I used to think, "Wow,what a wing nut this guy is"...
I used to think, "Wow,what a wing nut this guy is"... But judging other people just doesn't seem "right" somehow. Besides, don't we need wing nuts sometimes to hold things together ? #sacredsunday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONJaHbbWlY
Pretty much everything he said was incorrect. To be an atheist a person doesn't have to believe there are no gods, one simply does not have a belief that there are gods, and that isn't the same thing. In court a jury doesn't determine whether someone is innocent, they determine whether they are guilty or not guilty. If the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, the jury must find the defendant not guilty, even if they think it's possible that the defendant is guilty. Atheism as an umbrella term is the equivalent of the not guilty verdict when it comes to the question of whether there are gods. I also have never met an atheist who hates any god. I've met plenty who get frustrated with the legal imposition of religious doctrine into law, or who take a strong position morally against religious principles which are immoral, but again that's a completely different thing.
I don't disagree except that I think everyone has a definition that is subjective and personal. I mean not only for the term atheist but also believer, hate, spiritual, etc...
That's why it's important to have common definitions for words. What Kirk Cameron is doing though, is taking what almost no atheist thinks, and using it to define all atheists. That is dishonest.
True enough. It is important, but elusive too. I have to be honest and tell you that I don't identify with the fundamentalists very much. I made this post more to stimulate discussion than to show support.
ok ok ok - to be really honest - I was trolling both banks. I sometimes think I can draw the nut jobs a bit closer towards reasonability. That right there fits right in to the definition of insanity, right ?
I've had a lot of really productive discussions with religious people, at the end of which they at least understand the atheist position, even if they disagree with it. I've also walked away with a more nuanced understanding of their position. Kirk Cameron has been involved in his ministry for long enough that he knows he is misrepresenting the other side. Technically, that's the straw man logical fallacy. There are plenty of intelligent theologians out there, but Kirk Cameron isn't one of them.
Another thing that I disagree with regarding Kirk Cameron is his statement that he is a recovering atheist. While it might be true that at one point he did not believe in a god, there is a difference between someone who has invested time and energy in understanding the arguments on both sides of the debate and end up being non-believers, and someone who just never thought about it and never cared. I believe he is being honest when he says he used to be an atheist, but I also think he was not the kind of atheist who put any thought into his position. To pretend that his ideological opponents have also never put any thought into their positions is also dishonest, especially when he has frequently encountered atheists who have eloquently laid out their positions and their objections to common apologetic arguments.
Pretty much everything he said was incorrect. To be an atheist a person doesn't have to believe there are no gods, one simply does not have a belief that there are gods, and that isn't the same thing. In court a jury doesn't determine whether someone is innocent, they determine whether they are guilty or not guilty. If the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, the jury must find the defendant not guilty, even if they think it's possible that the defendant is guilty. Atheism as an umbrella term is the equivalent of the not guilty verdict when it comes to the question of whether there are gods.
ReplyDeleteI also have never met an atheist who hates any god. I've met plenty who get frustrated with the legal imposition of religious doctrine into law, or who take a strong position morally against religious principles which are immoral, but again that's a completely different thing.
I don't disagree except that I think everyone has a definition that is subjective and personal. I mean not only for the term atheist but also believer, hate, spiritual, etc...
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's important to have common definitions for words. What Kirk Cameron is doing though, is taking what almost no atheist thinks, and using it to define all atheists. That is dishonest.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough. It is important, but elusive too. I have to be honest and tell you that I don't identify with the fundamentalists very much. I made this post more to stimulate discussion than to show support.
ReplyDeleteok ok ok - to be really honest - I was trolling both banks. I sometimes think I can draw the nut jobs a bit closer towards reasonability. That right there fits right in to the definition of insanity, right ?
ReplyDeleteI've had a lot of really productive discussions with religious people, at the end of which they at least understand the atheist position, even if they disagree with it. I've also walked away with a more nuanced understanding of their position. Kirk Cameron has been involved in his ministry for long enough that he knows he is misrepresenting the other side. Technically, that's the straw man logical fallacy. There are plenty of intelligent theologians out there, but Kirk Cameron isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I disagree with regarding Kirk Cameron is his statement that he is a recovering atheist. While it might be true that at one point he did not believe in a god, there is a difference between someone who has invested time and energy in understanding the arguments on both sides of the debate and end up being non-believers, and someone who just never thought about it and never cared. I believe he is being honest when he says he used to be an atheist, but I also think he was not the kind of atheist who put any thought into his position. To pretend that his ideological opponents have also never put any thought into their positions is also dishonest, especially when he has frequently encountered atheists who have eloquently laid out their positions and their objections to common apologetic arguments.
ReplyDelete