Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the holy guys

I'm not sure...

What we’re seeing in America is more and more people identifying as religiously unaffiliated. They’re referred to as the “nones” here because they checked “none of the above” on religious affiliation surveys.

They’re certainly not embracing atheism here in America. They simply choose to identify as religiously unaffiliated. Quite a few are walking away from the Christianity that they grew up in. They say they find the faith that they’ve grown up in uninspiring, unconvincing and irrelevant.

It’s important to note that the “nones” don’t perceive their understanding of Christianity to be a ‘version’ of the faith. To them, their understanding of the faith is the ‘only’ understanding of the faith. To them, the Christianity they were raised on ‘is’ Christianity. And more and more find their understanding of the faith to be at odds with both scientific and sociological realities that are undeniable in the world that they find themselves living in.

'Spirituality' doesn't necessarily mean the supernatural. You are equivocating. Carl Sagan, an atheist, was not talking about supernatural spirit. Consider what he meant, not what you want it to mean.

You’re consistently wrong.

“I am not an atheist.” - Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan clearly denied being an atheist.

The issue here is whether Jesus abolished the law or not. The words attributed to him state that he had not come to abolish the law, that the law would stand and ''all is fulfilled'' - the latter is assumed by many Christians mean that the blood sacrifice fulfilled the law, which therefore no longer applies which, if true, means that Jesus had in fact come to abolish the law.

So we have a problem, where both views cannot be true. At best you could say that the wording is ambiguous, allowing any number of interpretations....which is a problem with the bible, as made evident in the form of numerous interpretations made by various denominations, sects, cults, etc.

You’re equivocating. Clearly. And you’re clearly not considering what He meant. At all. You’re only voicing what you want it to mean.

The ‘only’ one with a problem is you. Clearly.

Nope. You are quote mining again. That is your fallacy. Try to do better.

Carl Sagan was agnostic on the matter of God, which means not holding belief in the existence of a God. Agnosticism is a form of atheism; soft atheism.


Quote;
''David Morrison, one of Sagan’s students back in the day, tells me by e-mail, “Carl acted like an atheist but rejected the label. I guess it seemed too absolute to him. He always tried to be open to new evidence on any subject. I am reminded of Bill Nye answering a question about what could change his mind about evolution : ‘evidence’.”

I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:

“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care.He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”

Here’s a definition of “agnosticism” from Merriam-Webster: “Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.”

More equivocating on your part. Clearly.

You said he (Carl Sagan) was an atheist.

He (Carl Sagan) clearly said he was not an atheist.

You’re consistently wrong.

That's you, always wrong. You quoted someone, Sagan, who held no belief or conviction in the existence of a God or gods.

Anyone who lacks a conviction or belief in a God or gods is atheistic. Atheist literally means 'without a belief in God'

Sagan, an Agnostic did not believe in a God or gods;


Agnostic
ag·​nos·​tic | \ ag-ˈnä-stik , əg- \
Definition of agnostic (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
political agnostics

First you said:You were clearly wrong:‘Then’ you said:Period.


Despite ‘much’ equivocating on your part.

Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people's hearts and they will learn the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil's trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

Dang...another good one.

DBT, that is your interpretation of what Jesus stated....YOUR INTERPRETATION, and I do not see why Christians cannot have their interpretation....as I've said many, many times before....you have your ideas, thoughts perceptions, and Christians have theirs. So, why can't you agree to disagree and be done with it, or do you just want to go on and on and on and on like the energizer bunny that we see in ads on TV?

I pray you are correct...

Antlers is correct.....you did say Sagan is an atheist (see your words above)...but a few threads later you said Sagan was Agnostic, and here, I agree with you, as I believe Sagan is someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God.

There are some guys who are so desperate for attention and some status, so deprived of normal human interaction in their personal environment, and so willing to lie and dodge in order to retain attention to themselves - that they will say and do almost anything in their quest.

Duplicity, hypocrisy, plagiarism, bold lies - no personal pride to prevent the person from using such tactics - will do and say anything it takes to feed the need. After all, it is just the internet.

I can admire any forthright poster here who is committed to his espoused values and keeps trying to create some positive breakthrough with a person like the above. Better men than me.

Yes, you do. Its called "materialism" (the belief that the Universe is a closed system of material cause and effect) and it and its derivative claims are held on the basis of faith.

Google "theology" then

Google "theology definition".

Looks like the theists have run out of steam. Antlers is in misdirection mode, CCCC is producing bafflegab and Raspy is patting them all on the backside and saying "good job".

Agnostics do not believe in a God or gods. You quoted from Sagan, who did not believe in a God or gods - to support your version of spirituality and theism....something that was not supported by Carl Sagan

That is your error. My error was not saying atheist instead of agnostic.

Sagan was against hard atheism, not a lack of belief in God. There are hard atheists, soft atheists and agnostics...none believe in God.

It is you who is equivocating. My only error was minor, I should have said agnostic, not that it matters because the result is the same: Sagan did not believe in a God or gods.