[Sliver]

I'm not saying what you think I am saying.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He's not spreading lies, he's spreading his beliefs and there's a vast difference.

I know he's not spreading lies to the extent that he believes what he's saying. But he is spreading misinformation. His beliefs are objectively not true.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its up to people if they want to believe what he's spreading.

If my kid is telling a bald faced lie thats harmful and not backed by belief of course I'll chastise him, if he's spreading something thats hatefull of course I'll chastise him.

But I'm not going to censure something that someone believes I might debate him on it.

You guys, please quit saying I want to censor Kirk Cameron. You are spreading misinformation about me.

Seriously though, I'm not for censorship but I am fundamentally against the spread of things that aren't true pawned off as the truth.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

but its not up to you or me or a commission to decide whats allowed to be heard.

Its up to us as a society to take in that information and decide if its valid or not.

I agree. It is up to our society to decide if that information is valid or not. And we've decided. Kirk Cameron's ideas are dumb - just ask anybody who is logical and rational.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If Kirk Cameron gave me that book, I would take it, thank him very much, probably read the pre-amble and decide that it doesn't jive with what I know based on what I've studied or absorbed or believe.

In your way of thinking, Charles Darwin should have had a sock stuffed in his mouth when he was originally discussing his findings because it went counter to what society believed at the time.

What are you talking about? Charles Darwin's ideas were rational and logical. My criteria for accepting an idea isn't whether or not the masses do, it's whether or not it's true. Kirk Cameron's ideas are antiquated and have been disproved time and time again.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If as a society we're so stupid that we need people to define our beliefs based on someones decision that its a lie then we're a fairly closed minded society.

I'm not talking about somebody arbitrarily deciding what is true and what is a lie. There are objective truths and untruths. What Cameron spouts is objectively untrue.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I remember right, Kirk Cameron did engage in a televised debate against some evolutionists? (I'm assuming thats a term) and he got fairly hammered on it, so I give him points because he's not backing down on his beliefs just like Darwin didn't back down on his or Galileo didn't back down on his.

Sarah Palin has been heavily countered and contained by the media, by opposition members of the party.

The concept of one society one belief died a while ago when the church lost its absolute power within society.

See I don't give him points for not backing down after losing a debate. That is close minded. I'm much more open minded than that. I'm an atheist because I have never seen a shred of evidence that supports the idea that there is a god or gods. If I was presented with evidence, I would happily change my mind.

Religious people, conversely, are faced with evidence against their beliefs regularly yet because they have "faith," they ignore the evidence and proceed to believe things that are not true. That to me is not praise worthy.