good people who in their way try to do good. And often, their way of doing good doesn't even differ from the way atheists try to do good.

I am quite happy for religious people to go around talking about their faith and writing books. They can even be rude to people on the internet if they want. However, they need to stop making laws based on their beliefs.

You cannot write a law that is not based on your beliefs. Law writing is not an exact science, there is no scientific 'correct' way of writing a law.

Who do you think is really behind these stupid and dangerous anti-abortion laws? Who are the people that get really upset about gay marriage? Who the people that that rewrite school text books that ignore facts that go against their beliefs? Its not atheists.

Correlation is not causation. Yes, you'll find that those people are generally religious. But you also have to remember that they are conservatives. The reason they do those things is because they are conservatives, which I admit, has married certain aspect of their religion with politics. But what conservatives really want, and which their name already implies, is to preserve the status quo. They want to 'conserve' society or restore it to some idealized point in history. In this particular case, they are against abortion because that empowers women and they don't want that. They are against gay rights because that disrupts the white straight male's dominant position in society. They revise history in order to make it fit with their idealized vision of the past. Religion has next to nothing to do with it.

I stand corrected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/

By reading his books, and listening to him, I had no idea.
I, on the other hand have absolutely no belief in any deity.
The whole concept, given the size of the universe, and the
mathematical predictability of events given all the variables
is way to big a stretch to even consider as valid.

It is true the quantum world is quite difficult to understand currently,
but it is based on mathematical and experimental evidence. All the details are not yet known. At least there is evidence to examine, while the existence of a god, has zero supporting evidence.

I have studied the formation and history of Christianity, and some of the religions at the time it was formed,and they are so full of holes, there is nothing solid under any of them. The actual time lines of when this or that happened, are decades or centuries after the fact. Several of the things Jesus was said to have said, are within just a few words of text from ancient Egyptian myths. They were clearly plagiarized. Virgin births were a common addition to religions at the time, and before. Mary and Joeseph weren't even mentioned in any scripture until some 150 years after the fact. The very earliest writing, was by Paul, I think, and 20 years after the fact. You would think that he would have mentioned Mary and Joseph.

The evidence that a god is not required for anything grows daily, but the evidence to support a god is non-existent.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I once heard a physicist that said God is not needed in our universe.
But then again life is still a mystery to me.
Concepts like moral, the idea of right and wrong, good and evil...

As an agnostic I don't rule out anything.

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you've ruled anything out either. Most Atheists I know are open to changing their mind given enough evidence to support an idea or hypothesis.

The evidence that a god is not required for anything grows daily, but the evidence to support a god is non-existent.

Agreed.

Writing books and giving talks is hardly the same as making laws that impose their belief's on other people or blowing people up.

Every law that is ever written is someone imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Thats what laws are. Whoever is in favor of a law is automatically imposing that on everyone who is not in favor of that law. Once a law is adopted, people who don't like that law can't opt out. So is it fair to accuse religious people from doing that? Not really, because as soon as its an atheist making the laws, he/she is imposing their views on everyone else.

However, Atheist are more likely to base their views on facts or theories (even if those theories might prove to be wrong such as "free market" idiologies) rather than some fairytale written down in a book several thousand years ago.

As for blowing people up, well obviously thats wrong, but its only a tiny group of religious people that does that. Its not fair to blame religion in general for that.

Not all religious people, sure, but you find that most of these fanatics are religious. There is some sort of correlation between irrational thoughts and irrational actions.

Also, if you want to account for all the bad things religion supposedly causes, you also need to account all the good things religion also causes. And in general, the overwhelming majority of religious people are good people who in their way try to do good. And often, their way of doing good doesn't even differ from the way atheists try to do good.

I agree that some people need religion to be good people, that's fine, atheists can also do good things and be good people. However, what you do see is religious people using their religion to justify bad things.

I am quite happy for religious people to go around talking about their faith and writing books. They can even be rude to people on the internet if they want. However, they need to stop making laws based on their beliefs.

You cannot write a law that is not based on your beliefs. Law writing is not an exact science, there is no scientific 'correct' way of writing a law.

Who do you think is really behind these stupid and dangerous anti-abortion laws? Who are the people that get really upset about gay marriage? Who the people that that rewrite school text books that ignore facts that go against their beliefs? Its not atheists.

Correlation is not causation. Yes, you'll find that those people are generally religious. But you also have to remember that they are conservatives. The reason they do those things is because they are conservatives, which I admit, has married certain aspect of their religion with politics. But what conservatives really want, and which their name already implies, is to preserve the status quo. They want to 'conserve' society or restore it to some idealized point in history. In this particular case, they are against abortion because that empowers women and they don't want that. They are against gay rights because that disrupts the white straight male's dominant position in society. They revise history in order to make it fit with their idealized vision of the past. Religion has next to nothing to do with it.

I see your point, and it is certainly a big part of the picture. However you will notice that these conservatives seem to be drawn to religion because it serves their purposes and it doesn't require critical thinking.

---

Reality Internet Personality

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34145941

A superstitionist jailed, due to public idiotism? Quite, exactly the right thing.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/228.htm

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.

Her tongue should have been on fire when she spoke those words if she was a true believer!

---

Most Atheists I know are open to changing their mind given enough evidence to support an idea or hypothesis.

Nice to hear. There is a God after all:)

Most Atheists I know are open to changing their mind given enough evidence to support an idea or hypothesis.

Nice to hear. There is a God after all:)

Any evidence to further qualify and support that statement? ;-P

Most Atheists I know are open to changing their mind given enough evidence to support an idea or hypothesis.

Nice to hear. There is a God after all:)

Any evidence to further qualify and support that statement? ;-P

No. I have not seen any evidence of God yet:)

Also, if you want to account for all the bad things religion supposedly causes, you also need to account all the good things religion also causes. And in general, the overwhelming majority of religious people are good people who in their way try to do good. And often, their way of doing good doesn't even differ from the way atheists try to do good.

I agree that some people need religion to be good people, that's fine, atheists can also do good things and be good people. However, what you do see is religious people using their religion to justify bad things.

Meant in all seriousness ... .
Discuss the following:

1) Why have, and continue to be, murder and rape been "bad ideas" (to put it mildly).

2) Why was eating pork a bad idea? Why do Jews and Muslims still have a rule about it? Why do Christians not, when Jesus never said part of the New Covenant was the removal of the rule against eating pork? Is there a reason eating pork is no longer a bad idea?

3) Why was sex between two men a bad idea in the past? What was different then that may not have continued in to the present?

EDIT: Sure, if you need to believe to be good, that's fine. Right.