Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I also find that it only serves as an advertising outlet for atheists and agnostics that want to force their opinion on the rest of us.

We pay taxes and can't afford to put up a building on every other corner so we have to preach it somewhere. The best we can do is the off-topic part of a hockey message board.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

It's funny that praise is given when someone advertises on a bus that there is no such thing as God but then someone religious says something and it means they deserve condemnation? You don't agree with them, they don't agree with you, live with it. Free speech is entitled on both sides of the fence.

Who said that someone shouldn't be allowed to put a religious message on a bus but should allow an atheistic message? A little hyperbole for a little drama?

Mind you I don't recall hearing about bus drivers refusing to drive a bus that held a religious message like they did with the other message... or organizations that rejected an ad just because it was religious in nature like they did with an atheistic message.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Azure

I also find that it only serves as an advertising outlet for atheists and agnostics that want to force their opinion on the rest of us.

I've just reread every post in this thread, and have not seen a single post from an atheist/agnostic that tries to force anyone to become atheist or agnostic. A few posts that question the inerrancy of the bible, and a couple that point out that a major Christian theologian held beliefs that most consider repulsive. A few dismissive points about Scientology.

More than a few people have tried to make the argument that Darwinism leads to fascism. Many more posts have been rebutting that simplistic and absurd notion. The Holocaust happened for many complex reasons - blaming it on one cause (whether Darwin or Martin Luther) does history a disservice.

Personally, for a long time I believed in a God that set everything in motion, but was not involved in the day to day operations of things here. I guess I was a deist. I eventually stopped believing in this God, but only through a lot of reading and research and investigation. Anyone who reads a post in the off-topic section of a hockey forum and says "hey, that makes sense - I don't believe in God anymore" was never really a believer. I'm not going to make a believer abandon his/her faith, but I will be happy to rebut their arguments against evolution. That doesn't mean that I am trying to force atheism on anyone, just knowledge.

[Azure]

Oh come on. Did you not see the guying whistling.

It was sarcasm. Does everything have to be in green text or what?

Of all the people on CP, I'd be the last one complaining if someone is posting their opinion, be it whatever. In fact, I staunchly defend the right for everyone to do so.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by flip

I am. As far as I'm concerned people like him are a danger to society because stupid people listen to him and then for fundamentalist beliefs based on his BS.

I don't think we should outright kill him though. I say we shoot him and his friends into space...out of a canon.

Brutal post. If what he has to say really is bunk, there's nothing to worry about because honestly, since when do you really care what stupid people think? Won't "truth" as you see it, and science, leave those idiots behind and phase them out of society anyway?

Kirk Cameron is not a danger to society. If you get rid of Kirk Cameron, you don't get rid of stupid people - they will always be there. Nobody tends to give a flip what stupid people think. They're stupid. They won't amount to anything.

The only reason one would have for seeing someone such as Kirk as a "danger to society" with his beliefs...is if there's truth to what he says - a truth that you don't want to hear or see.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm pretty sure Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran. He at the very least hung with more Catholic clergy than Lutherans. In any case he could have found anti Semitic writings in any of the major Christian denominations.

The thing is Hitler never used the Catholic or Protestant notion that they had replaced the Jews as God's anointed people. He also never spoke about the Jews being the enemies of God or that his was a Holy war. He spoke about superior races.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the full title of Darwin's ground breaking book. "Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" sounds an awful lot like "superior races". Hitler wasn't alone in developing this notion as well. If you believe that mankind has evolved from lower forms of life and is still evolving; it's not unreasonable to assume that within our species there would be stronger progressive races and others that are weaker and in decline. Hitler viewed his race as superior and saw it as only natural to eliminate those who stood in the way of his races dominance. I mean if we are but animals isn't any action we take natural and amoral?

I am not going to post any links because I know it's been pointed out to you many times before, but Darwin was not referring to human races in the title of his book, but you can continue to ignore that and post bs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Brutal post. If what he has to say really is bunk, there's nothing to worry about because honestly, since when do you really care what stupid people think? Won't "truth" as you see it, and science, leave those idiots behind and phase them out of society anyway?

Kirk Cameron is not a danger to society. If you get rid of Kirk Cameron, you don't get rid of stupid people - they will always be there. Nobody tends to give a flip what stupid people think. They're stupid. They won't amount to anything.

The only reason one would have for seeing someone such as Kirk as a "danger to society" with his beliefs...is if there's truth to what he says - a truth that you don't want to hear or see.

I wish it was that easy, but the stupid people have serious pull and we can't just ignore them and wait for evolution to end stupidity.

We're all here for a good time, not a long time, so have a good time, and don't let the superstitious dummies run the show.

[flip]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Brutal post. If what he has to say really is bunk, there's nothing to worry about because honestly, since when do you really care what stupid people think? Won't "truth" as you see it, and science, leave those idiots behind and phase them out of society anyway?

Kirk Cameron is not a danger to society. If you get rid of Kirk Cameron, you don't get rid of stupid people - they will always be there. Nobody tends to give a flip what stupid people think. They're stupid. They won't amount to anything.

The only reason one would have for seeing someone such as Kirk as a "danger to society" with his beliefs...is if there's truth to what he says - a truth that you don't want to hear or see.

Watch it you.

Oh, and "swoosh" that is the sound of my post going right over your head. I meant that post to be about as serious as I take Cameron.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Personally, for a long time I believed in a God that set everything in motion, but was not involved in the day to day operations of things here. I guess I was a deist. .

In today's National Post, an interview with the author of "The Evolution of God" which is probably pertinent to this topic and your sentence in particular.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ot-of-god.aspx

Cowperson

[peter12]

I must say that I find the atheists on this board sometimes as unconvincing as Kirk Cameron. Not in a theological sense, but in a philosophical one.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In today's National Post, an interview with the author of "The Evolution of God" which is probably pertinent to this topic and your sentence in particular.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ot-of-god.aspx

Cowperson

The Evolution of God is a fantastic book.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

I must say that I find the atheists on this board sometimes as unconvincing as Kirk Cameron. Not in a theological sense, but in a philosophical one.

Atheism can be a frustrating position to argue sometimes because it is entirely based on logic and evidence. This is going to sound very belittling and condescending, but I'm an atheist and I find arguing with religious people like talking to my three year old about monsters. She has never seen one and there is no evidence they exist save for what she hears from her friends and sees in movies/reads in stories, but she is 100% certain monsters are real and I can't convince her otherwise.

Religious people are exactly the same. The difference is, my daughter doesn't really approach anything rationally. She applies her fata'd up toddler pseudo-logic to everything she encounters. For instance, she thinks a baby can't walk because its feet are too small. Well that isn't true, you can see how it kind of makes sense to her.

Unlike a three-year old, a religious person usually does approach the rest of their life logically, except for this one area. It is hard to comprehend why the critical-thinking component of their mind shuts down when it comes to the absurd claims of their religion, but it does.

Religious people make unsubstantiated, preposterous claims. Atheists follow logic and our claims are backed up by evidence. If we don't know the answer to something, we don't make something up and we don't turn to out-dated, ill-informed, mistake-riddled books and teachings with a dubious agenda. Our agenda is truth. That is not the agenda of a religous book, although it is what they claim.

In an atheist's mind, the jury isn't out on this issue. In the same way a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu and a Buddhist all know a Christian has it wrong, an atheist has only taken it one step further and dismissed all the religions as being wrong. For the Christians reading this, how can you see this as such a wild jump in logic? It's exactly what you do when you think a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu and a Buddhist are wrong, with the exception that you don't dismiss those other religions on any fundamental logical ground, you just believe your fairytale is superior to their fairytale.

Frankly, it's ridiculous and this is an issue of right versus wrong and it is not okay for us to pander to the hurt feelings of religious people that don't think their asinine beliefs are fair game for criticism.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Atheism can be a frustrating position to argue sometimes because it is entirely based on logic and evidence. This is going to sound very belittling and condescending, but I'm an atheist and I find arguing with religious people like talking to my three year old about monsters. She has never seen one and there is no evidence they exist save for what she hears from her friends and sees in movies/reads in stories, but she is 100% certain monsters are real and I can't convince her otherwise.

Religious people are exactly the same. The difference is, my daughter doesn't really approach anything rationally. She applies her fata'd up toddler pseudo-logic to everything she encounters. For instance, she thinks a baby can't walk because its feet are too small. Well that isn't true, you can see how it kind of makes sense to her.

Unlike a three-year old, a religious person usually does approach the rest of their life logically, except for this one area. It is hard to comprehend why the critical-thinking component of their mind shuts down when it comes to the absurd claims of their religion, but it does.

Religious people make unsubstantiated, preposterous claims. Atheists follow logic and our claims are backed up by evidence. If we don't know the answer to something, we don't make something up and we don't turn to out-dated, ill-informed, mistake-riddled books and teachings with a dubious agenda. Our agenda is truth. That is not the agenda of a religous book, although it is what they claim.

In an atheist's mind, the jury isn't out on this issue. In the same way a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu and a Buddhist all know a Christian has it wrong, an atheist has only taken it one step further and dismissed all the religions as being wrong. For the Christians reading this, how can you see this as such a wild jump in logic? It's exactly what you do when you think a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu and a Buddhist are wrong, with the exception that you don't dismiss those other religions on any fundamental logical ground, you just believe your fairytale is superior to their fairytale.

Frankly, it's ridiculous and this is an issue of right versus wrong and it is not okay for us to pander to the hurt feelings of religious people that don't think their asinine beliefs are fair game for criticism.

Argh, my first instinct was to snipe back, but your post is such a perfect case in point... Let me clarify, I read political philosophy part-time and will hopefully one day both read and teach it for a living. I am familiar with atheism. People don't change, here have always been skeptics and in no way does Charles Darwin represent any sort of meaningful breakthrough in the search to falsify or confirm the existence of God.

The sectarian differences and their contradicting claims to truth really do not represent any sort of meaningful obstacle to religious truth. You want to uncover more, you uncover the philosophy. You attack the particular damage it does to the human spirit. Now none of the philosophers ever discount religion, to do so would be foolish. That is my first problem with the humanists.

Second, the proper way to understand religion is to study its impact on the human spirit. You have nothing with which to replace religion, except for cold materialism. There is no eros in your thought. It is cold, boring, and frankly, stupid. Go read Rousseau and see what he had to say about Christianity. He disliked it, but he suggested something radical and wonderful to replace it.

We all dislike sectarians, except most people are themselves sectarian. The Darwinian humanists or atheists are as bad as anyone else. You have a bare grasp of humanity, preferring scientists to do your thinking for you.

[Pastiche]

How many atrocities has the Bible inspired?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

Argh, my first instinct was to snipe back, but your post is such a perfect case in point... Let me clarify, I read political philosophy part-time and will hopefully one day both read and teach it for a living. I am familiar with atheism. People don't change, here have always been skeptics and in no way does Charles Darwin represent any sort of meaningful breakthrough in the search to falsify or confirm the existence of God.

The sectarian differences and their contradicting claims to truth really do not represent any sort of meaningful obstacle to religious truth. You want to uncover more, you uncover the philosophy. You attack the particular damage it does to the human spirit. Now none of the philosophers ever discount religion, to do so would be foolish. That is my first problem with the humanists.

Second, the proper way to understand religion is to study its impact on the human spirit. You have nothing with which to replace religion, except for cold materialism. There is no eros in your thought. It is cold, boring, and frankly, stupid. Go read Rousseau and see what he had to say about Christianity. He disliked it, but he suggested something radical and wonderful to replace it.

We all dislike sectarians, except most people are themselves sectarian. The Darwinian humanists or atheists are as bad as anyone else. You have a bare grasp of humanity, preferring scientists to do your thinking for you.

I've read plenty on religion, thank you. I have a minor in religious studies from the UofC with a focus on the nature of religion and I do all my own thinking.

Show me where I attacked what religion does to the human spirit. I did say we shouldn't pander to the hurt feelings of religious people when discussing the validity of their claims, but that wasn't to dismiss any positive they take out of religion and apply to their lives - that is a separate issue.

A claim is either right or wrong. Jesus was either born of a virgin or he wasn't. The fact that a Christian really really really wants this to be true doesn't enter into it and the fact that they will be upset when they learn that virgins can't get pregnant as evidenced by fifth grade human sexuality also doesn't matter. What matters is truth.

This discussion has had nothing to do with religion's affect on the human spirit - we have been discussing whether or not the actor that played Boner's best friend's assertions are true or false. They are false.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

How many atrocities has the Bible inspired?

There is no doubt that Darwin was one of the intellectual inspirations for the Nazi race policy. By the way, so was Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Goethe. Does that put the impetus on Darwin? Of course not, the man wasn't an ethical thinker. He was a naturalist. Interpretation and philosophy are how we make decisions. Pieces of paper don't.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

People don't change, here have always been skeptics and in no way does Charles Darwin represent any sort of meaningful breakthrough in the search to falsify or confirm the existence of God.

I've said this before, it doesn't CLAIM to be. All evolution does is provide a natural mechanism to explain a natural phenomenon.

Evolution explaining diversity of life doesn't confirm or falsify God, it just shows that God didn't create all the animals in an act of special creation, just like understanding how lightning works doesn't falsify Zeus, it just means that lightning isn't caused by Zeus hurling them down from heaven.

It only falsifies god if your definition of god requires evolution be false, which does not describe all Christians but does describe a small but vocal group of them.

Originally Posted by peter12

The Darwinian humanists or atheists are as bad as anyone else. You have a bare grasp of humanity, preferring scientists to do your thinking for you.

Atheism isn't a philosophical outlook or a moral code or a system of beliefs, it's the lack of belief in a god. It seems to me that you are doing what you accuse others of doing; just lumping a bunch of people together and saying how they are wrong. Not all atheists discount philosophy, not all atheists ignore the impact religion has.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is no doubt that Darwin was one of the intellectual inspirations for the Nazi race policy.

No, it wasn't. Darwin's books were banned materials. Genocide and racism existed FAR before Darwin did. I don't see any evidence at all that the Nazis read Darwin and based their policies on anything there.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I've said this before, it doesn't CLAIM to be. All evolution does is provide a natural mechanism to explain a natural phenomenon.

Evolution explaining diversity of life doesn't confirm or falsify God, it just shows that God didn't create all the animals in an act of special creation, just like understanding how lightning works doesn't falsify Zeus, it just means that lightning isn't caused by Zeus hurling them down from heaven.

It only falsifies god if your definition of god requires evolution be false, which does not describe all Christians but does describe a small but vocal group of them.



Atheism isn't a philosophical outlook or a moral code or a system of beliefs, it's the lack of belief in a god. It seems to me that you are doing what you accuse others of doing; just lumping a bunch of people together and saying how they are wrong. Not all atheists discount philosophy, not all atheists ignore the impact religion has.

I'm not attacking atheism per se, just the common liberal humanist interpretation espoused by most people nowadays. The point of my post is that there are far deeper methods by which to explore the depth of the gods than to merely point to natural selection as the great disclaimer.

Trust me, I know my evolutionary theory, interesting but kind of useless in the philosophical sense, as far as I am concerned.

The real point of discussion is the gods as human revelation, not the gods as materialist creators.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

No, it wasn't. Darwin's books were banned materials. Genocide and racism existed FAR before Darwin did. I don't see any evidence at all that the Nazis read Darwin and based their policies on anything there.

It wasn't direct through Darwin but through some of his philosophical contemporaries. I can suggest the writings of Eric Voegelin for confirmation.

The overall issue, as Voegelin puts it, is gnostic scientism. The idea that science, not philosophy, separates spirit from nature and reduces it to a set of rules. I'm not saying that Darwin's ideas were not horribly twisted as soon as he wrote them down, but thus is the danger of human interpretation.