Atheism and Carl Sagan’s God, part 2 of 2

Please note that this essay has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.


  1. The basic atheist response to this argument, here given in a very abridged version, is to believe, by faith, that some day we will discover materialistic causes for everything. I actually do not understand this since the Judeo-Christian holds that God created the material realm and so we should only expect material causes for material effects. Yet, the atheist puts her faith in future human omniscience and so argues, as it were, that we cannot logically or scientifically come to supernatural conclusions until we humans know everything that there is to know and everything that there is to know about everything that there is to know—until we know how everything functions and interacts in every possible interaction in every possible circumstance.

    Alright, I'm with Adonais. This blog has become a platform for Mariano to repeat the same mischaracterizations of atheism without him ever feeling the need to engage with commenters' rebuttals. What's the point?

  2. Mariano: with all due respect, how about answering our comments at your first post about Carl Sagan, before you post yet another essay about much the same things? I'm afraid I will have to agree with kuhlmann: there's not much point in commenting if you don't get answered. I'll be checking in from time to time, but if things keep going this way, you guys are soon going to be unter Euch- that is, alone with yourselves, preaching to the choir.

    cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

  3. I was going to say pretty much what zilch said, people are simply going to vote with their feet. In the end, that might be just what the current AiD management wants: to have a quite little nook to themselves, where they can pipe a silly pipe and take tea and comfortable advice without any irritable reaching for facts and reason.

    If that's what they want, far be it from me to be a monkey wrench in their design. I will simply not bother to contribute any more; I'm sure they'll be vastly happy about that! ;-)

    Alternatively, they might have calculated that if they lose the old readership, they can simply import a new batch of fresh atheists eager for debate. And lo, now they can reuse all their old straw men arguments and red herrings as if they had never been challenged, so the cycle starts all over again.

    Incidentally, I recently watched Religulous - the poster is not completely off.. We're all apes, of course.

    So say we all.

  4. All: please see my response to part 1