欧宝娱乐

I don't know that Carl Sagan intended you to regard his cool little book about how stars are born and whatnot as your Bible.

Hi. I agree that Mr. Sagan didn't write Cosmos with the hope that it would be a "bible" to anyone, that's just the best way that I can describe my reaction to that books when I read it at the tender age of 18. It's not so much his theories on the birth of stars as his underlying search for evidence for evolution, and against a creator, that I find objectionable. To do science with the unspoken understanding that you must reject any evidence that points to a creator is not pure science.

Thank you for taking the time to read my review and for your comment, Brendan. And God bless!

Every 'evidence' that I know of points to the idea that there is a creator if one first supposes that there is a creator. The problem really is whether it is possible to have any proof that there is NO creator if you first believe in a creator. The answer is that it is not possible to have such a test.

Hence the existence of the creator is only an ad hoc belief.

The theories of birth of stars or galaxies that Sagan mentions in the book are hardly his own, but are the result of many years of work by generations of physicists. One thing is certain--they are all wrong, at least in details. But the interesting point, which is the exact opposite of what belief is, is that each of these 'conjectures' comes with a test that could if done disprove the validity of the corresponding conjecture.

The hypothesis of God (that She exists) has no such test that could plausibly disprove the existence of God.

The hypothesis of God is not unique in being a hypothesis without a test. There are other similar examples. The opposite hypothesis--"Man created God"--is also of the same character and equally meaningless, for it too can't be tested.

To attack 'Cosmos' --a book that popularizes the history of the way science has influenced humanity and humanistic thinking--on the ground that it is 'against a creator' is banal at best.

Thanks for your patience in reading my comment on your comments and review.

Excelente, friend.

My pleasure!
A

Deb,

I enjoyed your humorous review -- Glad you put the smiley at the end, or I might have thought you were serious!

Cheers,

Steve

Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking the time to post! The smiley simply represented my tone, which is one of love and concern for your soul. I was, and continue to be, completely serious. Blessings!
-Deb

well y'know, his name's only one letter away from spelling "satan".

Hi Deb,
I think 欧宝娱乐 is perhaps not the place for you to tout your faith. Your review would be more useful if it contained information for a wider audience - Christian, atheist, Jewish, Shinto and everything in between - as to the effectiveness and value of the book in question..

Joseph wrote: "Hi Deb,
I think 欧宝娱乐 is perhaps not the place for you to tout your faith. Your review would be more useful if it contained information for a wider audience - Christian, atheist, Jewish, Shinto..."

I won't tell you what to think of the books that you read, you let me write reviews that are relevant to me. Really, the only viewpoint with no validity today is on from a Christian perspective? Please, be more tolerant of those with differing world views.

I meant that it doesn't really explain much about the book. You have the right to your world view, but when a "review" just contains info about someone's world view/personal experience, well, that's not really the point of a review. For example, I'd be interested in knowing to what extent Sagan bashes or undermines the possibility of a higher power - does he merely imply that, or does he state things outright? Steven Hawking has a tendency to state atheistic ideas outright which, however valid, don't have much to do with his otherwise interesting books. I actually find that kind of stuff annoying, even as an agnostic, so if Sagan does it -I'd like to know before I read his book. That's why I'm on 欧宝娱乐.

We can easily conclude that the reviewer is either joking or mentally impaired.

Lady just a few thoughts.

1) Men & science created the Internet, which allows you to post such fundamentalist ideas. Not god.

2) Believe it or not, every single piece of literature composing every single "sacred" book on Earth was written by human beings, not angels, gods with chacal heads or extra arms, or any other supernatural being.

3) If your intention is to do christian proselitism, I will defend to death your right to do so, but I would seriously encourage you to do it in the middle of, say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, not on 欧宝娱乐, which is a "place" for culture.

4) As Joseph clearly states, a review shall say more about a book than someone's particular point of view.

5) =) My pity goes entirely for you, ma'am, as you've been profoundly brainwashed.

Really? "Men" created the internet? Way to crap all over the few female scientists that made the internet possible and the poor women that were washing the underwear of and making dinner for the male scientists that helped make the internet possible.

You're right, 欧宝娱乐 is a place for culture. So take your Stone Age sexist BS somewhere else.

Lighten up! I believe in God, and the God I know gave us brains to use in exploring and discovering all of creation. Cosmos is one book about people who put their brains together to explore the universe and perhaps let others know we exist. Kudos to Carl Sagan for a beautiful book.

It's nice to see you went full blown retard.

God may have sent us his son, but he also sent the Japan earthquake and childhood cancer.

Personally i can't see how people can believe in God and science/astrophysics - the two are totally contradictory.

Funny how the quickest way to have your beliefs and opinions disregarded while being abused, maligned, misunderstood, and the object of scorn and intolerance is to state that one is a Christian. I have reviews of several other well-loved books that have not drawn this sort of vitriol... maybe because I was neither questioning another readers' worldview, nor giving my opinion from my worldview perspective.

Neither have I ever had the arrogance to tell another person, on goodreads or elsewhere, what should be the basis of their opinion of any book. Face it, we all form opinions based upon the thoughts and experiences we have, which makes us interesting and unique.

Please, have a little respect for your fellow goodreads members and refrain from epithets. I have insulted none of you mostly because I find that to be an extremely simpleminded and cowardly form of arguing a point. I do not live under a rock, nor am I retarded, simple-minded, brainwashed, mentally impaired, or prone to ad hoc conclusions.

And now I'll sit back and cower waiting for more personal attacks...

Is funny that you call Cosmos "this pile of conjecture" (which it's not) and then go on to recommend reading the Bible, which it's a pile of conjecture based on tales and prejudices from a tribe wandering the desert (Old Testament) and wishful stories about redemption, crucifixion and eternal life (New Testament)

This isn't a review. This comment doesn't do the book justice and just references a fictitious story that blind people continue to believe.

I think that the scorn, you are talking about, is not because of your faith. But because your discarding anything that is in the book. Not comparing Cosmos to the Bible, you cant discard the content of Cosmos, like "non belivers" cant discard the Bible. (sorry for bad English)

correction on my comment "...discarding everything..." (sorry)

correction on my comment "...discarding everything..." (sorry)

Post whatever sort of review you please. I, for one, appreciate your perspective, review, and respectful tolerance of prior comments. Shalom.

I know a great website for you,

What objective evidence proves there is a creator???

I hope you are trolling. Im embarrassed for you if you're not.

You're getting personal attacks because this isn't a review, it's incredibly misguided proselytizing and a baseless dismissal of this book's content. I'm not surprised you played the Christian persecution card, because the people who bait with "reviews" like this always do.

You are not capable of understanding this book.

Moron.

In any forum, review list, i would hope that abuse of any kind was not tolerated. Insults and attacks don't belong in civilized conversation. That being said; I completely disagree with Deb but respect her right to review in her own words. I do think its insanely easy to connect the mathmatical complexities and patterns in the universe to a far higher intelligence than our own. But that's my opinion. Carl Sagan is one of many scientific figures who convinced me without ever trying. Ps: I likeThe Quantum Activist. Fascinating. Keep enjoying Sagan, and now NGdT woo! :)

Deb has missed the point of our derision. It isn't because she's a Christian, it's the intolerance she brought with her.
"then get on your knees and repent before the holy God who gave you life and sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for your lawlessness and sin'
Smiley face aside, them's fightin' words!
Telling people to repent their unholy ways is intolerance.

Agreed, and thank you Karen for the correction. I had skimmed over the post. This is by no means a forum to jump on a soapbox and demand we repent. Sincerely Deb, I'm not sure the Pope comes off quite that harsh. However, if you would lilke to debate theism, I'm sure we can find a more suitable forum than this.

Its a review site, not a wasp convention.

Awesome mattia

I gave this book five stars and think it's wonderful. Science and God go hand in hand(ask Einstein).

I don't believe she even read this book. I think she was just using it as a catalyst to preach.

Ok wow. So what if this review is politically incorrect. I don't agree with it but I'm not going to bash Deb for it.. She wrote down what she felt, there are no laws governing reviews on 欧宝娱乐, this is not a proffesional site she can pretty much write whatever she wants as long as she's not attacking anyone. I see why this review gets on alot of people's nerves, but she didn't attack anyone who commented here personally, so why is everyone attacking her like this. Just be open minded and let her preach by herself! Let her be!

After five years my review is still drawing comments, and I still stand by my right to write reviews from my own perspective. However, if I were to write it now I would probably tone down my plea for others to repent making it much gentler. My original intent was one of concern for others and was the result of what I believe to be an accurate view of the human condition.

It was not a trolling post, if it were one could easily prove that by reading my other book reviews (a troll is a troll is a troll -- this review is unique for me because this book impacted my life in a unique way).

Thank you to those who have affirmed my right to form and share my opinion in spite of disagreeing with that opinion.

What an awful review.

Here comes a another religious liar who claims he was once an atheist and who once actually read a science book or even Carl Sagan's book. What an idiot.

Here comes another name calling troll.

No one believes you read this book.

The smiley at the end is just fascinating me...

did you by any chance read about how the church repeatedly squashed scientific progress for centuries? science is about discovery, religion is willful ignorance IMO...

I notice that many religious people attack scientific books on the basis that science does not acknowledge a deity. It is true that since there is no objective evidence showing the existence of a supreme being, science cannot and will not acknowledge one.

However, the findings of science should not be demonized as a result. If a scientist figures out how things operate, this is not a sin. Supposing that there is a God: if God exists, he created the world the way that it is. If then the scientists figure out the mechanisms for the phenomena we experience, it can be no sin to accept such mechanisms. If that is how things really work, a just and loving God cannot condemn you for acknowledging it. Others that wish to believe everything in the Bible must be taken literally will have a problem with it. But God would not. Think about it.

Furthermore, I believe that lying is supposed to be immoral. And yet, for your own personal gain, you have clearly lied to everyone here. It is blatantly obvious that you were NEVER a "stubbornly devout atheist" as you claim. The "proud and arrogant rejection of [your] Creator" is clearly aimed at atheists telling them about what you perceive to be their rejection.

Don't take that as a vicious attack. I am just pointing out that you are not being fully truthful in your review (and deep down, you know that).

As far as your religious beliefs go, I think you need to tone it down a bit. Extremes are never the correct path. Once you learn that you can embrace the lessons of science without rejecting your religion (and without attacking others for their scientific views), then you will be headed down the right path.

Science =/= Sin. You are entitled to your own faith, but that does not mean you should denounce scientific observations as atheistic and sinful. You may not have meant to personally call anyone out, but it seems a tad offensive when you call a well respected book an atheistic bible, and then plead with us to reject our "lawlessness" and "repent our sin". I'm going to quote Annie on this one: "Lighten up! I believe in God, and the God I know gave us brains to use in exploring and discovering all of creation."

Jesus Christ.....

In every aspect I think the way that Dr. Sagan speaks about the universe, leads one to think that there is a God or Creator!

Albert Einstein said, "The more and more I study the stars, the more and more I believe in a Creator."

Now, I'm not talking about your Jesus. I'm talking about an unknown supernatural being. The fact that you were once a "enemy" of God, the fact that you even said that shows that you don't believe in a Judeo Christian God either. You're just another Crazy Christian.