I still can't put Dawkin's and Sagan in the same category. He
   was EQUALLY critical of quack science as he was of poor
   political funding decisions and quack religions.

   He had *no problem* with mainstream religions.

   None.

   *That's* what sets Sagan apart. He wasn't on a campaign to
   eliminate religion like Dawkins. Can you see the difference?
   Sagan saw what was good about religions and religiousity. He
   INSPIRED a religious devotion to Science in the people that
   listened to him. He did for me as well.

   But he wasn't *anti* religion. He was anti-quackery.

   That's a much broader field which *includes* Science. No one
   group is singled out as "This one is 100% ok". There's problems
   everywhere that need resolution.

   Sagan was a *humanist*. Dawkins is an Atheist.

   There is a big difference between the two. There shouldn't be,
   but there is, which is why I could never be Atheist. I am
   agnostic, but I could never be Atheist. It's too religious for
   my taste.

   Scientism would be fine *if* it was humanist in nature. But it's
   not. In practice, Scientism, which appears to be your religious
   leanings, and that's ok by me - _tends_ to see itself as THE ONE
   TRUE WAY.. ... _THE PATH_ to enlightenment.

   Let's see... One True Church.

   It's ironic because as the majority of mainstream religions have
   been moving _away_ from the "ONE TRUE [X]" way of thinking,
   Scientism has been taking its place.

   That's the trend that disturbs me, especially that it has a
   Southern Baptist Christian mannerism about it, at least among
   the New Atheist group. Of _all_ the Christian groups to pattern
   itself with, the southern baptist christian is about the *worst*
   template to use.