Vile and defamatory as they were, I will not give what you have posted another airing here.

I am not sure what lies you are talking about.

I take my integrity very seriously and don’t lie.

This statement says far more about you than it says about Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan was a man who had a sense of wonder, and was very much concerned about his fellow human beings and his world. He was a beloved husband and father.

But no, in your eyes he was a “sad and pathetic” figure.

And why did you come to this conclusion?

“His PBS program “Cosmos” was a denial of God. His slogan in ‘Cosmos’:

“‘The cosmos is all there is, or ever was or ever will be.’”

So, because Carl Sagan comes to a different, metaphysical naturalist conclusion about the cosmos, one that is different from yours, he is a “sad and pathetic” individual.

“He denied the existence of God. Sad.”

Yep, this pretty much confirms it.

“Many of the great astronomers of our time look on the glory of God and are moved. Sagan missed it.”

Actually, that is half right. There are a number of natural scientists who also believe in god, but there is a high proportion of natural scientists who do not. All of them practice methodological naturalism, which is that they only resort to natural explanations because they are the only ones that can be tested, others also become philosophically metaphysical naturalist, which is the philisophical conclusion that the natural world is sufficient all in itself, and is all that needs to be invoked. However, one group or the other hardly has cornered the market on awe and wonder and humility. Carl Sagan’s writing clearly and repeatedly communicated his sense of wonder and humility. He also communicated, repeatedly and clearly, his extension of that awe and wonder about his fellow human beings. In his one piece of fiction, the people of faith were hardly presented as one dimensional characters. When he wrote as a skeptic and promoted skepticism, he clearly differentiated between what he thought were poor arguments, poor reasons for believing something, and the actual people themselves. He argued for a skepticism that was both tough minded and gentle, and that was humble.

Your dismissal of Carl Sagan as “sad and pathetic” simply because he didn’t see “God” you see(and I suspect that you are referring to the “God” whose existence you assume) doesn’t reveal anything about him. What it does is reveal quite a lot about you.

I do not assume that you are sad and pathetic. From what I have read on this blog, you are happily married, you love your son, and you and I share a love of animals, particularly dogs. I can not think of someone who has these things in life as sad and pathetic. Hell, I gather from those who have met you personally, even though they strongly disagree with you, that you are a likable guy and a great host.

You are also, very clearly from your own writing, a bigot. You dismiss people like the late Carl Sagan as being “sad and pathetic” because of a theological disagreement. That means that you would also dismiss me as “sad and pathetic” because my viewpoint if far more similar to Carl Sagan’s than yours. However, unlike you I do not confuse atheism and agnosticism with anti-theism.

You are a bigot, not because you are a Christian, but because of what you think of people who are not. You have communicated those thoughts with your own words.

One of the things that makes me better than you.

Hardly anything on this blog between you and I is about correcting lies.

So you won’t have much work to do.

At least you got to say something witty though. I am sure that was all you were trying for anyhow.

You don’t have to let them stand at all, they do that on their own.

Once again, playing the blog king monitor…

The only one who is unreachable is you.

Instead of trying to have a well thought out discussion you simply choose to label my father and I.

You’ll be ‘dismissed as unreachable’!

You’ll get the reputation as being a spoiled rich kid of privilege.

Thought I would let you know that my “rich” mom the Doctor and my “kept” father bought me an XM Radio for Christmas with a years subscription.

This way I can listen to hate radio all the time!

Let that be their province.

His PBS program “Cosmos” was a denial of God. His slogan in “Cosmos”:

“The cosmos is all there is, or ever was or ever will be.”

He denied the existence of God. Sad. Many of the great astronomers of our time look on the glory of God and are moved. Sagan missed it.

“Our Pale Blue Dot” visual and commentary are evidence of the sad work of an atheist.

Nothing profound or moving about it.

That is perhaps one of the most profound and moving moments in voice and video that I have ever seen. Everyone should see it.

Our ONLY home. . . . .

‘Our Pale Blue Dot’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

And your only “academic accomplishments” re climate science seems to be the ability to copy/paste BS from Rush Limbaugh’s ex-employee,

http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk

“Then you can apologize for speaking ill and wrong of the dead.”

Indeed.

Posted by Hank

Really? Then Hank, explain the points about “faith” in his movie ‘Contact’ near the end, when Jodie Foster’s character testifies to Congress.

And Sagan definitely was not a scientific “nitwit”.

Also, on a clear, low humidity night, find a dark rural location, and just gaze at all of the stars out there.

“In truth, he liked to be called an agnostic but he pretty much ridiculed any one of faith.

“I’m merely returning his disdain for people of faith.”

What an ignorant statement.

Carl Sagan promoted skepticism and was a critic of religion, particularly when it was invoked against science, but to claim that he ridiculed “people of faith” reveals two things about you:

1) You have a narrow definition of “people of faith”.

2) You confuse criticism with attack and ridicule.

You’re wrong. Criticising certain religious beliefs and actions is not the same as ridiculing or having disdain for them. The fact that you don’t seem to know the difference is your problem, and you make yourself look like a fool when you refer to Carl Sagan the way you did to anyone who has extensively read the man’s works.

And yes, I stand by my use of both the adjective dumb and the noun fool with regards to this post. You earned them.

Now I agree with you about “adult businesses”. But ol’ Larry just reads the news, he doesn’t write the laws.

I like Larry and his Hatteburgs people. Hey the guy could have moved away from this burg for bigger money a LONG time ago. That says something for him. Well to me anyway.