# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Carl Sagan because he says that the word of God is very ambiguous, that is, it gives you the freedom to seem to agree with someone with whom you are not.
I also agree with Isaac Asimov, because he says that small changes have big results, because to be successful in life you have to change certain habits. He also says that there is only one universe and one life and it would be a tragedy not to get anything out of it.

# data[].attributes.body
For me it's okay that Carl Sagan believes in a god, but in a scientific way, that is, as a set of laws that call the universe, but on the other hand, there is Isaac Asimov who calls that there is no God, beings or supernatural spaces, and I agree more with Carl because he has a belief in something existing, that is, he does not believe that there is a beautiful god as always painted white with blue eyes, since he has never seen him and I feel that everyone chooses whether or not to believe if there is a true god.

# data[].attributes.body
Also, the relationship is like any other story that could be in any movie , deries, book look at other ways of listeing to the story. For me,the stories that maen whether they exist or not, don't affect me in my life. In my life, that means any story with ameaning that can be changed or used to show how i see the world, interesting that has its weight in history, but what perhaps doesn't really interest me. What Sagan and Asimov did say about this one let thtm say about this one, well a long time ago i stopped thinking of thr origin as something that as a belief, but rethar as a way of telling stories with symbolism, figure and in and teachings, that these can change in form by showing new ones. Laws of the word

# data[].attributes.body
On the one hand, I agree with Carl Sagan to the extent that he says that over time, with the evolution of society, science, technology... it becomes more difficult to believe that a God or a superior being can exist; Therefore, it would be more coherent for each person to take responsibility for their actions, without waiting for someone to save us. Which could lead us to think that throughout history we have been made to believe in someone and something that is only written in a book, but is not proven. On the other hand, it is controversial that thinking about why good and bad things happen to people? Why does good and evil exist? What will happen after death? What if Does the God that they told us so much about exist?..., many questions that keep society in doubt, which continues leading some people to continue trusting in a religion and in a God, with whom they relate all the good things that they it happens to them. Although outside of morality the scientific theory of the “big bang” also sounds somewhat absurd, sometimes I simply don't even make sense of how it all began and what the purpose of life is. Regarding Isaac Asimov's ideas, I agree in thinking that it is wrong to do things well, simply for the love of God or for fear of going to hell as punishment; which does not clearly mean that we could go out to kill or do things wrong, it is simply up to each person's conscience to act well. And yes, it is clear that each person can have their beliefs, but not put the church in control of a country or a society, as it was for many years, or even force people to believe in a specific religion, when they do not. he wants to do it; But you cannot generalize on the subject either, as there may be people in the church who are there for ambition and power, there will be others who truly want to do good and help people. It's about doing things well for ourselves, not by depending on something or someone.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Asimov that he is not against religion, but against them always trying to impose the same belief system on the nation or on the world in general.
We can never make everyone think the same way or like the same thing but nor is it bad to think differently, if it's wrong to hate someone who doesn't think the same or to kill them, it's something illogical . In the end, everyone has the option to see the different points of view and choose which one to believe in.

It is very true that many people also explain any phenomenon that can happen with God, you may be out of work, you don't have to eat and you trust that it is God who wanted this way, when it is not cheked by anyone, if you were out of work it is because you failed in it and you lost it, but you should not sit and have your God come down from heaven to give you a plate of food and supply everything you need.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the idea of Isaac Asimov, who says; “Because if women had better social status or entered all facets of human conditions, they would not continue to be a baby factory”, since it is more important to project yourself and be someone in life with good economic, psychological and emotional stability, than to bring an unwanted baby in poor conditions to raise it. On Carl's idea, I agree that we can't wait for someone or something to save us from ourselves if we don't do our will, because we're capable of doing great things, both for better and for worse.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Carl Sagan, he agrees that there is no superior being to give the best of oneself, it is also important to clarify an idea and that is that it is more difficult to demonstrate the existence of God due to technological evolution.

Along with Isaac Asimov, I agree that science should not be mixed with religion since science is part of another group outside of religion.
ANDRÉS GÓMEZ

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with carl Sagan that it is increasingly difficult to prove that God Exists. This is thanks to technological advances. This causes us to be left alone and not to seek protection from someone superior. We know that our life depends only on us. On the other hand. I agree with Isaac Asimov that human beings don't have any feelings about what is right or wrong. You're only right for fear of disobeying someone superior, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do because we should be good by our own conscience.

# data[].attributes.body
Regarding Carl Sagan I agree with the idea that there does not have to be a higher being to give the best of ourselves. Weil I believe that human beings are capable of improving on our own and surpassing ourselves and our abilities. Seeing our mistakes and learning from them we will improve to be saved with our effort.
With Isaac Asimov I agree that science should not be mixed with religion because obviously they are very different paths in which evidence can lead you to a precise answer and a belief in the concealment of the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Carl and Isaac mention that there is a belief in a God that no one has ever seen and I agree with this since they mention a man with whom no one has interacted and who has been created in his imagination and likeness. In this they also mention that the People think that they are saved thanks to God, in order not to generate more knowledge and effort, one must create one's own knowledge, beyond what a person believes, since this can be false and generate erroneous knowledge, we must learn to generate findings and It is good that we can come to believe in a God, but we must strive not to depend on him entirely on religious beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Juan David Pinzón.

The ideas that most caught my attention and with which I agree with regarding the video of the philosopher Carl Sagan and the video of Isaac Asimov are the following. “why waiting for someone to save us is less responsible than making our own efforts to do it ourselves.” (Carl Sagan). I agree with his idea because waiting for an all-powerful being to solve your problems renders people unable to face and solve their own problems presented throughout their lives. I think it's important to inculcate one's own efforts to achieve a more dependent society. On the other hand, Isaac Asimov says that he is not against religion, but nevertheless he says that the world should not be Christianized. I totally agree with this idea, since the fact of implanting a religion involuntarily causes the church to be like a dictatorship, in my opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Asimov regarding his opinion on human morals and ethics, mentioning that a person's behavior is not only marked by their beliefs or fear of going to hell, because believing this is the same as saying that the human being has no conscience of his own. But in reality it's quite the opposite, a person governs himself by means of his conscience. We all have the capacity to harm others but we don't because we have our own conscience that prevents us from doing this and this awareness is based on our experiences in society.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the two philosophers since they have similar opinions, I find it very interesting when Carl Sagan says "the word God covers an enormous range of different ideas", I feel that it is very valid since it would not be fair to think that God only See how they show it in the Christian religion, since in other religions God is seen in different ways, in fact there is a great variety of gods in those religions, I also feel that we give the meaning of "God" to anything today in For example, today we say to someone who is very good at making music "you are the God of music", I think that the word God refers to someone superior in something and is not only used to address an all-powerful entity.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Carl Sagan when I talk about the word God is ambiguous, because most people have a different meaning from that word. .I agree with Isaac Asimov when he says that if there were evidence that God exists, science would accept it, but if there is no evidence of God, religion would not accept it because the churches believe in something they don't see.

# data[].attributes.body
I support the idea of more autonomous thinking about our lives, because the more science evolves, a doubt is created, so we haven't had evidence of this divinity, we have a mediocre thought that a God will save us from our mistakes or affect the planet, because we have a beautiful lie that a book has all the knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
When Isaac Asimov says "If the evidence agrees with me it is not necessary if they do not agree with me it is false" it can be explained that if your opinion is contrary to that of the religions they will take it as false since they do not tolerate any other type of opinion than the one they have towards their God and therefore they will exclude you just as they want us all to think the same as they think before what they believe and as a culture we normally do it to fit in with society and not be excluded by them.

# data[].attributes.body
Both sagan and asimov have concrete ideas about religion and the concept of god, and their thinking is similar and they agree on several things. In relation to their ideas I agree that each person believes in what he wants to believe, no one can put their ideals or ideologies in other people and less if it has not been demonstrated the existence.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the authors opinion about science and religion, they say that they are separate domains and that religion should not be used to explain the natural world. In my opinion I feel that it is true, as humans we have the need for affirming scientific evidence and not just belief by faith. Just as Asimov said years ago, although it is still relevant today, religion has gained strength to govern the world and is only leading to conflicts and divisions in humanity. In my opinion Humanity will not change its ignorant mind or maybe it will, but it will be a difficult change.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Carl Sagan that if the existence of something with "higher spiritual powers" is not demonstrated, we would be alone, so we would be forced not to depend on something that probably doesn't exist, which I considere something difficult or that would last a  long time to pass because, as Isaac Asimov said, and I agree with him, religion, unlike science, would show arrogance if it were presented with evidence of other ways of how the world works and they would not accept it because it goes against what they believe. The latter is something that happens and it's difficult to discuss different topics that affect us all if people don't open their minds to new things.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that where Carl Sagan says, that waiting for someone to save us from ourselves so that we don't have to do our best, is absurd, because if we achieve what we set out to do, we won't need anyone, much less a being who doesn't know if he really existed and is said to have done a lot for us, maybe we shouldn't pray for forgiveness for our mistakes or sins, but for ourselves to correct them and give our best, if we want something we must fight to achieve it, not wait for a being Superior wants to give it to us

# data[].attributes.body
For me , who am nota a believer i'm god , i very mucho agree With Carl Sagan that he says that the Word god si very broad , ando Even more confusing personally , i think that the carácter that people have as a superior being i'm unfair convenient , he come to think that believing people are ignorant ando arrogant when someone has a diferent thought.

# data[].attributes.body
when Carl Sagan says that the word god is very ambiguous, he is right, there are so many countries with cultures, with different religions that have even created wars to prove the existence of their god, without understandig that they cannot herd the entire flock to the same belief beleving in a being superior to myself is mostly to fit into what we know as a society have critical opinions towards religions, have valid arguments to demontrate that not everthing rvolves around religion and see how little by little society exclude maryinalizing your self

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, because the two philosophers have a common idea that it is the real thing, since the two of them, even if they have a different thought, say the same word, since we have seen that they are not so far removed from today, the way of thinking of religious people has not changed anything.

# data[].attributes.body
The legacy of Asimov and Sagan is a commitment to making the world something better through science, for which we have to learn a basic principle, we human beings make mistakes and therefore we have to seek to correct ourselves all the time. Asimov tells us that every human person civilized society should feel that every person has the right to their own beliefs. And I agree because each of us decides to choose what to believe in or not. Carl Sagan tells us about God and his existence and beliefs. But Carl Sagan believed in God the scientific way, as a set of physical laws that dominate the universe.