Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Then you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "containing" lies for me. To me, that means restricting someones ability or right to spread information (even if its not true), which is censorship.

I've said lies and misinformation should be vocally countered as a start. I also think a general recogintion that lies and untruths are wrong inherently would be appropriate. They should be countered for that reason alone.

This idea that people should be entitled to their beliefs regardless of how insane they are is just not realistic and it's not even something we practice in this country. There are hundreds of rules against just doing and saying what you believe. Child molestors are fairly hated in this society for their beliefs/practices, even though not too many hundreds of years ago (and even today in many societies) relations with children were perfectly acceptable.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Well good media should do that. But what the media should report and what they actually do report on is another debate entirely.

I think the major difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you think the state, the media or some kind of entity should be responsible for ensuring that truth is presented whereas I'm saying its up to the individual.

I think the individual's role is the most important as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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



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.

Not true according too?

We're talking beliefs here, to him, what he's talking about is the truth

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

Who decides the truth or what the truth is? Is it up to the government? the individual? some secretive society of seers huddling over a caldron of bubbling baby parts?

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

There's that logical and rational again. To Kirk Cameron, his beliefs are very logical and rational and based in facts created in his belief system.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

When Darwin's book first came out there was a fairly strong backlash against it, a great many people saw it as an afront to what was common knowledge at the time, just because it was accepted now, doesn't mean that it was accepted then, and Darwin was probably viewed by a majority of people as his generations Kirk Cameron.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

To you it is objective truths.

One of the tenents of this society is that we are allowed to believe what we wish to believe, we are even allowed to spread out beliefs to those who accept them.

Kirk Cameron is not spreading hate, he seems to be willing to debate his beliefs with anyone who listens, he's not forcing his beliefs on anyone so its up to the individual on whether they adopt those beliefs or not based on that discussion.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

So then and conversly then you can't give points to the evolutionists for not backing down, they must be tremendously closed minded.

I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious guy, I'm all over evolution, but because I have the faith to believe in a higher power I must be a liar and I should be hammered down by members of society because I don't have the same belief system as them?

BTW in Kirk Cameron's mind, he probably felt like he won the debate based on his own belief system.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

Yeah, way to throw the wide net there and call people with a religious slant ignorant or closed minded.

I might not believe what they say, but I respect their right to believe it and have the moral center enough to discuss it and debate it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've said lies and misinformation should be vocally countered as a start. I also think a general recogintion that lies and untruths are wrong inherently would be appropriate. They should be countered for that reason alone.

So in your mind, you have people that don't believe in evolution as an example. You can't convince then in a debate that they're wrong and your right because their belief system is all the evidence they need, and their faith. What do you do then?

Originally Posted by Sliver

This idea that people should be entitled to their beliefs regardless of how insane they are is just not realistic and it's not even something we practice in this country. There are hundreds of rules against just doing and saying what you believe. Child molestors are fairly hated in this society for their beliefs/practices, even though not too many hundreds of years ago (and even today in many societies) relations with children were perfectly acceptable.

Wow, child molestation is not a belief my friend is a behavior or even an ingrained sexual deviancy. Child molesters don't become child molestors because they examined all sides of the coin and convinced themselves that it was ok, they convinced themselves that it was ok because there is something wrong with their ingrained mental makeup that arouses them when they see kids, just like a normal person gets aroused when they see a hot legal chick in a small bikini.

Being gay is not a belief its an orientation. I couldn't turn gay if I believed that it was the thing to do because it just wouldn't get me all that excited

Your example has nothing to do with the discussion, and whether you ment to or not linking religious beliefs to child molestation is really insulting and a serious WTF moment.

But thanks for the debate.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

See, I don't see you backing down, and I don't see you winning this debate either. So...

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Clearly "truth" represents your opinion, so you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't "quell lies" (in other words others still disagree with you). Like Captain said...

Clearly? The only thing that's clear to me is that you didn't read what I wrote. My point is people can and should be able to say whatever they want: truth, lies, beliefs, opinions or whatever other label you want to apply. It's not the information which is harmful -- it's the actions people take based on their own irrational interpretation of it.

"Quelling lies" is not a quote from me, those were Silver's words. To me that is censorship, which is what I've been advocating against, not for.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Couldn't have said it better myself. Sorry we don't live in a one society, one belief world anymore.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Knalus

See, I don't see you backing down, and I don't see you winning this debate either. So...

So what? Have I been faced with evidence on anything? Kirk Cameron has been faced with evidence against what he preaches, yet he ignores it.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So in your mind, you have people that don't believe in evolution as an example. You can't convince then in a debate that they're wrong and your right because their belief system is all the evidence they need, and their faith. What do you do then?

I don't know what to do there. Some people are just stupid and you can't convince them I guess.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow, child molestation is not a belief my friend is a behavior or even an ingrained sexual deviancy. Child molesters don't become child molestors because they examined all sides of the coin and convinced themselves that it was ok, they convinced themselves that it was ok because there is something wrong with their ingrained mental makeup that arouses them when they see kids, just like a normal person gets aroused when they see a hot legal chick in a small bikini.

Thanks for providing support to my point. If you are religious or if you believe in intelligent design, it is not because you have examined all sides of the coin and rationally and logically come to your conclusions.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Being gay is not a belief its an orientation. I couldn't turn gay if I believed that it was the thing to do because it just wouldn't get me all that excited

Your example has nothing to do with the discussion, and whether you ment to or not linking religious beliefs to child molestation is really insulting and a serious WTF moment.

Oh please, don't play that card. Using an extreme example is just a tool. I'm not suggesting if you are religious you're likely to be a child molestor as well.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not true according too?

We're talking beliefs here, to him, what he's talking about is the truth

Who decides the truth or what the truth is? Is it up to the government? the individual? some secretive society of seers huddling over a caldron of bubbling baby parts?

Truth is arrived at through evidence. Seriously dude, I can't tell if you're serious or if you are just playing the devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's that logical and rational again. To Kirk Cameron, his beliefs are very logical and rational and based in facts created in his belief system.

They're based on flawed logic.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When Darwin's book first came out there was a fairly strong backlash against it, a great many people saw it as an afront to what was common knowledge at the time, just because it was accepted now, doesn't mean that it was accepted then, and Darwin was probably viewed by a majority of people as his generations Kirk Cameron.

Thankfully, I would say more people are logical and rational now and they are certainly better educated than they were in the past.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To you it is objective truths.

One of the tenents of this society is that we are allowed to believe what we wish to believe, we are even allowed to spread out beliefs to those who accept them.

Well what if I believe there is nothing wrong with "loving" a 15 year old girl. I think society would have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Kirk Cameron is not spreading hate, he seems to be willing to debate his beliefs with anyone who listens, he's not forcing his beliefs on anyone so its up to the individual on whether they adopt those beliefs or not based on that discussion.

Yes well his beliefs are not true; that's what I don't like about them.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So then and conversly then you can't give points to the evolutionists for not backing down, they must be tremendously closed minded.

No, they have evidence. Kirk Cameron has flawed logic. They are not equally valid arguements. Kirk Cameron is wrong.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious guy, I'm all over evolution, but because I have the faith to believe in a higher power I must be a liar and I should be hammered down by members of society because I don't have the same belief system as them?

I am curious to know why you believe in a higher power, aside from faith.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, way to throw the wide net there and call people with a religious slant ignorant or closed minded.

I might not believe what they say, but I respect their right to believe it and have the moral center enough to discuss it and debate it.

Well I'm debating it as well so I guess we have that in common. People can believe whatever they want and I won't bother them, but as soon as they start publicly preaching misinformation, I think they should be challenged.

[Thor]

I think people should be aware the title was tongue in cheek, and the original article is about mobilizing people to pick up the copies, cause hey FREE books

But the pressure Ray Comfort and Cameron has faced so far has apparently made them move away from the Nazi talk, the personal attacks on Darwin himself.

Its not about stifling his right to speak his mind and share his beliefs, its about mobilizing a typically quiet base of people to respond and make people aware of this.

In the US the public education system is in many places under attack so to speak by religious interest to inject creationism.

Recent example:

Backers say the law is needed to give science teachers more freedom to challenge traditional theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Critics contend the measure, called the Louisiana Science Education Act, is aimed at injecting religious themes into public schools.

Procedure crafted for handling evolution-materials complaints

by Will Sentell - 2theadvocate.com

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/59572962.html

Here's the religious right response to this:

The statute allows science teachers to use supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, to teach evolution and other topics. [BESE Member] Dale Bayard of Sulphur, chairman of the committee that tackled the issue, [determined that] two reviewers will be named by the department to review the science materials in question as well as one reviewer each named by the challenger, the school and the publisher. The five-member panel will determine whether the materials: Promote any religious doctrine, which is banned by the state law.

A panel of mostly creationists

Academic Freedom Advances!
Source: :Advocate, 9-22-09

http://lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v11i38.htm

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think my own perspective is at odds with a lot of people on this board who are predominantly liberal, classically or progressive, and modernist. I have no real problems with this mindset so far that it represents the most revolutionary form of thought to ever exist. You want to talk about flapdoodle? If John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, among the liberal social theorists, had been engineers or farmers instead of philosophers, we would not live in the society we have today. Everything springs from ideas.

That's all well and good, but you were talking about RELIGIOUS philosophy when I responded with the flapdoodlery. Are Locke and Hobbes RELIGIOUS philosophers? No.

Ideas are important. Ideas about the nature of God and his relationship to humans, the world, and the multiverse, however, are ultimately uninteresting, because there is no God. You seemed to be implying that one can't comment on religious thought if one doesn't know the philosophy behind it, but you miss the point that if religion is bunk, the philosophy of it is bunk as well.

Originally Posted by peter12

We think in terms of reductionism and practicality, sadly there is no use for virtue or wisdom anymore, unless it is deemed realistic.

Who is "we"? For someone who studies philosophy, you seem to have a poor grasp on how people think. I can use reductionist, logical or scientific arguments for or against ideas without being trapped within those methods all the time, and I'm sure I'm not unique in that. Science has moved on from just taking things apart and then wondering why they are broken, you know; that's been passé for a couple generations now.

Originally Posted by peter12

I entirely accept the legitimacy of atheism and the scientific method. I do not accept reductionism as a legitimate worldview. That's fine, we can always argue about it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a reductionist. At least, not anymore than I'm a skeptic, a logician, a humanist, a humorist, and any number of other things. "Reductionism" is mostly a bugbear of the creationists and other assorted worshippers of mystery - it doesn't exist much in the pure form anywhere anymore.

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge. Thus in its quest to understand the human condition, it encompasses all the disciplines. Even science is guided by a philosophy formed by thinkers such as Spinoza, Descartes, and even Luther (the Protestant roots of modern science are quite undeniable).

Defining philosophy as the "pursuit of knowledge" is a little too encompassing for my taste - if I defined science as the "pursuit of knowledge", then does science=philosophy? I don't think so, and thus I think that definition is much too broad.

Philosophy is the study of meaning and how to think about reality, to my way of thinking, and that is much more narrow in its scope. Otherwise, all kinds of thought become "philosophy", and you end up claiming military and political thinkers as philosophers - like Clausewitz. Perhaps in elder times philosophy encompassed all disciplines, but once natural philosophy - science - branched off and out of its clutches, it was no longer a universal system despite the aspirations of its acolytes.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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

Some of what he says are his own beliefs. Some of what he says are outright falsehoods, things that he says not because they are true or are even subjective, but things that he says simply because he has to say them to maintain his belief structure despite contrary evidence.

Are they lies? Lies imply intent to deceive.. I think he lies to himself in that he ignores or refuses to think about things contrary to his dogmatic conclusions. I think he may lie "for the greater good", often creationists don't seem to mind lying as long as it furthers their goal of stopping the "evil atheistic doctrine of darwinism."

But either way, the solution to lies and ignorance are the same.. education and countering the falsehoods or ignorance with truth.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Just a minor point but what Darwin proposed didn't run counter to how society thought; the idea of evolution itself was already there. What Darwin did was bring a mechanism and evidence of that mechanism to the table.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

He can say whatever he wants, what he proved is what I care about.

He proved the theroy of evolution exists, anyone who has travelled around the world can see that (or look on the web to see it).

He didnt prove common ancestory. Those who believe humans came from pond scum will always believe it, and those of us who dont wont.

If you had read his books you would know what he said does support common ancestry. And there's been 150 years of science since Darwin to support it.

The problem is you don't deny what Darwin and others since have said, you deny your (incorrect) concept of what they say. "Those who believe humans came from pond scum" is what you say, when that isn't what is claimed. I would suggest learning about what it is you say you will never believe.

You can believe whatever you wish about common ancestry, but at least it seems you do so honestly; "those of us who don't won't." You choose not to believe it based on your own choice, nothing more. While I think it's a position of ignorance I still respect that more than those who try to ignore the science.

[troutman]

Darwin movie Creation can't find US distributor:

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog...stributor.html

So let's see if I've got this straight: We can have movies about serial killers about once a month, and we can have movies that glorify violence, drug use, and general debauched behavior, and America doesn't even shrug. But a movie about Charles Darwin is just beyond the pale.

TheTorontoFestival entry, oddly titled Creation, stars Paul Bettany as the noted naturalist and father of the evolutionary theory, and according to The Telegraph, US distributors aren't anxious to pick up rights to the film.

"The film has no distributor in America," confesses producer Jeremy Thomas. "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up."

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by troutman

Darwin movie Creation can't find US distributor:

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog...stributor.html

So let's see if I've got this straight: We can have movies about serial killers about once a month, and we can have movies that glorify violence, drug use, and general debauched behavior, and America doesn't even shrug. But a movie about Charles Darwin is just beyond the pale.

TheTorontoFestival entry, oddly titled Creation, stars Paul Bettany as the noted naturalist and father of the evolutionary theory, and according to The Telegraph, US distributors aren't anxious to pick up rights to the film.

"The film has no distributor in America," confesses producer Jeremy Thomas. "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up."

Who are these people if there is no distribution, that's what I'd like to know.

[photon]

People outside the US?

[Finny61]

..so it's a top ten movie in every country outside North America is that the problem? I wasn't aware of that.

[photon]

Who said it was a top ten movie?

Are you seriously missing the point, or just being obtuse?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Who said it was a top ten movie?

Are you seriously missing the point, or just being obtuse?

I think the point has more to do with the distributors in the US feeling that the movie won't make them any money than it does with the movie being pro-evolution.

Hollywood is notoriously liberal. Hard to believe that not ONE movie company would pick the film up.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

Who said it was a top ten movie?

Are you seriously missing the point, or just being obtuse?

You calling me a triangle?!
You said in short 'people outside the US', I say if so then I would assume the world loves it but North America doesn't for some stupid reason?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

You calling me a triangle?!
You said in short 'people outside the US', I say if so then I would assume the world loves it but North America doesn't for some stupid reason?

You just asked who the people were that had seen the film if there was no distribution, the obvious answer is people outside the US.

The film maker is saying that a contributing factor to no one in the US picking up distribution is the fact that a larger percentage of the population in the US think evolution is false and is an atheist plot to pull people away from religion than in other countries where this movie is playing (which is true and supported by the stats).

Distributors are avoiding it, possibly because they don't want to have to deal with the negativity that will result from the fundamentalists.

Which I agree is a stupid reason.

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point has more to do with the distributors in the US feeling that the movie won't make them any money than it does with the movie being pro-evolution.

Hollywood is notoriously liberal. Hard to believe that not ONE movie company would pick the film up.

Could be, though as they point out they released Dragonball... There are far worse movies being picked up and released.

Maybe because the US just doesn't have the market for something without 'splosions?

[Finny61]

Sure but what about DaVinci Code? I'm confident that created a firestorm with religious groups but it did fairly well in the theatres. I understand there might be some portectionism in the US but still, stuff gets on the screen. I assume this protectionism angle is what you are looking at.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point has more to do with the distributors in the US feeling that the movie won't make them any money than it does with the movie being pro-evolution.

Hollywood is notoriously liberal. Hard to believe that not ONE movie company would pick the film up.

Honestly I agree, not sure what fear they have releasing this film, its just a story about the guy not an attempt to push evolution on people.

[Finny61]

^What if the movie actually just sucks (for movie-goers), seriously, bad acting, directing, screenplay or script, no action, nothing compelling, something.