The other clue indicating that the post from “Um no” was bullcrap was the timeframe:

>”I still have fond memories of when I was at Cornell (mid to late 1990s) and our
>stargazers group invited Mr. Sagan to join us for dinner.”

Carl wasn’t at Cornell in the later 1990′s. He wasn’t even living in Ithaca.
He died in 1996.

He spent most of what little time he had of the mid-1990′s in Seattle at the Fred Hutchins Cancer Research Center. So i’m declaring this claim by “No Um” to be, at best, highly suspect. At worst it’s utter bullcrap.

Two days later, we were contacted by his agent, who demanded a hefty fee for his presence at our little soiree. I don’t recall the specific amount, but I do remember that the figure quoted for magnanimous Mr. Sagan’s appearance was in the five-figure range.

Sheesh…

Carl opened his big mind and heart
to infinite possibilities
that way.

Bless him!

As far as popularising, I’m going to hold a mini-quiz about astronomy during a family-party, to try to raise a bit of cosmic awareness (apart from WooWoo) in my 4 generations of atheistic family. Have a bit of fun, and trying to get a few scientific pieces of trivial information into some heads.

Any help is appreciated, thank you.

I think most atheists have probably considered the possibility of a divine creation but have ruled it out as a likely possibility as more and more evidence becomes available. Think about it like this; early man used the idea of divine creation to explain the unexplainable and throughout time, as we have learned more about the true nature of the universe, the responsibilities of the many gods we invented have dwindled. They call it the god of the gaps. Following the evidence seems to show that the idea of a divine being was entirely created by man, and then through our long quest for the truth, ruled out.

To me, it seems far more amazing to understand how the very nature of the stuff that makes up the universe, given enough time, has become assembled in such a way that it can contemplate itself. Enough stuff, given time, will contemplate itself. That is so much more wonderful than the idea of bearded sky wizard snapping his fingers and flinging it all into existence. The thought of a creator holds no wonder, it’s not interesting to think about and it leaves nothing to discover. It is also logically flawed at the very beginning, because if you believe everything created requires a creator than you must begin to wonder who created him…

I maintain that science, without superstition, holds the most beauty and wonder for those willing to do the work to seek the truth and understand it to the best of their ability.

I wish the media could find someone to update his series, and have the courage to produce it. So much has been discovered since “Cosmos” that we need his wonderstruck approach to inspire new youngsters. The current spate of melodramatic science shows does not have enough continuity to inspire and there is to much fear of exposing the public to “real” science, the description of nature through the media of mathematics.

I disagree with #17 in that for me the awesomeness of the universe makes me more religious, not less. How can you speak of the “beauty and wonder” (totally unscientific terms) of the universe and not consider the possibility, even need of divine creation. (I am, by the way, a rampant anti-creationist, but still an osmotic Christian.)