Carl Sagan on “God” and “gods”

admin December 20th, 2009

25 Responses to “Carl Sagan on “God” and “gods””

  1. Bulletjie32on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Mind blowing stuff.

  2. Xskillnaon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I call that being open to anything that attempts to be true :)

  3. Nevetstevenon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    @bzu1040171 That is why I love Carl Sagan, he was an unbiased observer.
    “I do not no enough to be atheist.”—Sagan. Even though he himself did not believe in any particular god, he did not discard it as a possibility.

  4. bartyfarslaron 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    @ChainLineCycle That is because Buddhism is not really a religion, at least it was not when Buddha was teaching it. There are no gods and no worship therefore no damnation for unbelief

  5. ShooterMaGavinon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    *Takes a bong load*

  6. nakomaruon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    While I’m not sure about your claim with Judaisim, you’re right that not all faiths chastise non believers. However, my point was that there is an infinite number of possible faiths or gods that chastise non-believers. By accepting any one of them, you are denying the others.

  7. bzu1040171on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    this was informative and unbiased, the kind of information you don’t hear people speak

  8. ChainLineCycleon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    “You’re Screwed” is in regards to the consequences in not believing. Bhuddism does not have that, nor Judaisim.

  9. nakomaruon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    “You’re screwed” can be said about any faith. The acceptance of Christianity is by that fact alone the denial of Islam, Hindu, Greek/Norse polytheism, and infinite other possible religions who also state that if you are not of that religion you are an infidel and are going to a bad place.
    It is purely by chance that one is born into the particular location and time such that one believes in one particular theism, given the vastness of the human species. Also, I completely agree with omega :)

  10. nakomaruon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    1. These words have been around long before the 70′s.
    2. The actual word for someone who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God is heathen.
    3. Atheist are “sure” there are no higher powers.
    4. Agnostics are uncertain of such, either way.
    5. None of these words matter to describe Sagan’s actual views. Duke wrongly presumed that, because he denies one particular god (God, which is only one more god than duke doesn’t believe in), that he denies all possible creators. That is not the case.

  11. ChainLineCycleon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    One’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
    – Albert Einstein

  12. ChainLineCycleon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    In the 70s, an Athieist was understood to not beileive in god, and that was it. Today Atheists are different. They don’t beielive becuae there’s no evidence.

  13. ChainLineCycleon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    For the Christain religion, it not a matter of it just being what it is, it is the fact that if you don’t believe it, you’re screwed.

  14. Spraycandoon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    You do not have to be gifted to make such decisions. All you need is a free mind.

  15. fukme123on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I personally don’t buy into the God thing and therefore just ignore it. I’m leaving the wondering and science to gifted people.

  16. fukme123on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I’ve been to that temple. Great place!

  17. nakomaruon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know.” – Carl Sagan.
    You’re entire statement, based on the idea that Sagan denies the existence of a creator, is completely fabricated.
    The only statements he has ever made regarding a creator illustrate the lack of knowledge of ones existence. “Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.”

  18. fishhooks19on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    so duke, where did god come from?

  19. dukedopudjaon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Carl Sagan knew far less than he thought he did.How can he be intelligent,when he can’t accept the fact that anything that is created,must have a Creator.Because he doesn’t know where God came from,he denies His existence,which is a terrible premise to base his decision on.Many have the concept,if I don’t understand it,it doesn’t exist.There is far more that we don’t understand,than we do,but we are unable to determine how little we know.Can we assume that something came from nothing,impossible?

  20. Omegashadowyoshion 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I gotta say that though I’m an atheist I have no problems with anybody believing in a god.
    The only thing I mind is when people are violent about it, or forceful at nonbelievers about it.
    RIP Carl Sagan

  21. LeaveDenbyAloneon 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I’m not a rabid atheist, but “t comes across as childish and ungrateful and willfully blind” made me laugh really hard. You are the one who is childish.

  22. bzbzbz9817on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    i find it curious how anyone would want to resist God when you read any of the new testament and its all about love, love, love. i don’t understand the anger and insults aimed towards God and Jesus. It comes across as childish and ungrateful and willfully blind. i don’t get it…i seriously don’t get it and am curious why it happens. i understand anger at religious mankind because so many are fake and evil but really why God and why not embrace love, forgiveness and hope???

  23. blackyblackblack505on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    God = #1

  24. pickling6on 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Well argued. And don’t think i’m persecuting anyone.

  25. omegavaleriuson 20 Dec 2009 at 8:21 pm

    We don’t. I don’t believe in the existence of god because there is neither empirical evidence nor a logically coherent argument proposed in favor of such a being. If the two criteria are met we would conclude that the deist position is the reasonable to hold. This is far far away from what theists believe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply