Kirk Cameron and his debating growing pains
As we previously reported, Kirk headed to campus to hand out copies of a “revised” edition of “On The Origin of the Species” — in which the author attempts to connect Darwin to Hitler.During the “event,” several students asked Kirk about his thoughts on Darwin. Kirk responded, “I believe that Darwin was absolutely … that the end game was to make God … was to remove God from the world view of .. I think that that was the end game.”Excellent point.
Hostility and Ignorance on a Sunday Evening
So last night while I was watching the real kind of football, the MLS final, a little debate between my good friend @briandgregory (you may know him from Skeptically Speaking) and @BMoreGoHard, a god-loving Ravens fan occurred.
Note: Some of these screenshots differ in format because @BMoreGoHard could not adhere to the 140 character limit and uses the Twitlonger service.
And thus concludes a dialog between an atheist and a theist who would rather fill in all the gaps with an imaginary friend.
Fun Times with a Young Earth Creationist
Fun Times with a YEC
The following discussion was all predicated by the posting of this video regarding a 6000 year old earth and a message based on fear. It was all done on a FB wall so that is why it is in this format:
Me:
Two thoughts to get started:
- 6000 year old earth? Please…that is so completely rediculous…the earth is so much older than that – approx 4.5 billion years old. You may want to learn about radiometric dating. Here’s some links to get you started: Wikipedia: Radiometric Dating, Radiometric Dating: Dr. Roger C. Wiens (This one is written from a Christian perspective)
- Scare tactics only work on those who already believe. It’s such a sad way to try to convert others and truly unconvincing to anyone else.
Young Earth Creationist:
I’ll say like I told someone else, if Christians are wrong, what have we lost? If you are wrong, hmmmmmmmmm!
Me:
Wow…Pascal’s wager. So weak. There are just so many ways to go after that one…but I’ll offer this:
How do you know Muslum’s or Hindus or Catholics aren’t right? Maybe you should also take up all those religions too ‘just in case’. Maybe you should start worshiping Odin or Thor…just in case….because what if you were wrong! hmmmmmmmmm!
Me:
And just to point out…you didn’t answer either of my objections to the video. Both which are part of the issues of a faith that doesn’t allow you to objectively look at the evidence available.
Young Earth Creationist:
A Christian Response to Radiometric dating by Dr. Tasman B. Walker Here is a link for you. In reference to your ‘weak’ statement, yes there is faith involved to a degree with creation. However, in studying the human body and everything in the world and how everything is intertwined and how if one system breaks … Read Moredown it effects all the others, it took more than a BIG BANG to make that occur. I find it harder to believe that it just happened all of a sudden, than to believe that there was a Superior Being (GOD) who created and designed all the intricacies of the earth. No matter whether you believe in the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ or not, you can not argue what He has done in my life and the lives of so many others. I find it interesting that so many who turn their back on Him in good times, cry out to Him when in need. When you state that people who have faith cannot be objective, I could say the reverse. Of course I don’t know you from Adam (no pun intended) so I would be making a pretty broad assumption, as are you. Because of these reasons, I chose to believe the Bible and that one day I will stand before my Creator and be able to thank Him for all He has done for me. You may call that ignorant and niave, and that is fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. And in terms of the scare tactic, if presenting the reality is scary, so be it. Everyone makes their own individual choice to accept or reject and will answer for their choice. I find it interesting the anger and disdain behind your words. Anyway, I don’t intend to go any further with this because truthfully I have spent way to much time debating this and similar issues on here that it really isn’t worth it. You are going to believe what you believe, and you will never convince me that Creation did not occur and that God doesn’t exist. If you ever seriously want to debate this issue, I know someone that would love to sit and talk about it with you. Josh is my cousin and would know how to contact me.
Me:
“there is faith involved to a degree with creation” — No actually it is ALL faith. There is no science/evidence to back it up…sorry.
“I find it harder to believe that it just happened all of a sudden, than to believe that there was a Superior Being (GOD) who ” — That is called the argument from ignorance. You don’t understand it so it can’t be true. Doesn’t hold up well to reason and logic though.
“you can not argue what He has done in my life and the lives of so many others.” — sure I can. You have no evidence that anything that has happened to you is a result of your god. You simply attribute it to him. The same way that anyone does of any particular religion. It’s called confirmation bias.
“if presenting the reality is scary” — But you are not presenting reality. You are presenting your religions version of it which is not based on evidnce. Provide any reliable, objective, and verifiable evidence of your god or afterlife…then we can talk about it.
” I find it interesting the anger and disdain behind your words. ” — I love how people love to say this when people disagree with them. I’m not angry at all…I actually am quite amused by these conversations.
“really isn’t worth it.” — Actually if what you are saying is true…that is a very sad statement. You are then saying that my life isn’t worth saving. I don’t think that’s what your Christian doctrine teaches.
“If you ever seriously want to debate this issue” — Simply asking questions and pointing out illogic when people post things on their walls isn’t a bad thing. Anyone is free to do the same on my wall. I still go back to my original point that is it amazing to me that anyone still believes in a 6000 year old earth as you have to completely disregard any science that invalidates your beliefs, while holding on to the rest.
Young Earth Creationist:
You can say what you want and put down all you want and call me anything you want and that is okay. When saying that it isn’t worth it, I did not mean your soul is not worth it. However, I am pretty sure based on what your responses are that I certainly am not going to convince you of anything and that is okay. I don’t need to. There is … Read Moreevidence to support creation if you are brave enough to search for it. There are knowledgable scientists who study it also but I presume that because they come at it with a Christian viewpoint you would not give it the time of day. Just out of curiosity did you read the article posted? It’s okay if you didn’t. I am going to drop this and agree to disagree. In reference to the “seriously debate” this comment, I know someone who has spent alot of time researching this very subject and is very knowledgable concerning it. I unfortunately don’t have the mind to keep all the facts sitting there waiting for me to spew them on command. Nor do I have the time right now to research them and list them for you. Had a kid and husband home sick yesterday and they were my primary concern. I am sorry that you feel that way about Christianity or ” religion” because I know that alot of “Christians” give it a bad name. It is not about religion, it is about a relationship with Jesus and the peace that I have in my life. The peace that you cannot take away from me is evidence enough for me that it is real. There are so many things in this life that you cannot prove exists ie: our minds but we see the results of it and it takes faith for that. It takes faith to trust that when you sit in a chair, it is going to hold you up. You don’t test it first to make sure, you have faith because of past experience that it is going to hold you when you sit down. I don’t’ know what your life experiences are but it saddens me that you have such a negative view of what you consider to be just religion. If you truly are interested in finding some kind of evidence about creation, look into Grant Jeffries books. There are many others out there but he has alot of interesting things to say. Maybe you don’t truly care and just want to debate for the sake of debating and that is okay. Anyway, I hope that you have a great day and I hope that through what I have said you can see that it is not that I don’t care about your soul, I do care about all people who refuse to believe and accept Jesus as their Saviour. However, I suspect that there is not much that I can say that is going to convince you. Therefore I will continue to pray for those who don’t believe and I hope that this doesn’t come across as condescending or holier than thou because I do not meant it in the least that way. Hope you have a great day! Gotta get moving and get my household taken care of now.
Me:
Paragraphs would be nice….
“call me anything you want” —What did I call you? I haven’t called you any names.
“I don’t need to.” — Actually the burder of proof is on you. You are the one making a claim without evidence. I don’t need to provide proof that fairies don’t exist. Anyone who wants to claim that they do must provide the evidence. Same goes for your god.
“Just out of curiosity did you read the article posted?” — Have you read any real science? The creation institute is the laughing stock of the scientifc community so anyone who cites them as credible evidence obviously doesn’t know what they are talking about.
“Nor do I have the time right now to research them and list them for you.” — I guess it’s easier to keep your faith in check if you don’t know why you believe what you do. I simply care about believing the most true things I can based on evidence and science.
“It is not about religion, it is about a relationship with Jesus and the peace that I have in my life. ” — Yep…that is one of those mantras I hear christians talk about. But shouldn’t a relationship be two sided? Talking to yourself and calling it praying doesn’t mean anyone is listening.
“The peace that you cannot take away from me is evidence enough for me that it is real. ” — Believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn’t make it any more valid or true. There are lots of people who believe in alot of crazy stuff because it makes them feel better (psychics, faith healing, christianity, hinduism, dead relatives “reaching out”, etc)….but that doesn’t mean any of it is really true.
“our minds but we see the results of it and it takes faith for that. ” — umm no it doesn’t. What are you calling our mind? Our brain…thought process, neurons firing? There is verifiable evidence of all these things.
“It takes faith to trust that when you sit in a chair, it is going to hold you up.” — um no. That is physics. If you reduce your faith (which is believing in that which there is no evidence for or even in the face of contradictory evidence) to sitting in a chair…that doesn’t say much for your god.
“such a negative view of what you consider to be just religion” — It’s not negative….it’s rational.
“If you truly are interested in finding some kind of evidence about creation, look into Grant Jeffries books” — There is no credible evidence of creation. I have been on both sides of this discussion. Actually open your eyes…learn about science…it’s really not that hard. Do you think that all the science that opposes at 6ooo year old earth is lying?
Young Earth Creationist:
Okay, I am done. God bless you and your life. Not going to convince you of anything and that is okay. You will NEVER convnce me either. And again, you make assumptions about me. You know nothing about me and what I have studied. Goodbye!
Me:
You could convince me. All you have to do is provide objective and verifiable evidence. That is the difference between you and me. You have your mind made up regardless of the evidence. I am open to learning about the world and new things. I make up my mind after I have examined the evidence…not before.
What assumptions have I made? First you say I call you names (which I didn’t) then I make assumptions? It’s really easy to cut and paste and explain yourself.
Afterthought
I’m not really sure why I get myself in these discussions in the first place. If a person is willing to suspend all logic and reasoning to believe in a 6000 year old earth…why try reasoning with them?
But in the spirit of fairness…did I miss anything?
The debate continues after he published the exchange in a Note on his Facebook page, this time with another friend.
Here are clickable links to what was posted in the Facebook comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0
I hope a history book is on your list to Santa
Filed under: Debates, Holidays & Observances, Politics, Twitter
Ok, I know…the stupidity is so disgusting that it hurts your head. But let’s move on and dissect this piece of donkey shit. First off he wants we godless heathens to understand that if we do not like the idea of Christmas, we are Nazis. This is one of the more irritating anti-secular arguments that atheists come across, “Stalin and Hitler were atheists and look what they did.” My favorite retort to this straw-man argument comes from Richard Dawkins when he points out that both men had similar mustaches, so why do we not blame their atrocities on their facial hair instead of their religious stances? Neither had anything to do with the way they governed.
Stalin is a whole other kettle of fish, and the tweeter specifically refers to Nazism in this case, so I’m only going to discuss Hitler. I wish he would have provided a link to the article or historical writing proving that the Nazis banned Christmas. Because without proof of that, I find these photographs a bit confusing.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Cornwell argued that Pacelli’s anti-Semitism combined with his drive to promote papal absolutism inexorably led him to collaboration with fascist leaders, a collaboration which led to what Cornwell characterizes as “the betrayal of Catholic democratic politics in Germany”. Cornwell describes this collaboration with fascist leaders as starting in 1929 with the concordat with Mussolini known as the Lateran Treaty, and followed by the concordat with Hitler known as the Reichskonkordat.
The most famous of all the internet laws, formed by Mike Godwin in 1990. As originally stated, it said: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” It has now been expanded to include all web discussions. It is closely related to the logical fallacy “reductio ad Hitlerum”, which says “Hitler (or the Nazis) liked X, so X is bad”, frequently used to denigrate vegetarians and atheists.
Common Godwin’s Law appearances include describing women’s rights campaigners as “feminazis”, comparing the former US President George W Bush to Hitler, or saying Barack Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms are the new Holocaust. As well as the descriptive form, it can be used prescriptively: so if any poster does mention the Nazis in a discussion thread, Godwin’s Law can be invoked, they instantly lose the argument and the thread can be ended.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or otherwise took part in the American Revolution in winning American independence from Great Britain, or who participated in framing and adopting the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, or in putting the new government under the Constitution into effect.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- All the founding fathers were white. Does this mean the United States is a “white nation” and the rights of all other races should be denied? No.
- All the founding fathers spoke English. Does this mean the United States is an “English speaking only nation” and the rights of those who are bilingual or multi-lingual should be denied? No.
- All the founding fathers were men. Does this mean the United States is a “man nation” and the rights of women should be denied? No.
- The average age of death for the signers of the Constitution was 67. Does this mean the United States is a “you must die around age 67 nation” and the rights of those who live to be 100 should be denied? No.
- None of the founding fathers drove cars. Does this mean the United States is a “horse and cart only nation” and the rights of those who use other modes of transportation should be denied? No.
If this tweeter understood the concept of church and state separation, he may also be interested to know the idea was introduced originally by John Locke who argued that,
..the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority
Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?
I embedded this video earlier today on my Good Stuff post, but I’ve now had a chance to actually watch the five part series and I was very impressed with both Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry’s passion in opposition to the Catholic Church. I’ve seen Hitchens debate many times, but I’ve never seen such strong emotion than is displayed here.
Ann Widdencombe is truly disgraceful, and has a voice like fingernails running down a blackboard. Archbishop John Onaiyekan seems like a kind fellow, but he is quite unschooled in debates and does not seem to understand any of the criticism of the church. I don’t mean to spoil the outcome, but this is an obvious hands down win for Hitchens and Fry from the first 15 minutes. The ending is still quite impressive though.
The Intelligence Squared Debate.
Secular Life’s Answering Machine
Check out this video by a Nashville group called Secular Life , which is responsible for putting up an atheist billboard recently. The group has collected some of their negative reviews to share with the rest of us.
Nashville Secular Billboard Voicemail Responses
Do you want to see what these educationally challenged people are so upset about? Here you go…
I can see why they are so upset, it’s so…not offensive at all…wtf??
Thank you to The Friendly Atheist.
Results from the Label Poll
363 readers voted and the overwhelming winner was atheist with a whopping 65%. Rationalist and humanist came in second with 27%. The numbers are not going to add up equally because the poll allowed voters to select more than one label, but I’m impressed that atheist won with such a large consensus.
I was interested in everyone’s answers mostly because the are so many terms out there, and the most obvious term, atheist, comes across as a taboo to many people. There are also slightly different definitions for several of these labels, making the debates a bit more complicated and somewhat sensitive.
A few months ago I had an argument with a tweeter about the words I use to describe my blog at the right and on my Twitter bio. I say I publish a blog for agnostics, atheists, heretics, barbarians, godless liberals, infidels, humanists, secularists, nonbelievers, pagans, and skeptics. He somehow misunderstood that these words were describing the lists of people I publish my blog for and assumed I was describing myself with these words instead. He focused mainly on the words atheist and agnostic and told me I could not be both.
I really never claimed to be both, though I do agree with the phrasing of agnostic atheist. I told him I was an atheist, although I remain open-minded to scientific discoveries, and if science one day proved the existence of a creator I would more than likely accept that evidence. He told me I did understand either word, and that I was obviously not an atheist. I was an agnostic and I needed to admit this to myself.
I never said if science produced proof of a god I would instantly worship such god. In fact, if science was able to prove the existence of the biblical god I would stand firmly in my atheism. Such a god deserves no tribute and in my opinion has much to answer for.
I tried to explain to the tweeter that I understood atheism was simply the lack of belief in a god or gods and agnosticism was the doubt that a god or gods exist. These two terms are not mutually exclusive, therefore one could in fact be both if one is so inclined. This argument went on for some time, and by the end of it he had basically decided I was beyond help.
I was so disappointed that two people with mutual beliefs (or non-beliefs in this case) could not argue themselves out of a semantics debate, and it showed me a little bit of the self-righteousness I hear theists complain of in atheists as my fellow heathen blogger Jeremy dealt with the other at his blog. It was just one of those things, and I never heard from him again.
Another reason why I was interested in everyone’s views was because of the taboo of the atheist label. I’ve often compared coming out as an atheist to coming out as a homosexual. It’s an incredibly freeing event, yet at the same time you worry your friends and family will turn away from you. There is also the fear of being fired from your job or being verbally or perhaps physically attacked by those who do not agree or understand your new way. I know that the homosexual community has obviously struggled much worse than atheists ever have, because I realize being gay is not a philosophy.
I will be the first to admit that I’m still apprehensive to let my family know I am an atheist, or know the extent of my activism. My mother believes I have lost faith in organized religion and she fairly respects that. But I think that deep down she believes I’m going through some sort of phase by not wanting to attend mass or by not displaying a nativity scene when I decorate for the holidays. I think if I ever announced that I am indeed an atheist the shit would hit the fan and splatter all over the horrified faces of my conservative catholic family.
So do some people decline the use of that word because they’re afraid to go that far? Is being a skeptic or a secularist a bit safer? I don’t know, but I think this poll showed some interesting results.
Many people chose more than one option since, depending on the context, you could be several of these. I voted for atheist, secularist, and humanist because I believe I am all of those, though the first word I would use (when my family is not around) would be atheist, and evidently 65% of those who voted agreed. Many of you who voted for other were kind enough to leave me some emails and comments explaining why. Here are some of the other terms collected.
anti-clericalist
@IPAle favors this term and supplied me with a quote from Denis Diderot, “Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
Wikipedia explains anti-clericalism as a historical movement that opposes religious (generally Catholic) institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, and the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. It suggests a more active and partisan role than mere laïcité, and has at times been violent, leading to attacks and seizure of church property. Anti-clericalism in one form or another has existed through most of Christian history, and is considered to be one of the major popular forces underlying the 16th Century Reformation. Some philosophers of the Enlightenment, including Voltaire, attacked the Catholic Church, its leadership and priests claiming moral corruption of many of its clergy.
I think @IPAle was right when he said, “Atheist and all of the other characterizations that are listed need to be supplemented by a category in which we can register our opposition to religious elites. You know you’d all have checked the box if it had been offered!”
agnostic atheist
This label was suggested by @dougoftheabaci who says, “I don’t believe there’s a god because there’s no evidence that only supports a god conclusion. However, I can’t disprove god either thus I can’t entirely discount it as a possibility, however unlikely.” I would have to agree.
Wikipedia says an agnostic atheist is atheistic because they don’t believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they don’t claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of them.
bright
Coco Buffth left a comment explaining, “I prefer bright, because it is not a negation of something (A-theist, NON-believer, A-gnostic) but a positive affirmation of something. I do not want to define myself by the opposition.” The term bright usually refers to the Brights Movement created by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell.
The noun bright was coined by Geisert as a positive-sounding umbrella term, and Futrell defined it as “an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)”. Daniel Dennett has since suggested that people that believe in supernatural should be referred to as ’supers’. This created the basis for a civic constituency to pursue the movement’s three major aims:
1. Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.
Richard Dawkins writes about this label in The God Delusion and has published his support of it in other articles. Personally I dislike this term because it sounds pretentious, although I do like the sentiment behind Coco’s comment. I like how she says she does not want to be defined by the opposition.
naturalist
Ben left a comment saying he liked the term naturalist, though for some reason I always equate naturalists with nudists (if you do too, you’re actually thinking of naturism). Wikipedia has a couple explanations for the label,
1. A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist.
2. One who agrees with the philosophy of naturalism – that everything obeys natural laws.
freethinker
This word was suggested by a friend on Twitter (and I can’t remember who unfortunately). Wikipedia defines the word as a person who has formed their opinions using reason and rational inquiry; somebody who has rejected dogma, especially with regard to religion. I like this term, I think it’s a good generic label like non-believer or rationalist.
taoist
Scloftin mentioned this term in a comment. Taoism (or Daoism) is technically a religion, so this really isn’t away to describe atheism unless you’re going to say you are atheistic to the Judeo-Christian religion.
realist
This was suggested by Christine, and I have to chuckle a bit because it’s a little kick in the ass to theists. A realist is one who believes in literal truth, therefore implying religion is not a truth. I like that.
Gordon Davisson left a comment adding some telling adjectives to the labels. He says he is a rabid agnostic, weak atheist, materialist atheist, and a lapsed solipsist (I like that one!).
I also had an email from a religious nut called “karin7″ who preferred the term god incarnate and supplied a link for a site where I can buy glossy posters of the ten commandments. Nice.
All in all it’s clear atheist is still the preferred word, though I was intrigued with all the feedback the poll received. I think @mattincinci said it best though, “Everybody loves to label you. I get that fairly often, I tend to look at is as more their problem than mine.”
Thank you everyone who voted!
-
-
Don’t feed the trolls
