Kirk Cameron Tells Us the Two Things Atheists Have to Believe… and They’re Both Wrong

In a promotional video for his movie Unstoppable, Kirk Cameron explains how he’s a “recovering atheist.” He was such an atheist, in fact, that he can tell us the two things all of us *have* to believe (by faith!) if we’re “good” atheists:

Let’s break those two things down:

1) “There is no God”

There’s an absolutism there that most atheists would never agree to. Ever Richard Dawkins doesn’t say that. Once Christians show us definitive proof that God exists, we’ll change our ways; it’s as simple as that.

In the meantime, most Christians will be glad to tell you with 100% certainty that they *know* God exists.

But we’re the arrogant ones, right?

2) “I hate Him”

Cameron doesn’t get why atheists would get so angry about a god we don’t even believe exists… and I’m watching this video, screaming in my head, “I’M NOT MAD AT GOD! I’M MAD AT YOU AND HIS OTHER CRAZY FOLLOWERS!” Because Christians in America have political power and pass laws to push their religious beliefs on the rest of us. They make our education system worse when they control school boards. They are anti-science, anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman, anti-sex-education, and anti-reality.

And they make videos like this that perpetuate all that ignorance.

After watching all that, you have to question how “atheist” Cameron really was. It sounds like he’s only working off the stereotypes Christians have of atheists, not anything that most atheists would ever agree with.

Either he’s a liar or he’s reveling in his denseness.

Cameron also throws in a line about how Facebook and YouTube removed his videos as if there was some anti-Christian bias at play. Actually, Facebook explained that the URL for Cameron’s movie used to be a spam site — and its inclusion in the description of the video triggered a spam filter. That’s it. Once Facebook realized the mistake, they fixed it. (No one tell Kirk, though, or you’ll burst his Martyr Bubble.)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Rain

    In the meantime, most Christians will be glad to tell you with 100% certainty that they *know* God exists.

    They have to say that, because if they don’t then they will be put into the flaming “hoosegow”.

  • DougI

    I wouldn’t say Kirk is a liar because it’s pretty obvious he’s not very bright. Keep in mind his mental superior is Ray Comfort, and that’s not giving compliments to Ray for being intelligent.

    • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

      Ray is intelligent. He’s just incredibly dishonest.

      • Gus Snarp

        This. Ray’s sharp as hell. He knows exactly what he’s doing and he’s very effective with certain people. We know his arguments are dumb, but the average American doesn’t, and certainly not the average Christian.

        Kirk, on the other hand, strikes me as dumb as a box of rocks.

        • Art_Vandelay

          Are you saying that Ray doesn’t really think the universe is less than 10,000 years old?

          • Gus Snarp

            I’ve got no idea what he believes. But I’m pretty sure he knows that his arguments for the age of the universe are bullshit and that the evidence against him is overwhelming. He just doesn’t care because he stuck his finger in a light socket and saw Jesus, or something, which makes it OK to be completely dishonest about any real world facts, as long as you’re doing it to support Jesus.

            Maybe it’s all a lie and he’s just doing it for money, but on that I’m strictly agnostic. ;-)

            • Art_Vandelay

              Either that or he’s just making too much money to care.

              • Ruby Dynamite

                Exactly. Get paid enough and you’ll happily be as stupid as they want you to be. Just look at Paris Hilton and Snookie.

                • Zoe

                  What’s a Snookie?

        • Teto85

          My daughter is studying geology. Please do not insult the rocks.

      • ElRay

        But his vocabulary is poor. Remember his offense over being called a “bibliophile”?

        • Lori F

          Isn’t a bibliophile someone who f***s a bible? LOL [snark]

          • urk

            I’m sorry, if you call yourself a bible scholar you have to have a basic understanding of Greek and the difference between philos and agape. The guy is a rank idiot.

            • UWIR

              Huh? isn’t the relevant distinction between philos and eros?

              • Travis

                Philos, Eros, and Agape are all words that get translated into English as “love”.

                Philos – love as between friends or colleagues.

                Eros – erotic love, lust, chemistry, etc.

                Agape – perfect love or altruistic love, like a mother for her child.

        • Godlesspanther

          At 60-some years old and the author of however many “books” — not knowing the definition of the word ‘bibliophile’ suggests someone who is not very bright.

        • Reverend Robbie

          And in his radio debate with AronRa, Ray said that he has studied evolution for years and later had to ask AronRa what “arboreal” means.

      • David

        Yeah, I’ve got to disagree with you on that. He’s neither honest nor intelligent. Read any of his books.

        • The Other Weirdo

          What he writes may not be what he knows or thinks if, for example, he is simply pandering to his fan base.

          • David

            Dude, the banana, calling out Dawkins for not debating him, his debate against RRS, all lead me to believe he’s not very smart. I truly don’t think he’s just pandering.

            • The Other Weirdo

              Perhaps you’re right.

    • pictor

      I don’t think you need to sit there and attack his intelligence. We can collectively be a little better than that. I think he’s a little misguided, short sighted maybe, but I have no reason to discredit his intelligence and in fact he seems to be a reasonably intelligent man.

      • Amor DeCosmos

        You’ll have to define intelligence to me. In my book, anyone who uses a genetically modified fruit to prove the existence of God is the opposite of intelligent.

        • Paul Reed

          I don’t know that it’s unintelligence…

          Ray et al are the type of people who get an idea in their head, forget to fact-check, and doggedly stick with it even when the flaws have been pointed out a million times.

          They seem to think that as long as some people are convinced by it, the end justifies the means.
          I suspect that he knows how wrong his arguments are, and just doesn’t care.

          That’s not (necessarily) lack of intelligence. More likely it’s lack of integrity.

          • Art_Vandelay

            There’s this growing idea in this community that it’s somehow objectively wrong to call someone unintelligent because of what they say or what they write. The defense is usually something along the lines of “Who are we to know what they really mean” or “They’re not stupid; they’re just dishonest.” How many unintelligent things can someone say before I can justifiably call them unintelligent and why is calling them a liar giving them the benefit of the doubt? To someone like Ray Comfort, isn’t calling him a liar far more offensive than calling him unintelligent? I don’t have this superpower that’s able to determine when people are being dishonest and when they’re just being stupid. All I can do is take their words at face value. If they really are lying, then it’s not my fault for being deceived into thinking that they’re unintelligent. It’s theirs.

            • Paul Reed

              I’m not saying it’s wrong to suggest that someone is unintelligent. However, it does come over as a simplistic ad-hominem (Don’t like what he’s saying? Just call him stupid), so I tend to avoid it.

              Fact is, Ray and the others have had their faulty arguments explained, and they still turn around and churn out the same arguments.
              Does that mean that he recognises their falsity yet still hopes to convince people with them (dishonest)?
              Or does it mean that he doesn’t understand the counter-arguments, so sticks with what he “knows” (stupid)?
              Or does it mean that he flat out dismisses counter-arguments as godless and by-definition wrong (stubborn)?

              Having reconsidered this, it could be any or all of these. After all, he has come out with some utter drivel.

              • The Other Weirdo

                Excuse me, but isn’t an “ad hominem” saying “You’re stupid therefore your argument is invalid,” rather than saying “God you’re so stupid, here is why your argument is invalid”?

                • Paul Reed

                  Yeah, exactly! But it’d come over to the person on the receiving end as an ad-hominem. They’d hear “you’re stupid”, get offended, and stop listening.

              • Art_Vandelay

                Don’t like what he’s saying? Just call him stupid.

                It’s not that I don’t like what he’s saying…I actually find it humorous on some level. It just contradicts reality so much that it’s not unfair to consider him unintelligent.

                Plus, what Comfort does is hardly innocuous. He’s raking in a ton of cash by spreading this idiocy and promoting the idea that it’s better to just believe shit that makes you feel good than think critically and honestly. I’m trying to raise kids in this world and I’m certain that a rational world is better than an irrational world. Anyone fighting that is my ideological enemy. So, if he’s going to help breed this environment where we have to waste so much time fighting bad ideas, then I’m going to hold him to those bad ideas. I don’t think he’s stupid because I don’t like what he’s saying, I think he’s stupid because what he’s saying is stupid, but also unfortunately it happens to be very influential.

                • Paul Reed

                  “It’s not that I don’t like what he’s saying…”
                  “I don’t think he’s stupid because I don’t like what he’s saying…”
                  And I’m not implying that. I was describing an ad-hominem, and explaining that your (our) legitimate curiosity about his intelligence *could be misconstrued as* an ad-hominem.
                  That’s why I tend to avoid that line of thought.

          • SimonFraser4

            No that’s a lack of morality. Integrity is simply doing what you said you’d do. And at some point he may very well have said, “I’m going to generate revenue by wantonly feeding off of other peoples’ belief systems.” In which case, he’s full of integrity.

        • pictor

          If you are unaware of something, then you are uneducated, not necessarily unintelligent.

          They also have left that argument behind, which at least shows a modicum of wisdom.

          • randomfactor

            If you are unaware of something and have an Internet connection, then the maleducation is your fault.

            • Michael Harrison

              I’d agree with you, except there’s so much misinformation out there.

              • The Other Weirdo

                Obviously. Every religious site is full of it.

                • Michael Harrison

                  It’s a hard game to distinguish legitimate sources from BS, especially when the BS is often displayed in a way to imitate real science.

                  Edit: And especially when the person in question doesn’t have training in science.

            • heather

              But but, the internet is the devil!!! LOL

            • Whirlwitch

              You do need to know how to use the Internet, though. I finished a puzzle picture of a Sika deer, a stag, on Facebook. Being bored as hell and having little tolerance for idiots on that particular day, I got a little eye-rolly at all the comments claiming the pic was faked because stags don’t have spots, and offered one grievous offender a very sarcastic set of instructions on how to use Google to find out things, like the fact that adult Sika deer have spots. She thanked me sincerely and “liked” my comment. Apparently she genuinely had not known that she could Google a term and find links to information about it.

              • alex

                lmgtfy.com <- let me google that for you – a beautiful thing

      • DougI

        He is a creationist who thinks the planet is 6,000 years old. That’s enough to question someone’s intelligence.

        • C Peterson

          He is a creationist who thinks the planet is 6,000 years old. That’s enough to question someone’s intelligence.

          Or his sanity. Given at least reasonable education and intelligence, mental illness is a real possibility.

          • The Other Weirdo

            Watch out, or someone will come along and demand you stop using that term because it’s disrespectful to people with actual diagnosed mental illness.

            — Preventing InterWebz arguments since yesterday.

            Edit 1: What did I say?

            • Michael Harrison

              That’s quite a chip you’re carrying. You’re coming dangerously close to trolling.

              • The Other Weirdo

                Do you mean how I foretold that someone would come along and complain about the terminology and less than half an hour later, someone—the exact person I expected—did?

                • C Peterson

                  I didn’t take it as trolling at all. But as prophecy… well, it was about as good as prophesying that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

          • Michael W Busch

            Stop conflating “being wrong” and “mental illness”.

            Again, they are not the same thing.

            • C Peterson

              Stop conflating “being wrong” and “mental illness”.

              I’m not conflating them, nor am I saying they are the same things. That would be ridiculous. Being wrong may be the result of mental illness. Having a mental illness doesn’t mean you are wrong.

              What I’m saying is that being consistently wrong in the face of strong evidence to the contrary is a symptom of mental illness. What I’m saying is that being religious is a symptom of mental illness. What I’m saying is that acting irrationally is a symptom of mental illness.

              • Michael W Busch

                I’m not conflating them, nor am I saying they are the same things.

                Whenever you say “he’s wrong and keeps being wrong, therefore mental illness is a possibility”, you are linking “being wrong” with “mental illness” – that is the problem.

                And no, “being consistently wrong in the face of strong evidence to the contrary” is not a symptom of mental illness. Nor is being religious a symptom of mental illness. Nor is acting irrationally.

                There are many ways that people continue to be wrong despite the evidence, and many ways that people act irrationally – independently of if they are neurotypical or not.

                And, again, religiosity is not a mental illness or disorder. It is any of a large number of wrong beliefs. They are not the same thing.

                • C Peterson

                  You are wrong. You clearly have no understanding of mental illness, but allow some sort of bizarre political correctness to cloud your views.

                  Consistent irrational thinking most certainly is a symptom of mental illness, and I have little doubt that religiosity is a mental illness as well, and will one day be clinically recognized as such.

                • Michael W Busch

                  You are wrong.

                  No, I am not wrong, nor am I caring about “political correctness”. I simply recognize the harm that the pervasive misrepresentation of mental illness and disorders does.

                  People consistently acting irrationally is not by itself a symptom of mental illness or disorder – there are many consistent irrational behaviors that fall within the range of what is considered neurotypical.

                  Entirely neurotypical people will consistently act irrationally due to any of a large number of cognitive biases that are innate to most human brains (e.g. agency detection; attentional and confirmation bias; anchoring; choice-supportive bias; pareidolia; overconfidence effect – among others). Or when their actual best interests differ from their perceived ones. Or when they have accepted a rationalization that is flawed in some way (often with compartmentalization to avoid challenges to it). Or when they have not learned the actual consequences of their actions. Or when they are heavily influenced by a culture that accepts and rewards particular irrational behaviors while rejecting and punishing other behaviors (this last also relates to another cognitive bias, called social desirability bias).

                  For example:

                  Social desirability bias means that Cameron will be likely to assert beliefs that are part of the culture he identifies with. Overconfidence effect means that he will assert more certainty in those beliefs than the evidence he has accepted would warrant; while attentional and confirmation bias say he is inclined to ignore evidence contradicting his opinion. And anchoring bias says that having formed an opinion, for whatever reasons, it would require more contrary evidence and time for him to change his mind than would be strictly rational. All of this put together makes much of his behavior entirely predictable and typically human, even though it is irrational, and has nothing to do with any mental disorder.

                  You clearly have no understanding of mental illness

                  You are the one who is making false equivalences; asserting things that contradict the current psychological and psychiatric consensus; and falsely linking “people doing bad things” with “mental illness”.

                  I have little doubt that religiosity is a mental illness as well

                  Once again, believing things that are wrong is not “a mental illness”. This is not complicated.

      • mikedave

        attacking his intelligence is a kindness in this case, if he is not an idiot then he is a lying POS.

      • AxeGrrl

        You’re joking, right? Kirk Cameron “seems to be a reasonably intelligent man”? Sounds like you might want to raise your standards for what constitutes “intelligent”.

        And i’m sorry, but if he were only unintelligent and misguided, most people wouldn’t care ~ but the dolt is spreading vacuous falsehoods about an entire group of people. Doing that makes him deserving of the attacks on his intelligence, imo.

    • JET

      There’s also the possibility that he’s simply re-branded himself. Many child stars do not transition well into adult actors for the general audience. They need to find themselves another line of work. Christian proselytizing seems to be rather lucrative if you have a way of getting your share of the audience. Since he had already garnered his share of attention as a successful child actor who was also an outspoken Christian, he already had the audience needed to become successful in his new field. Jumping on Comfort’s bandwagon surely didn’t hurt.
      I think many of the most outspoken of the Christian apologists don’t entirely believe what they preach. If they did, they wouldn’t be begging for money from their poor followers so that they themselves could wallow in luxury. They preach what their audience wants to hear in order to become rich and famous. Dishonesty at its finest. I have no idea how intelligent Cameron and Comfort actually are, but they are at least bright enough to know their audience and play to it. They are bright enough to know that they’re not playing to a very bright audience and that their audience will give them money.

      • PrestonWheatley

        It seems pointless and presumptuous to say what these men do and do not believe or why they preach. I’ve known a great many Christians. They can be extremely sincere. It is very likely that at least one famous person would share that sincerity. There is no reason to think it couldn’t have been Kirk Cameron as opposed to any other celebrity. It is also likely that at least one sincere Christian would develop some proselytizing scheme as relatively successful and combative as Ray Comfort’s. Farce does not strike me as more likely than sincerity in these two men.

    • TheEnygma

      ah yes, Mr “God is real cause bananas”

    • Miranda Flemming

      I don’t think KC’s very intelligent. I think RC is cunning and knows he has more publicity by using a minor ‘celebrity’ for fame and claiming stupid sounding things to attract more attention and make $$$ brainwashing his sheepies

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    Being “A Former Atheist” appears to be a new addition to the “xian testimonials.” Along with once, being way into drugs, eating banana’s, prostituting women, reading Harry Potter, being jailed multiple times, watching lots of porn, engaging in normal and typical acts of sex, being the cause of many innocent kitten’s deaths, dishonouring their father and mother, dropping out of school, not paying their taxes, not voting republican, saying mean things to little children, parking in handicap spaces, driving 62 on a 60 mile an hour road or owning a speeding for jebus fish symbol, being aroused by the same sex, snorting coke off of some young man’s behind, and last but not least cutting in line at Disney Land.
    Then Jebus saved them…lot’s of money at Walmart.

    • Tel

      Bob Seidensticker of Cross Examined has a good post on that subject here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/i-used-to-be-an-atheist-just-like-you-2/ (how do I do formatting in these comments?). Atheist? Maybe, though maybe an angry theist. Informed atheist like, say, the atheist bloggers here at Patheos? Probably not.

      • Yoav

        Use the tag [a href="URL"] text[/a] (use < instead of [ )

        • Tel

          Ah, HTML. Danke!

    • Gus Snarp

      It’s not new.

    • Jim

      I have a Christian friend who refers to himself and his home church group as “recovering atheists”. As far as I know, he’s never been an atheist, and I’m pretty sure he thinks the word means something like “a person who believes in God but has doubts”. This is even after me explaining several times what an atheist is. Oh well.

    • GregFromCos

      When Christians say “avowed atheist”, it has actual meaning to them. I’ve only met one “former Atheist” who was anything more than an Aptheist before becoming a Christian. And mainly in the form of simply not wanting to be bothered with it. It’s one reason i have issues with some thoughtless Aptheists even now, because I’ve seen too many cases where they’ve become Christians when they become a bit less apathetic about it.

      • Michael Harrison

        One of the reasons I take pains to emphasize I’m agnostic rather than atheist. I once managed to convince myself that the fictional world of the Myst series was real. I never claimed to be entirely grounded in reality.

        • GCT

          One of the reasons I take pains to emphasize I’m agnostic rather than atheist.

          If you don’t believe in god you are an atheist, regardless of whether you claim to have knowledge or not of its existence. (A)theism is a statement about belief. (A)gnosticism is a statement about knowledge.

          • Michael Harrison

            I know the distinction. As I was indicating, I may consider myself a skeptic, but I have–shall I say, moments of overwhelming fantasy.

            • GCT

              It doesn’t appear that you do know the distinction. I suggest you take a gander at the post on this from yesterday, July 28.

              • Michael Harrison

                Indeed, I am participating in it. “My situation is more that I don’t trust myself to answer the question of whether God or gods exist.” Simply put: I have moments where I believe, and I have moments where I don’t believe, and in those moments where I don’t believe, I acknowledge my belief was unfounded. Thus, I would argue I can’t honestly claim to be an atheist. Now please drop your tone of condescension.

                • GCT

                  Sigh. Still, it doesn’t change the definitions. Claiming that you are “agnostic rather than atheist” is not correct. It is not a one or the other proposition, and it only feeds into the nasty stereotypes that the religiously privileged push on atheists all the time.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I am uncertain for a larger percentage of time than I am unbelieving. I am not saying atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive; however, I *am* saying that they need not go hand in hand. And talk to me about stereotypes when people stop calling agnostics ‘fence-sitters.’

                • GCT

                  Then stop treating them as mutually exclusive. And, it’s always a great way to protest the use of stereotypes by engaging in them yourself?

                • Michael Harrison

                  One: When did I engage in stereotypes? When did I ever say “All/most atheists are…”?

                  Two: Okay. Draw yourself two circles of the same size, which overlap. Label one “Atheist,” and the other “Agnostic.” Saying atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive is saying that where these circles overlap is empty; what *I’m* saying is that the crescent in the “agnostic” circle which doesn’t overlap the “atheist” circle is not empty.

                • GCT

                  One: When did I engage in stereotypes? When did I ever say “All/most atheists are…”?

                  You didn’t. You simply played upon them by playing up the false differences between atheist and agnostic. You probably didn’t do this on purpose, but it’s still a club that is all too often used by the religiously privileged to beat atheists over the head with.

                  …what *I’m* saying is that the crescent in the “agnostic” circle which doesn’t overlap the “atheist” circle is not empty.

                  No one is claiming that it is. I have no idea where you’re getting this from.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I am saying it is possible to be agnostic and not atheist. You are interpreting this as me saying that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive. That’s where I’m getting it from. If you’re trying to say that atheism and agnosticism are strongly correlated, then I’ll readily agree with you. However, nothing I’ve said is inconsistent with the idea that atheism and agnosticism being strongly correlated, which is where I got the notion that you’re gunning for something a bit stronger. (Your mention of the “false differences between atheist and agnostic” points in that direction, as well.)

                • GCT

                  I am saying it is possible to be agnostic and not atheist.

                  No one is claiming that’s not possible.

                  What I objected to was your declaration that you’re not an atheist, but an agnostic *instead*. This denotes a mutual exclusion.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I said “rather than,” which I will concede lent to ambiguity; but said ambiguity, I assumed, was clarified by the context of my post. I followed up the sentence in question with an example of the less-than-rational impulses I have every now and again. Moreover, this was in response to someone complaining about apatheists finding religion, and being counted improperly by theists as a conversion of atheists. I wasn’t insulting atheism; I was saying that if I somehow become religious one day, I want it made clear that I wasn’t an atheist to begin with, and that any theist who uses this as support for an assertion that even the godless can be reached is being dishonest. In short, I chose my wording as a show of respect toward atheism, although it apparently did not come off that way.

                  What I objected to was your tone, and your tactless assertion that I don’t know the different between atheism and agnosticism.

                • SitCritical

                  yup….GCT is a total a$$hole.

                • SitCritical

                  This guy is an a$$….if you disagree with him you are making stereotypes. Been dealing with this fool for a few days now…..my advise….quit while you are ahead….total loon.

    • Carpinions

      Agreed. As far as I can tell it’s a back fill claim some Christians make so they can “testify” to you, the atheist, that they’ve been there brother, and “it gets better.” You are right that they will usually attach “I used to be an atheist” to anything their religion deems seedy or un-Christian-like, and just claim that that was their latent atheism or something. And many of them will even make this claim in flagrant disregard of the fact they were raised Christian in the first place because again, any action deemed un-Christian-like gets the acting-like-an-arrogant-atheist label even if they attended church weekly.

      And notice that this new atheism claim seems to have replaced the use of the Satanic seduction claim. I rarely hear “Oh I was seduced by Satan at that time”. These days I hear “Oh I was rebelling against god/acting arrogantly in the face of God’s Word/was an atheist”. Never do we hear “Well, I was an atheist and went about my day normally, but heard this dude on the street corner ramble on about Jesus and I just had to be a part of that.”

  • Tel

    I hate God in the same way that I hate Voldemort. Doesn’t mean I consider old Mouldyshorts real. Though perhaps my feelings against God are stronger because he has more atrocities to his name and no excuse for them like “did not have a loving childhood”.

  • Frank Mitchell

    “There is no God, and I hate Him.” Can any “atheist” besides Cameron truly believe two logically contradictory propositions? (OK, yes, there’s the “I hate Voldemort / Darth Sidious / Sauron” rationalization, but still.)

    • trj

      Usually when someone brings up the good old “atheists hate God” assertion they at least think atheists actually believe God exists, dumb as that sounds. We just want to rebel against God, or something.

      But Kirk is definitely taking it to the next level. Atheists hate God, while being sure he doesn’t exist.

      Wow.

    • islandbrewer

      I always kind of felt sorry for Voldemort.

      • Whirlwitch

        I never felt all that strongly about Voldemort, but I hated Dolores Umbridge exceedingly, so much that reading scenes with her in them made me feel like I had slime on me.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Everybody hates Umbridge. Just the fact that she tortured Harry for telling the truth… *shudder*

          (The “I will not tell lies” incident.)

  • mikespeir

    Wow! I haven’t been keeping up. Gonna get working on those two things right now.

  • darnoujoum

    This guy who ever he is is a numpty. So far and I have been an atheist for a long time i have not talked to one who “hates” god as we think there is not one so that would be futile. I put my confidence in science and using that method the god hypothesis so far has not shown any evidence. End of story or fairytale.

  • David McNerney

    Twelve Steps Programme for Recovering Atheists

    1. Admit that you are an atheist
    2. Come to believe in a power greater than yourself (for no reason at all)
    3. Recognize that you never completed step 1 and so were always at step 2
    ???
    12. Profit!

  • Joe Ammel

    He and his ilk are not worth refuting. The people who need to stop listening to him will only be emboldened by atheists telling them to: they’ll see that alone as “proof” he’s right. The rest of us … don’t care? I sure as hell hope not!

  • Amanda Sanborn

    Dear Kirt, I am a atheist I do not hate you’re God because I do not believe in any God or Gods. I am not angry I simply don’t care science is on my side and I have better morals then you since you judge people so harshly and you’re bible says only God should pass judgement. Have you read the bible the old and new testiment Kirt because I have and it is full of incest, rape and slavery please explain the moral value of that? What morals does the book of Leviticus hold it says to stone gay people to death and woman on there period that hug anyone..is this morals? I think not. – Amanda (FTOTW)

  • Kingasaurus

    According to these people, “atheist” is apparently synonymous with “apathetic teenager who barely went to church and learned about evolution in school.”

    Where I come from those aren’t synonyms. But maybe I’m not well-versed in fundy- doublespeak.

    • baal

      Bingo – I think we’re seeing a subtile new use of ‘atheist’ used to slander us.

  • Ranson

    If he was ever an atheist, it’s been more than a quarter-century ago, because he was well-know for annoying proselytizing behind the scenes of the TV show he was on in the ’80s.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    Wow, right when I start to be more inclusive and tolerate my nice, safe religious friend’s socially-safe choices, I watch a video like this and am motivated to fight this stuff. I hope I don’t slip and say something unacceptable in the Christian-privileged circles I work in today.

  • Mark G

    The former atheist thing is BS in his case anyway. He’s a public figure; it’s very well documented that he started getting all “fundamental” while he still worked on “Growing Pains,” actively using his growing clout (as the breakout star) to veto plot lines and character decisions for his character based on his religious convictions. So he’s saying that, after being super gung-ho as a teen, he suddenly spiraled into atheism, only to come back stronger in faith than ever, he’s full of s#$^. But we knew that already anyway.

    • Intelligent Donkey

      Technically he’s right, everyone is born as an atheist.

  • Georgina

    One: They hate his moral standard;
    Exodus 22 – yep
    2 Kings 2:23-25 – yep
    Two: They hate the way he [religion] is tranforming the world;
    Blasphemy laws, FGM, women’s rights over her own body, terrorism, – Yep.

    You have to give it to him, he is right.
    So why isn’t he still an atheist?

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    Wait a Minute!:

    Both in your post, Hemant, and in the comments, I don’t see anyone picking up on his phrase “to be a good atheist”.

    This phrase is important for two reasons:

    (1) True anything….

    True Christian, True Republican, True Skeptic, True American … come on, when someone says “true” anything, my antennae go up. Even in atheist circles you hear “true atheist” used in a prescriptive ways: some atheists feel their political position is a natural derivative of atheism, some feel that believing in anything superstitious is not true atheism, some believe their views on sex are natural, logical consequences of their atheism. So “TRUE” — yeah, I already know you have an agenda, Cameron, just like many atheists.

    (2) Real Hating Atheists

    In Cameron’s defense, haven’t you met a lot of atheists (especially bloggers) who actually do hate Yahweh — albeit as a fictional character? And inevitably it is due to their bad experiences (as I have had) with Yahweh believers. But their hatred has a certain parochial flavor.

    Yahweh-Hating Atheists (YHA) often show their hatred because they fight YHA almost exclusively and not other fictional gods. YHA tend to judge religion generally without seeing any possible good coming from it. YHA misunderstand Christianity (and other religions) as primarily being about belief, whereas “religion” is largely a social phenomena, not a cognitive one. YHA misunderstand Christians as thinking they are really behind the Iron Age murderer called Yahweh — sure, he’s in their precious Bible, but most Christians don’t even know their Bibles. Why? Because their religion is not primarily about belief. But Yahweh morality influences our government and politics, and so fighting the evil fellow is important as hell. So I understand the position of YHA though I think they are mistaken on some important points, and it shows in their anger.

    Some Cameron is right, there are YHA but you don’t have to be one to be a “real” atheist.

    • Gus Snarp

      Yeah, no. I think the god of the Bible is an evil fucking character, but there’s no reason whatever to say that I hate him, even as a fictional character. I don’t hate fictional characters. And that’s certainly not what Cameron is claiming.

      I hate religion.
      I hate the teachings of the Bible.
      God does not exist, and I don’t hate him any more than I hate Odin of Gaiman’s American Gods.

      • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

        @ Gus Snarp,
        The gods back then were tribal leaders: protecting of their tribe in a hard handed way but loving in another.
        There are fantastic bible teaching and religions can do a lot of good.
        The way you talk in this comment, it seems Cameron is directly addressing folks like you.

        • GCT

          There are horrible bible teachings and religions can do a lot of evil (often do). That’s the problem. You don’t get to whitewash away all the evil and claim that faith is good when it is clearly faulty. Additionally, I find the claim that it was simply “hard handed” when god committed genocides (yes, multiple, and yes you are engaging in apologetics for genocides) is simply mind-blowing. This is a good example of upholding religious privilege.

          • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

            Nope, you don’t get it. I am strongly against the atrocities of religion. I am against general statements like Gus made saying, “I hate religion.” and ” I hate the teachings of the Bible.” That mentality and speaking style is counter productive (not to mention shows poor understanding) and feeds the likes of Cameron.

            Genocidal Gods thrived in the iron age — Yahweh was no exception. Christianity re-vamped this god to some extent. All of Judaism has this god still but they don’t view him as he was. Why? Because religion is not primarily about beliefs or text worship. (though it may be for many)

            I am glad I am blowing your mind, GCT.

            • GCT

              I am strongly against the atrocities of religion.

              You claim that and then you make arguments minimizing those atrocities and supporting the methodology for reaching those atrocities.

              That mentality and speaking style is counter productive (not to mention shows poor understanding) and feeds the likes of Cameron.

              Gus wouldn’t have to say things like that if not for people like Cameron (and you) who try to force religion upon the rest of us.

              Genocidal Gods thrived in the iron age — Yahweh was no exception. Christianity re-vamped this god to some extent.

              Yes, they revamped him by making him even worse. Now, he doesn’t just kill you, but then he tortures you in hell for eternity.

              Because religion is not primarily about beliefs or text worship.

              Religion isn’t about beliefs? WTF is it about then? Without god beliefs, there would be no religion.

              I am glad I am blowing your mind, GCT.

              It’s not something you should be proud of.

              • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                GCT, if you are interesting in starting to expand your view of how religion actually works (vs how you think it should work), I found this article today which touches on a few points:

                http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/07/what-to-do-with-the-redundant-churches-after-the-demise-of-religion/

                • GCT

                  LOL. I love how condescending you are. You must be one of those “sophisticated theologians” that no one ever pays any attention to because no one actually believes or thinks the way you claim they do.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  GCT, so you are uncomfortable when condescension is reflected back at you — I am glad it makes you smile inside.

                  “Theologian”? I am an atheist! (You inspired me to start a post today, btw). Did you click on the link and read — it seems not.

                • GCT

                  Not really. I’m not interested in people who try to tell me that religion isn’t about beliefs. That’s laughable and you should think twice before condescendingly trying to lecture others after saying something so ridiculous. You’ve lost a lot of credibility with that. If you are indeed an atheist, you seem to be holding on to some religiously privileged ideas that you should really examine.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Right, GCT! Just as you find religious believers close-minded and in their own echo chamber, you are ironically demonstrating the same illustrating what I have long said: “Atheists continue to nurture the same cognitive traps as religionists — just with different flavors.”

                  My “credibility” may indeed be down with you and others of your ilk. But “credibility” does not make one’s opinions more or less right, depending on those making the evaluation.

                • GCT

                  If you want to claim that I’m closed minded simply because I call BS on your ridiculous claims, so be it. But, you can quit with the “your ilk” and other religiously privileged and frankly bigoted shit.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Nah, GCT, “close-minded” because you filter out data that does not already agree with your opinion. Very simple matter of definition, actually.

                • GCT

                  Apparently your ridiculous assertions are data now? I have no need to filter out data. I’m simply calling BS on your ridiculous statements, like that religion is not about beliefs. But, keep talking about “my ilk” and all the other religiously privileged and bigoted stereotypes that you see no problem slinging around. Perhaps it is you that needs to examine your biases.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  So, noble one, if you don’t filter data, why not read that link? Hmmmmm, I hear illogical emotionalism — sounds like the religious thinking you self-righteously deride.

                • GCT

                  Fine, I looked at it, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You’re even more ridiculous than I previously thought (see, there’s me updating my assessments based on evidence.) Oh, but I do so love the whole, “Your thinking is just as religious as religious people’s thinking” jibe. It’s flatly wrong and stupid, but it doesn’t stop ridiculous people like you from using it (people infused with religious privilege and bigoted stereotypes).

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Great.
                  So do you agree with the article that some folks use beliefs as “signals” instead of cognitive maps to their cosmology?

                  [btw, I shall ignore the name calling]

                • GCT

                  No. Nor do I see that in the article. You’re making things up AFAICT. Even if it were in the article, it’s some person’s opinion, which does not make it fact, even if you agree with what that person is saying.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Well, GCT — I paraphrased him. But I’m guessing that you neither understood him nor what I said so that you actually have no idea whether you agree or disagree.

                  Well it comes to things like social science and much more, some theories are very hard to test and we much fuzzier levels of evidence than we have in mathematics and physics.

                  Here is what he said, (I took a short paragraph out for you):

                  “By contrast, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that untrue beliefs have a function that is not linked to their truth. Perhaps what is important is not whether religious beliefs are true, but that they are specific to that religion. That is, religious beliefs act as a ‘badge of identity’ for that religion that is difficult to fake. It would be easy for adherents to that religion to learn the weird and wonderful tenets of that religion, but difficult for outsiders. Thus beliefs could be the means of working out whether a person is safe to trust. If this was their function, they would necessarily have to be arbitrary so that they could not be worked out through logic.”

                  This thread is too long, if you wish you may continue this dialogue on my blog — my guess, you won’t want to because your conversation style is not about dialogue at all. You’ve got corks in your ears.

                • GCT

                  I paraphrased him.

                  No, you made shit up. You sound like Karen Armstrong. The funny thing is that no one actually listens to her. No one listens to the so-called sophisticated theists.

                  The paragraph you pulled out is a well-known phenomena. But, if you were to ask the majority of theists if they actually believe the stuff they believe, they would tell you that they do. So, you can pontificate all you want about this, that, and the other thing, and you can continue to be wrong.

                  This thread is too long, if you wish you may continue this dialogue on my blog — my guess, you won’t want to because your conversation style is not about dialogue at all. You’ve got corks in your ears.

                  Looks like someone is trying to drum up traffic. Are you really that desperate for hits?

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Nah, your sort of traffic is definitely not something I crave on my site. You are absolutely right, that would be desperate. Please do stay away — it was a silly thought. You wouldn’t get along with all the fuzzy headed stupid people on my site.
                  BTW, you made an empirical claim, “if you were to ask the majority of theists if they actually believe the stuff they believe, they would tell you that they do.” Do you have evidence to back that, or are you just making stuff up. And if they say they believe it, does it mean they believe it? How would you test that? All fuzzy stuff.

                  Religion is much more than just beliefs, your opinions are laughable to the entire anthropological world — but then I imagine even if those anthropologists were atheists, you’d just tell them they are makin’ shit up. The soft sciences are hard to discuss — and you certainly are far less objective than you even imagine.

                • GCT

                  Oh, I’m sure that theists don’t actually believe in god. They just pretend that they do as some sort of path to enlightenment or something. If people don’t actually believe this shit, then they aren’t theists, and I guess atheists are actually the vast majority. How ridiculous of me to think that would be an incorrect assessment on your part. I must have believed all the polls that show that theists make up a sizable portion of society. Like I said, laughable. What a joke you are.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  Well, here, look at this.
                  Christians are suppose to believe that God is all powerful.
                  That God can tell us the perfect way to live.
                  That God wrote the Bible.
                  Yet Christians would rather read Fifty Shades of Grey or Harry Potter before they read God’s word.
                  My take: they don’t really believe that stuff.
                  But look dude: we have to be clear of what believing is and I have very different understandings. The above examples illustrates the complexity of the issue of talking about “beliefs” — and there are many more including beliefs as signals.
                  Love and Kisses to you too.

                • GCT

                  My take: they don’t really believe that stuff.

                  How many Xians post here and claim to not actually believe any of it? You’ve been reading too much Karen Armstrong.

                  But look dude: we have to be clear of what believing is and I have very different understandings.

                  Sounds like now you’re trying to weasel out of your own argument.

                • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

                  OK, GCT, I have tried with you. I see you are using blogging-Christians on this site as your sample population – not very scientific approach given your broad empiric-mimicking generalizations. And you continue to avoid content-oriented discussions, preferring sophomoric, fallacy-laden rhetoric.

                  I will let you have the last word — go at it.
                  Signing out.

                • GCT

                  No, I’m using the majority of Xians as my sample population. Your contention (that you have not supported BTW) is that the majority of Xians don’t actually believe in what they claim to believe in. The burden of proof should be on you to back that up, yet you have not even attempted to do so. You’ve attempted to shift it to me to prove that they are telling the truth when they claim they actually believe in a real god. It’s a clever tactic, but it’s fallacious and doesn’t actually hide your naked and ridiculous assertions. On top of that, you’re now focusing on my tone rather than defending your own arguments, making you a tone troll. I will take the last word, but it shouldn’t have taken this long for it to come, because I would think you would be embarrassed to make the statements you made and have been serious about them. I don’t see how your comment that Xians don’t actually believe in god are substantially different from the bigoted attacks on atheists that Xians often use to claim that we really do believe in god – we just hate god.

        • Gus Snarp

          No, he’s clearly not. He’s addressing his invented straw man version of folks like me. He thinks we’re lying hypocrites who actually “know” there’s a god who we hate and therefore pretend not to believe in. It’s pretty clear in the context of the video, and it’s not at all an accurate representation of atheists, let alone me.

          People like Cameron believe every word of the Bible is literally true and that god is constant, unchanging, and a source of objective, transcendent morality. The god in the Bible, in their view, must be seen as the same one who commanded genocide, endorsed slavery and rape, and slaughtered millions. So your cherry picking approach to the Bible is irrelevant to a discussion of Cameron.

          Even if you simply look at the Bible as a work of myth or literature, the god character is evil from the beginning by any modern standard. He has a few brief bits of goodness in the Gospels, but still says he’s the same god, then in the end he goes full evil. So it’s not like he’s a character who redeems himself. He’s just a bully and a tyrant with the power to slaughter everyone on earth and toss their eternal souls into a fiery pit of torture on a whim.

          • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

            @Gus Snarp,

            Yes, he is attacking a strawman, but it is funny how closely that strawman resembles many blogging atheists — while most atheists I know aren’t like that at all, but lots of the blogging sort share some similarity at times.

            BTW, I am an atheist.

            Most of the Jews I know, hold their scripture very lightly and don’t imagine a tribal god. Christians I know are similar. But you are right, the literalists are a funnier, dangerous breed.

    • baal

      YHA<–figment. Were the Yahweh of the bible real, he'd be one of the worst beings in the history of humanity (hello genocides (plural!)). Yahweh is not hated any more or differently than Darth Vader.

  • Good and Godless

    #1 I do not “believe” there is no god… I KNOW there is no god.
    As for accepting there is one after being provided proof? Accepting the “option” of there being proof stands as an intolerable exploitable fallibility perpetuating the problem. The answer is “No” and move on.

    #2 correct.

    • AlsoGodless

      I’m sorry but this just proves his point. I’m not religious, but you don’t KNOW that there is not a god. You can believe there isn’t one, but you will never KNOW there isn’t one (and I honestly think we never will, unless science grows significantly in the future and is, for some reason, able to prove this, which I find unlikely, to be honest). And I’m not talking about the religious god, I’m not talking about some man with a beard living in heaven, “God” can be anything, it’s just the concept of some kind of energy that created everything. Stop being arrogant and dogmatic because you, like other atheists, are just showing how close-minded you can be. Stop claiming you know the truth, when obviously nobody knows for sure how we ended up here. There are theories, but we still don’t know 100%. And I could start being philosophical and claim that all we know is our own perception of reality and so on, bla bla, etc, but I don’t feel like going there. Just don’t be a douche. I’m Godless, but I’m not close-minded. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. – Bertrand Russell” The “cocksure” would be you, the intelligent would be the open-minded freethinkers who reject any kind of thinking dogmas, which is what some branches of atheism are starting to be.
      “Russell described himself as an atheist, “speaking popularly” and “in regard to the Christian God”, but “speaking to a purely philosophical audience”, an agnostic.” The christian god does not exist, as it is a concept, an idea created by men, that is true, but do not convince yourself that the existence of any other kind of “God” (like a creating energy or whatever) is impossible. Stay smart! ;)

      • GCT

        There are theories, but we still don’t know 100%.

        If 100% certitude is your criteria, then you can’t claim to know anything.

        Stop being arrogant and dogmatic because you, like other atheists, are just showing how close-minded you can be…the intelligent would be the open-minded freethinkers who reject any kind of thinking dogmas, which is what some branches of atheism are starting to be.

        What is this supposed dogma that some atheists (who?) in some branches of atheism (what branches?) are supposedly adhering to, and where does it come from?

      • Ibis3

        Unless, I’m mistaken, G&G is using the word “know” in the sense that we all use it when we say we know the earth goes around the sun or we know that there’s no such thing as Santa Claus. Sure, in an epistomological sense, we can’t know with certainty either of these things (we could be brains in vats and there is no real sun or earth and the existence of Santa is not a falsifiable claim–he could be hiding in his magical North Pole village whenever you go looking for him). I don’t think it’s overly arrogant to take the position that, as no supernatural beings have been found to exist and that all explanations for all the phenomena we’ve discovered are natural ones, it makes no more sense to emphasise the oh-so-slim possibility of gods than we do for reptilian imposters, dragons, unicorns, faeries, gorgons, superheroes, elves, Lords of Darkness, Hogwarts, or Q.

        • AxeGrrl

          Certainty on any inherently speculative proposition (whether it’s gods or the multiverse or whatever else) always induces eye-rolls for me.

          Sorry, but NO one “knows” there are no gods. One can feel incredibly certain, but that’s not the same thing. Besides, why say it when there’s no need to? Why put oneself in the position of bearing the burden of proof when you don’t need to? Theists are the one making the claim, it’s their burden, so why not just leave it there?

      • Good and Godless

        Accepting the “option” of there being proof stands as an intolerable exploitable fallibility perpetuating the problem. The answer is “No” and move on.

  • GreenEyedLilo

    Cameron and others like him confuse themselves, their interpretations of their books, and their beliefs with God. Insult them, get mad at them, and you’re offending God himself, even though they are the ones you’re arguing with.

  • Mike Lee

    ’tis yet another way to derail an argument when using their precious inerrant book against them when showing the character of Yahweh to be less than the epitome of morality. I can only say that this trope is making me develop an old chestnut allergy, whose immediate symptom is uncontrollable scoffing and vision rotation.

  • SGHeathen

    The definition of an Atheist is one who doesn’t believe that God exists. An Atheist by definition does not hate God. BY DEFINITION. This is an example of the spins that people like Cameron can make. One can keep using a word and change its meaning along the way. Impossible to carry out fruitful and constructive discussion in these kinds of conversations. Sad.

    • SJH

      You are assuming that every atheist has a complete 100% belief that God does not exist. Just as with the religious, there is a spectrum of belief to disbelief. A person can call themselves Catholic and be considered Catholic but does not have 100% faith nor do they always practice the faith. In the same way a person can call themselves atheist and still wonder if God exists. They can still question their existence and their purpose.They may not be 100% atheist. Not everything is black and white there are shades of gray when it comes to belief.

      • 3lemenope

        When you have transitory doubts, it doesn’t make you suddenly something other than what you are. People reexamine their beliefs (consciously and unconsciously) all the time. Every once in a great while, something happens that doesn’t compute given the assumptions embedded in one’s world view. It’s a rare and stupid person that jumps ship after the slightest bump of an anomaly.

        Not being, at a given moment, completely sure that God does not exist does not make it reasonable to attribute an orientation, like hatred, towards God. If you’re only mostly sure something doesn’t exist, it’s still hard to see how a person could muster an emotion that powerful towards it. It’s not like a concatenated dependency, e.g. “I believe God doesn’t exist, and if he does exist, I hate him!”. That would be dumb.

      • ElvaNirakina

        The shades of grey you speak of with religion would be an agnostic, someone who is still questioning whether they believe in the existence of a higher power. Yes, someone that is a theists can doubt there faith just as an atheist can wonder if there might be a deity. For the majority of their life, they are certain of their stance on the existence of deities.

      • evodevo

        No, SJ, if you are an A-theist, you do not believe there is a god, or any gods. That’s what A-theist means. If you have doubts, then you are an AGNOSTIC. See?

        • Michael Norris

          I’ve always looked at it this way… On one end of the spectrum you have theists… people that believe in a god or gods. On the other end of the spectrum you have Atheists, people who do not believe in a god or gods (both by definition) The people that occupy these two extremes are the hard core fanatics in their respective beliefs. In between in varying degrees you have Agnostics… the world is made up mostly of agnostics but many identify with one end of the spectrum or the other.

          • baal

            I find your view not – uncommon Michael Norris but that’s not what the words mean nor how they are used on this blog generally.

          • Art_Vandelay

            On the other end of the spectrum you have Atheists, people who do not believe in a god or gods.

            The people that occupy these two extremes are the hard core fanatics in their respective beliefs.

            Well, it certainly didn’t take long for you to abandon your own logic.

            • greatmoth

              Wow. You do realize that there are beliefs that are not religious, right? Atheists don’t believe in gods, but they believe in plenty of other things.

              • Art_Vandelay

                Which is not at all defined by atheism. He’s talking specifically about atheism. Did you read that paragraph?

          • Michael Harrison

            I’m with Randall on this one. http://xkcd.com/774/

            Edit: I say this as a self-described agnostic.

          • SJH

            Great! Thanks for clarifying my thoughts since I am so bad it doing it myself.

            I do have an issue with you choice of the word fanatic though. A person can firmly believe something without being a “fanatic” (at least as it is used in our common lexicon). I also think that the term agnostic should be used a little more loosely. Is someone agnostic because they are 99.999% sure God exists? Agnosticism would also be a spectrum of surety. What is they are 100% sure one day and question God’s existence the next day?

          • Anna

            I don’t think it makes sense to paint atheism as an extreme only populated by hardcore fanatics. No one is born believing in a deity. Some atheists have been atheists their entire lives. I was an atheist long before I ever heard the word “atheist” or became aware that other people believed in things called gods and goddesses.

            Aren’t agnostics supposed to believe that it’s impossible for human beings to determine whether or not deities exist? In that case, one would have to have heard of deities before they could be an agnostic, while atheism (being the default position) doesn’t require such a thing.

        • Stealth Avenue

          Any intellectually honest person will admit that NO ONE knows for sure whether God(s) exist(s). In effect, everyone is agnostic. Even believers.

          • SJH

            True to some extent. A person can’t scientifically accurately make the statement that God exists or does not but a person can make the determination that God exists and be 100% sure that he does even if he might be wrong, he may still be that sure. The truth of the matter is not the question it is the perception of truth.

      • Len

        I think you misunderstood what Mike Lee said. He didn’t say that an atheist believes god doesn’t exist. He said an atheist doesn’t believe any god exists. That is, atheism is not a positive belief in something (god doesn’t exist), it’s a lack of belief in something (god exists).
        In other words
        * I don’t believe there are any gods and
        * I don’t believe there are no gods.

      • Michael W Busch

        Technically, most people who identify as atheists are functionally-atheist agnostics who believe that there are no gods ( or any other supernatural entities), but would change their opinions if sufficiently compelling new evidence were made available. But that doesn’t figure much in the landscape, since without evidence of a god’s existing you should act exactly as though it didn’t.

        Also, SGHeathen didn’t assume “every atheist has a complete 100% belief that God does not exist”. You need to move the negation over a few words: an atheist does not [ believe any gods exist ].

      • SGHeathen

        I think I said ‘an Atheist is one who doesn’t believe that God exists’ which is a pretty broad definition which includes people who do not believe that God does not exist. Doesn’t believe that God exists = lack of belief != believe that God does not exist. Both Gnostic and Agnostic Atheists don’t hate God. Anti-theists hate the idea of a God. Misotheists are people who hate God(s) and believe that it/they exists. What Cameron wants to imply is that there is a huge proportion of self-identified Atheists who are really Misotheists. A significant number of Atheists are Anti-theists or Militant to an extent but the word Atheism itself does not include these stances.

    • baal

      I’m starting to think that when Kurt C. says ‘atheist’ that he’s using a non-standard meaning. To wit, atheist = evil sinner apart from god. So ‘everyone who is not saved is an atheist’! It’s pretty insidious of them to take this type of position and I think we need to start (continue) pushing on how the Kurt C.s of hte world are intentionally misrepresenting what an ‘atheist’ is.

  • Merry Knight

    There is no god.

    • Intelligent Donkey

      Prove it.

      • Matt D

        Prove what? There are many religions and many beings that have the label of “god”. Which one are you expecting to be proven here?

      • phantomreader42

        There is no Blurdiggeldy-florp.

      • Ibis3

        Do you go around asking people to prove centaurs or Daleks exist?

        • islandbrewer

          I sometimes do, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.

    • Michael W Busch

      There is almost certainly no god, and many of the currently-popular god-beliefs are provably false.

  • SpontOrder

    Still it is sort of flattering that Kirk is-the-Camera-On’s first major outing with the Liberty film school (shudder) is directed at us. Judge us by our enemies.

  • SeekerLancer

    “Not many people know this, but I am a recovering atheist.”

    Really? Because you only say it almost every single time you open your mouth.

    For the last time Kirk, we’re not angry at any god. We’re annoyed at people like you.

    • Gordon Duffy

      Given that he was overtly christian as a child actor, when was he an atheist? As a toddler?

      • SeekerLancer

        I wasn’t saying I believed him.

        • Gordon Duffy

          Oh, *nobody* believes him.

      • Stealth Avenue

        The day he was born, most certainly. But it wasn’t long, I’m sure, before his parents changed that for him.

    • Michael W Busch

      I suspect that Cameron has confused “atheist” with “not as devout a Christian”. He’s been a saved/born-again Christian since he was 17 or 18 and his religious beliefs before that are unclear, but that confusion is something that is fairly common – one of the bigger contributors to how ~20% of Americans who identify as atheists also assert the existence of a god.

      • SeekerLancer

        Part of it is that they associate any criticism of biblical characters as evidence that we think they’re real. Much like how if we criticize the actions of Spider-Man we think he’s real.

        And in Kirk’s case it’s probably a lot of, “I considered myself an atheist once. I actually still believed in God at the time though. Therefore all atheists actually believe in God.”

    • wanderer

      I know it just sounds catchy for him to say he’s a “recovering atheist”, but it is kind of a silly description. Recovering in my mind sounds like it’s an ongoing battle you’re fighting every day, determined not to slip back into. If it’s that much of a fight for him to not be an atheist, then for crying out loud just quit trying to hard and admit the truth.

  • Rain

    Did he suddenly get old? He looks very old. By the way, just a friendly reminder: People don’t talk like that in real life. He’s completely and totally acting.

  • Rich

    He just needs to stay inside and feed his crocoduck some bananas. Sheesh!

  • Dal Bryn

    “Either he’s a liar or he’s reveling in his denseness.”

    I will give you a third option. He’s not very intelligent. But, let me explain. When Kirk was younger, he probably went through a short period where he was mad at God. Maybe something didn’t go well or a prayer wasn’t answered. Sometimes, when a child is angry at their parents, they can start to convince themselves of ideas like “You’re not my real Mom because you’re mean!” Kirk might have had a similar episode with God. During this episode he angrily concluded there is no God.

    This scenario would explain why Kirk thinks that atheists are both angry at God and don’t believe in Him at the same time.

    • kpax2013

      I’d believe that scenario seeing as he was a kid star.

  • eric

    After watching all that, you have to question how “atheist” Cameron really was.

    I think its a standard part of evangelical culture that every single member must have a testimonial, a story about how they ‘once were lost, but now am saved.’ Cameron can’t go the standard route of claiming to have been a drug addict or criminal, because he’s lived under a spotlight since he was a kid. So he’s got to claim atheism.

    Factually its probably a lie. However, this is also a form of story-telling or myth-making. He’s signaling he is part of their community by participating in an activity they all do. This is the 20th century white evangelical version of going on a vision quest and seeing your totem animal; everyone does it, and everyone sees their animal.

    • Carpinions

      Testimonials and evangelizing.

  • jeffj900

    “There is no God”

    On this, you can’t actually say anything until you define what the word “God” means.

    I think that most atheists would agree that we can definitely say there is no God, if by God you mean the God portrayed literally in the Bible. I simply have no doubt that can’t possibly be true. I have no doubt that these are stories invented by people from an anthropomorphic standpoint for the benefit of people. There is no way the stories of divine creation, of Adam and Eve, of giving his son as flesh, etc. can be true. I have not the slightest doubt about this, and this is what I mean when I say I’m an atheist: I am not a theist. The idea of each human having a personal open line of communication to the absolute source of all existence is totally absurd.

    If the proposition becomes “there is nothing that could even be called ‘God’”, then there is some reason to avoid any certainty. We obviously know there is mystery about the origins of the universe. In some sense, all naturalists are like Einstein, the object of wonder that inspires god-like reverence is natural existence itself, and it’s law-like natural order. This is effectively pan-theism, or God is everything, the universe is God’s body, or part of God’s body. But this entails no concept of an intentional conscious God, so that most religious believers could not consider this to be what they mean by “God”.

    The whole problem is that most believers in God believe in a being like that described in the Bible. The Sophisticated Theologians realize that is stupid, so they invent all kinds of obfuscation around the word “God”. If they would just admit that there is no ‘God’ in the most common sense of the word, they could make progress in talking about what there might actually be at the source of existence without abusing that word “God”.

    • AxeGrrl

      Really nicely said :)

      I wish everyone would abandon the word ‘God’ and simply describe what they’re talking about. I swear, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve encountered someone using the word ‘God’ to mean something other than Bible-God…..and witnessing the endless confusion and miscommunication it causes.

      I interact with someone on another board who defines ‘God’ as being: ‘the spirit of caring’. If you define it like that, then no wonder you’re mystified/disappointed when someone says “I don’t believe in God”! If you’d simply said “spirit of caring” instead of using ‘God’ as a shorthand for that, most people would agree with you!

      I’d like to see the word ‘God’ banished from certain discussions and get people to simply describe what it is they’re specifically talking about……I’m about at the end of my rope witnessing people talking past each other because of seemingly endless different definitions people have for ‘God’.

  • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

    I actually have two articles in my 101 series that deal with this video perfectly. The first deals with Cameron’s claim of being an ex-atheist and the second deals with a study about how atheists are angry with God. I actually e-mailed the author of the study and she was upset with the media coverage which distorted her research. Here are those articles for those interested:

    How to respond to the ex-atheist – http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-101-how-to-respond-to-the-ex-atheist
    Are atheists angry with God? – http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-101-are-atheists-angry-with-god

  • SJH

    “I’M NOT MAD AT GOD! I’M MAD AT YOU AND HIS OTHER CRAZY FOLLOWERS!”

    It may just be me but I think you might want to choose your words more carefully. This sounds very bigoted.

    “They make our education system worse when they control school boards.
    They are anti-science, anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman,
    anti-sex-education, and anti-reality.”

    Is that all Christians or just the “crazy” ones?

    By your post, are you also perpetuating ignorance about Christians? Atheists don’t generally hate Christians they just hate what they think Christians believe.

    • ShoeUnited

      I don’t hate what Christians believe. I think it’s silly, but I don’t hate it any more than the Easter Bunny.

      I do hate how a lot of Christians in the US will use their faith to strong-arm other groups into complying with their faith and then scream persecution when you call them out on their bullshit though. I also hate how a lot of Christians are anti-science when the two can be compatible.

      But I don’t hate all Christians. Just the ones that make it harder for everyone to live in a better society. The ones who use the crucifix as a club. The ones who don’t want social equality or scientific progress. That think science is an open forum of debate like they treat their deity. And especially the ones who think they are superior because they have an unknowable magical deity that always seems to agree with their decisions.

      I don’t hate them as a group, I have no qualms hating on an individual basis. There just happens to be a lot of them.

      • SJH

        “But I don’t hate all Christians. Just the ones that make it harder for everyone to live in a better society.”
        Perhaps you should start by not hating anyone.
        Certainly there are Christians that misuse their power, everyone can succumb to the temptations that come along with power. Don’t hate them, just try to influence the outcome in the direction you believe in. Be patient and kind to them as you would expect them to be to you.

        • allein

          If they are willing to misuse their power in that way, why would we expect them to be “patient and kind” with us? The kind of Christians most often highlighted on blogs such as this (anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-education, etc.) aren’t exactly patient and kind in my view.

        • The Other Weirdo

          It’s a commandment to Christians to lick the boots of their (would-be) oppressors, but really not to anyone else.

    • Art_Vandelay

      There is one thing that all Christians have in common…they promote this idea that “faith” is a virtue. Granted, their faith may lead them down different paths but when you help to breed an environment whereby it’s better to accept things about reality that don’t mesh with what we observe about reality, you’re protecting the people who do shitty things in the name of faith.

      • SJH

        Faith being defined as a virtue is no different than any other virtue. Any thing can be used to commit evil if we rationalize it properly and every virtue has been used for evil.
        Those people aren’t as evolved and therefor should not have the same rights.
        Those people aren’t as responsible with their money and are a drain on our economic resources so their rights should be restricted.
        Those people aren’t as patriotic and therefor their rights should be limited.

        Don’t single out faith. Faith is not the culprit, people are.

        As for meshing with reality, if your faith does not mesh with reality then it is empty. Have faith in something that does. Faith in something that contradicts reality is ignorance. That does not mean that faith is bad it simply means that those people need to be educated.

        • Art_Vandelay

          I don’t even know where to begin. Religious faith is an excuse to believe things by which you have no evidence. Following divine mandates from ancient text takes religious faith. Religious faith is very dangerous.

          Can you clarify what this means?

          Those people aren’t as evolved and therefor should not have the same rights.

          • SJH

            Some people have used this argument to subjugate others. Slavery for example.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Yeah, CHRISTIANS….

            • phantomreader42

              The voices in your head are not actually people. You are making shit up and falsely attributing it to imaginary opponents that you can’t be bothered to quote because you know no one ever said what you claim they said. That is lying. Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bering false witness?

        • GCT

          Faith being defined as a virtue is no different than any other virtue.

          Actually it is. Virtues are things that can be shown to be good. Faith is inherently faulty and not a good way of figuring out what is true about the world. Faith is not a virtue.

          Those people aren’t as evolved and therefor should not have the same rights.

          This example does not work. There is no moral or virtue statement about evolution. There is no claim in evolution that some people are less evolved than others. One can easily claim, however, that their faith indicates that those other people (lately for Xians it’s LGBTQ people that are in their sights, although they still attack atheists and all other non-Xians as well as women, etc) should not have the same rights as others.

          Those people aren’t as responsible with their money and are a drain on our economic resources so their rights should be restricted.Those people aren’t as patriotic and therefor their rights should be limited.

          These examples also do not hold up under scrutiny. The “virtues” being described here are economic responsibility and patriotism and you are trying to equate attacking people who lack those virtues with a situation where your virtue of faith tells you to attack people because it is virtuous. These are not the same and do not constitute a defense of faith as actually being virtuous.

          Lastly, this is a terrible defense that you are erecting. You’re falling back on the, “Well other things are bad too” line of defense, thereby admitting that faith is terrible, but so are other things.

          Don’t single out faith. Faith is not the culprit, people are.

          What people do with their faith is certainly something we should look at, but faith is an inherently faulty method of discerning truth, and it should be rooted out.

          As for meshing with reality, if your faith does not mesh with reality then it is empty. Have faith in something that does. Faith in something that contradicts reality is ignorance.

          If you have evidence that proposition A is true, then you do not need faith to reasonably believe that it is true. That’s the point. Talking about faith that “mesh[es] with reality” is nonsensical.

    • Michael W Busch

      Hemant should not have described religious believers in general or the subset that provokes most of the anger as “crazy” – that is ableist and not at all appropriate.

      But your last couple of sentences are not at all accurate. In the US at the present time, atheists in general are more knowledgeable about the various beliefs held by Christians than the Christians themselves are – and we reject all of them.

      • SJH

        I disagree. Atheists often share inaccurate beliefs about Christianity due to their lack of understanding. For example, a Christian is not anti-woman just because they are against abortion. In the Christian view, abortion is problematic not because a woman wants to have one, but because we believe that a human being is being killed and that human’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to free herself from the unborn human within her. This is not hateful or anti-woman but just a different understanding of when person-hood begins and which rights take precedence over others.

        I don’t want to get into an abortion argument but it is just an example of how atheists misunderstand Christians and then spread hateful lies about how Christians are “anti-woman”.
        The same is true of the homosexual issue, sex-education, science, etc.
        Are Christians really anti-science. Sure some are ignorant when it comes to science but anti-science? That is a gross exaggeration and basically a lie/exaggerated/ignorant statement meant to either to enhance his point or make Christians look bad.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          So you believe that a non-person has more rights to a person’s body than does that person if the person is a woman. That is an anti-woman position.

          Homosexuality is not a choice. Christians claim it is despite scientific evidence. That is an anti-science position.

          Climate Change is occurring. Christians claim it is not despite scientific evidence. That is an anti-science position. Notably, the very foundation of climate science denialism is fundamentalist belief. That’s it. That’s where the entire thing came from. The rationalizations were made up afterwards.

          Evolutionary Theory is better understood than gravity. Christians claim it is fake. That is an anti-science position.

          Sex Ed works. Abstinence does not, and harms women. Opposing it is an anti-women, anti-science position.

        • allein

          I don’t think it matters whether they believe they are anti-woman or not. The outcome of the actions their beliefs about personhood and rights lead to are anti-woman whether they think of them that way or not. There is demonstrable harm to actual living, breathing women and families when abortion is unavailable. They may think they’re helping, but they are not. (And then you get the ones who argue essentially that an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment for having sex – however they choose to word it – and you cannot tell me that is not an anti-woman attitude.) The same goes for gay rights, sex education, and many areas of science (and science education) as well.

          • SJH

            I disagree. You and I disagree with the consequences of abortion. Lets, for the sake of argument, say that you are correct. My misunderstanding of the consequences does not mean that I am anti-woman. It simply means that I misunderstand the consequences. I may have the highest respect for them and it is due to my understanding of the consequences that I am against abortion. Therefor, I would say that allowing abortion is anti-woman however YOU are not anti-woman because I know you simply want what is best for them just as I do.

            • GCT

              I have yet to see an anti-choice argument that isn’t, at its heart, anti-woman, regardless of the lack of grasp of the facts of the adherent.

            • allein

              So, okay, you (the generic you) think your stance is what’s best, so you implement it, and then we can see the harms that it causes, but you don’t change your stance, and still you push for ever more restrictive laws (which don’t curb abortion but simply make it more difficult and dangerous), and against education and services that actually would help get us closer to the ideal of as few abortions as possible (because it’s never going to go away completely). This is where I have a problem. No matter what the consequences of their policies, the anti-abortion politicians simply double down every chance they get, instead of trying something different that just might have a better outcome.

        • GCT

          Many of us used to be Xians, and here you’re claiming that we don’t understand them? Please.

          • SJH

            Just because you used to be something doesn’t mean that you understand them. It is just as likely that your misunderstanding drove you away.

            • GCT

              That may be true, but you can’t claim that all/most atheists are misunderstanding Xians, especially since we do have familiarity with their arguments. In fact, if you look at studies that have been done, atheists often possess better understanding.

        • Michael W Busch

          You are wrong. Here is the reference: http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

          not anti-woman just because they are against abortion.

          Yes, they are. Your belief that “abortion is murder” is both false and irrelevant (unless you would also compel people to be bone marrow donors for several months against their will).

          Are Christians really anti-science. Sure some are ignorant when it comes to science but anti-science?

          Many are. As an example, you have demonstrated that you are anti-embryology – which says that an embryo is not a person.

    • phantomreader42

      I don’t hate christians, I just don’t see anything wrong with spreading vicious lies about them.
      I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they should be allowed to openly serve in the military.
      I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they can be trusted with classified information.
      I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they should be allowed to marry the person they want to marry.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be prevented from applying for visas to allow their family members to immigrate.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they shouldn’t be trusted to adopt children.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be denied basic medical care.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think any children they have should be taken away from them, by criminal means if necessary.
      I don’t hate christians, I just oppose any law that might make it more difficult to assault, batter, abuse, intimidate, and bully any child even suspected of being a christian.
      I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think our government should be suggesting that it’s a bad thing for foreign governments to murder them.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be publicly blamed for crimes they did not commit.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they’re all diseased pedophiles who deserve to die in agony, and the suffering and death of others by the same cause is acceptable collateral damage as long as those sick christians are properly punished.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think it should be okay to rob, rape, and murder them with no legal consequences.
      I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be burned alive forever and ever and ever, and I’d find it very entertaining to watch that happen.
      But none of these things could POSSIBLY imply that I hate christians. Because I have been assured, repeatedly and very, VERY loudly, by many christians, that there is nothing hateful about any of these things when christians do them to others…

      (disclaimer, I don’t actually believe the above about christians, but I’ve seen christians with substantial political and social influence assert each and every one of them about atheists, gay people, women, members of non-christian religious groups, and occasionally myself or some member of my family)

      • SJH

        And you are singling out Christians for what reason? Are they unique in their actions. Have Muslims, Atheists, etc. not done the same things. You singling them out implies that they are different and deserve a more careful observation. That seems hateful to me unless I am misunderstanding something.

        • 3lemenope

          Read to the end. Read the whole thing. The stuff at the end is often important.

          • phantomreader42

            I doubt he’s even read beyond the first line.

        • phantomreader42

          SJH, are you too stupid to read the whole post, or too lazy? Or maybe you just don’t have the necessary self-awareness to realize how closely all those things match up with the actions of your cult.

    • Anna

      Are you counting yourself as one of the “good ones,” SJH? Because I seem to remember that you are a fundamentalist Catholic who espouses anti-gay views.

      • SJH

        I am Catholic. Fundamentalist, perhaps, depending on how you use that word. I do agree with the fundamentals that the Catholic Church teaches including its understanding of homosexuality. I would not say that I am “anti-gay”. I feel that term implies that you think someone else is inferior to you. I do think that homosexual acts are not healthy for a society. I know the science behind this topic and I and skeptical despite what the APA says. I understand skepticism as healthy even if it is an atheist who is skeptical of religion.

        Regarding me being one of the “good ones”, I don’t think I am that either though I try to be. Hopefully tomorrow I will be better than I am today.

        • Anna

          You hardly have any cause to complain about bigotry and ignorance when you espouse some of the exact same views Hemant mentioned.

          We didn’t invent that characterization out of thin air. People (including you) really believe those things and try to force the rest of society to live by their religious doctrines.

          Based on our previous conversations, I find you very disingenuous.

          • SJH

            Stereotypes are stereotypes. Perhaps there are many Christians who fit into a particular mold but you can say that about any race or religion. What is problematic is when a person chooses to focus on those issues and then extrapolate either consciously, subconsciously or rhetorically to a general population. We should be building each other up not tearing each other down. Maybe I am being to sensitive but its my impression at this point. Maybe if i read it again tomorrow I will have a different outlook.

            You might think I am being disingenuous and you wouldn’t be completely wrong. I am not perfect and don’t always practice what I preach but thank God for forgiveness. I will forgive you when your actions contradict your speech and I hope you will do the same for me.

            • Anna

              Is what’s bothering you the fact that Hemant said “Christians” instead of “many Christians” or “conservative Christians” or something more specific? If so, point taken, but this is a post about Kirk Cameron. It’s quite clear that Hemant was not talking about all Christians, just fundamentalist evangelicals who push the same ridiculous nonsense that Cameron does.

              Forgivenesss (or lack thereof) really has nothing to do with the conversation. The reason I find you disingenuous is because of your repeated song-and-dance about being “skeptical” and pretending to be interested in research, when the fact is that you are wedded to everything the Vatican says. No matter what you are presented with, you’re not willing to change your mind. The only evidence you will accept is that which supports your preexisting beliefs. I think it would be more honest to simply admit that, instead of engaging in the same charade over and over and over again.

              • SJH

                Why do you conclude this about me? How would you be able to know what I have questioned and what I have not? Aren’t you simply making a judgement about me? Why would you do that unless you are assuming that I fit within your view of how you generally see Christians?

                • Anna

                  Because we’ve had this conversation before. Don’t you remember? I believe I asked you directly at one point. You’re an admitted fundamentalist Catholic. Do you disagree with the Catholic church’s official doctrine? Would you ever change your mind and go against what the Vatican says on any social issue?

                  This is not how I “generally see Christians,” by the way. The vast, vast majority of the Christians I know are not fundamentalists. In fact, all of my Catholic friends and family members are quite liberal and progressive.

        • Matt D

          “I do think that homosexual acts are not healthy for a society.”
          .
          Fascinating. So, which part of my seven year relationship (and counting) isn’t healthy for society? The part where we pay taxes? Our community service? Our frequent purchase of luxury items? Our conversations with family, friends and neighbors, who actually accept us?

          • Anna

            You probably shouldn’t ask. SJH will just bring up something vile like NARTH.

            • Matt D

              Good. The more I get him to speak, the more he’s forced to examine his faith (ignoring me is also expected, but I still consider that a win), and I know it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

              • SJH

                As Anna may know, I rarely ignore and I often question my faith. Everyone should. Its what a good Christian does.

                • JohnnieCanuck

                  If you ever succeed at the questioning of your faith, that would make you an atheist, right? Seems all these years of questioning have been failures for you. Lots of falling off the wagon and backsliding, I imagine.

                  I hope and pr… want to believe you will manage to make it, though.

                  Just don’t expect that becoming an atheist will cure you of your bigotry. You just won’t have some of the excuses you do now.

            • SJH

              I won’t bother having that discussion here. Not enough time. Plus it is off the subject.

  • AlienGiraffe

    As an atheist, I could debate several points in this clip. But, at the end of the day, I just don’t understand why we need to accredit anything (good or bad) to an unseen, supernatural force. That idea distances us from each other and the natural world around us.

  • Stupendousman

    I clicked on the “Change Quality” button on the video player, but all that showed up was a bunch of resolution options, and nothing to make his arguments any better..

    • randomfactor

      The brightness control also does not work.

      • phantomreader42

        Nor does “sharpness”, sadly.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          *groan*

    • UWIR

      Was “Don’t watch videos of Kirk Cameron” one of the resolution options? I think you might notice an improvement in quality of the videos you see if you were to choose that resolution.

      • Hat Stealer

        Ah, that would be 144p.

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    Christians of this ilk tend to imagine atheists “hate God” because they want to believe that deep down, we really DO believe in God. We’re just addicted to the sinful life and trying to PRETEND there’s no God. This allows them to delude themselves into thinking not only that they’re right, but that we actually know they’re right, deep down. All of which is very silly, not to mention dismissive.

  • Gus Snarp

    I don’t know if just believing there is no god reaches the level of absolutism. I definitely believe there is no god because there’s substantial reason to believe we would see significant evidence of the existence of such a being, and that evidence is absent. That and it doesn’t make logical sense. Now I’ll admit I don’t know for certain, and I could be wrong, but I could be wrong about big foot and psychic powers too. It’s just not very lightly, and I believe those things don’t exist. If a belief is just an idea about reality that you hold in your head and operate as if is true, then there’s nothing at all wrong with holding the belief, based on evidence and reason, that god does not exist. Even if I don’t know with absolute certainty.

    So yeah, I accept number one, for strong atheists. I think you can still be an atheist and say you just have no stance on whether god(s) exist, but you don’t actively believe in any.

    And then he goes into his second point that utterly contradicts the first. I mean, unless “Him” refers to Kirk Cameron, rather than god…..

  • viaten

    A “recovering” atheist? How much more “recovering” does he need? He seems quite “recovered” to me. I doubt he was ever a “true” atheist giving any serious thought to atheism.

    • Gus Snarp

      Who knew atheism was like alcoholism. I thought it was a different kind of ism altogether. Does this mean that he’s only one stressful experience and a phone call from an old friend inviting him to the science museum away from falling back into atheism?

      • viaten

        Cameron should start an “Atheist Project” like the Clergy Project for atheist educators and scientists who “preach” atheism but secretly believe in God and the Bible and are looking for a way to get out of atheism.

        • Gus Snarp

          Don’t give him any ideas.

  • Michaela Samuels

    Between Kirk and his sister (DJ from Full House, anyone?), the Camerons are propagating divisive, misleading rhetoric one fundie at a time!

    • Gus Snarp

      His sister, too? I’m off to Google this…

      • Michaela Samuels

        check out the merch at her online store. i don’t even know how to respond to those t-shirts.

        http://shop.candacecameronbure.net/

      • Anna

        She’s more low-key about it, but she’s a fundie, too. Their parents appear to have hopped on the train as well:

        http://christianwomenonline.net/2008/11/28/interview-with-author-heather-cameron/

        What I don’t understand is how every member of a family can embrace the same brand of crazy. I mean, these were normal people once. Aside from being performers, Kirk and Candace seem to have had regular childhoods. They weren’t isolated from society in some fundamentalist subculture.

        • Gus Snarp

          On the other hand, they didn’t go to public school and interact with a variety of different children of their own age, at least Kirk didn’t.

          It does make one wonder what the process was. Did Kirk get sucked in first and then work on the rest of his family? Did one of the parents lead the kids in? How early did the first of them really get involved with this stuff. Heck, I almost want to read her book, except that I don’t expect any real revelations out of it.

          • Anna

            I’m curious, too. Reading through the interview more carefully, his mother makes it sound like she and her husband always had strong religious beliefs.

            Despite not going to public school, you’d think a childhood in the performing arts would make someone more open-minded, not less. The kids would certainly have been around lots of gay people, for starters.

  • Gus Snarp

    Kirk is a follower of Ray Comfort, as we all know. Ray, in spite of his constant efforts to trick people into believing in god, has basically said that no one can be argued into being a Christian. That that’s not real belief, not real Christianity. He says that unless you have a magical, mystical, gnostic experience of god, then you aren’t really a Christian. Well if you’re not really a Christian, and you don’t belong to any other religion, then you must be an atheist, right? I’m firmly convinced that this is the logic by which Cameron was an atheist. He may not have been a religious person because he just wasn’t brought up with it, in which case he would qualify as a dictionary atheist. But it’s just as likely that he was at least a nominal Christian who, having come to Jesus under Comfort’s tutelage, now realizes that he was an atheist all along before and didn’t know it.

    And before anyone calls no true Scotsman on me, what I’ve described above is a real phenomenon, it is common in evangelical circles, and Ray himself has described the thinking behind it. There is also a difference between a person someone else (and Kirk Cameron now counts as someone else in regards to Kirk Cameron of the past) describes as an atheist because they’re not an active believer and someone who has actually given some thought to the issue and come to a conclusion on their own that they’re an atheist. Any of these people can become Christians, and the latter two can both be accurately called atheists. But Cameron is clearly being dishonest or blatantly ignorant about atheist thinking, and while he can call himself what he wants, there’s no reason to think he’s being clear and honest about his past beliefs, even if he remembers them accurately and he’s got no business appointing himself spokesman for ex-atheists in an attempt to smear all atheists. Much as I may disagree with her, at least Leah Libresco can honestly say she used to be an atheist, but has the decency not to hold herself up as the arbiter of what atheism is because she used to be one.

    • ShoeUnited

      That would be a fine argument if it wasn’t for the fact that he was proselytizing as a youth.

    • GCT

      They don’t get to redefine words, no matter how sound their logic is once they’ve made that mistake.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      But if you have a magical mystical experience of any other god(dess), it’s just “Satan in disguise”.

      Please.

      If his UPG* is valid, so is mine.

      *Unverifiable Personal Gnosis — yep, this is the “technical” term for a magical mystical “holy fuck I just saw god” moment.

  • rhodent

    So good atheists are required to hate something they regard as nonexistent. How messed up in the head do you have to be to even believe that’s possible? He could have said that to be an atheist you have to rape unicorns and it wouldn’t have made any less sense.

    • ShoeUnited

      I don’t know about rape, but Unicorn meat isn’t as delicious as one might suspect. https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e5a7/?srp=1

      • Guest

        when you slaughter the unicorn for its meat, you have to castrate it first. Otherwise, a surge of mana will get into the meat at the time of slaughter making it rather tough and gamey. Also, the horn of the unicorn is said to be an aphrodisiac in some countries.

  • Zachary Simon

    The “I stopped believing in god when something bad happened to me” stereotype DOES need to be put to rest, but calling insane people stupid isn’t the way to do it.

    • Gus Snarp

      We don’t have any way of knowing if Kirk is mentally ill, stupid, or just dishonest. And unlike C.S. Lewis, I won’t leave out the fourth option: some combination of the above.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Eh, I think he’s hit the trifecta; mentally ill, stupid, AND dishonest.

  • Brian

    I was expecting a banana, but now im disappointed.

    • viaten

      Take heart. The banana is always there in “spirit”.

      • Gus Snarp

        I don’t think any of us really want to see Kirk’s “banana”.

        • Guest

          only after marriage and only for procreation. Never “just for fun”.

          • katiehippie

            My new motto. “let’s all have bananas for fun!”

    • allein

      I have one here on my desk…I’ll share :)

  • Gus Snarp

    Kirk’s delivery has gotten a lot better in this than it is in most of his videos with Comfort. Notice that dig about atheists taking down videos from Facebook and YouTube? This is his new persecution ploy.

    Apparently the website he bought for this movie used to be associated with spam and/or malware and so was blocked on Facebook. The situation was quickly resolved and his links were allowed on the site again. I’m also sure there are some people, atheist, Christian, and other, who found ads for his brand of proselytizing in their feed and marked them as spam, but that’s not why his links were blocked, and they’re not anymore. But they were blocked for a little while! Atheists did it! It’s persecution! It sounds very much like his promotional people were in quick communication with Facebook and this problem was fixed pretty quickly and they knew the situation, but he’s not going to let that stop his persecution complex.

    His trailer was also blocked on YouTube for a bit. Yeah, it was probably flagged by users, not a few of whom might be atheists, but like that’s never happened to anyone else? Surely no atheist videos were inappropriately blocked for spam or copyright violations, right? Yeah, so that happens all the time. Luckily Kirk has a publicity firm to handle all that for him, unlike independent video producers who have been targeted for various reasons, and they were able to quickly get the video reinstated, and as you can see above, YouTube continues to not censor him. But he’s not about to let that get in the way of his persecution complex and selling himself as a victim to try to make atheists look goodbad (Oops, some typo on my part there!).

    Oh, and Kirk, for the people who did mark your link on Facebook as deceptive and spammy (I would have, had it been in my feed), or who flagged your YouTube video? Has it ever occurred to you that they don’t hate god, who they may or may not believe in, but they might just hate you and/or your videos?

  • Gus Snarp

    Wait, he’s saying you must do these things to be a good atheist, not just any old atheist? Kirk, I’ll go along with you saying you used to be an atheist, but you weren’t a good one, and you sure as hell don’t know what the rest of us think is good.

    • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

      If he really was an atheist, then all he’s demonstrated is that he didn’t pick up any critical thinking skills while he was an atheist. He keeps saying that claim like atheism itself makes someone so much more evolved and discerning, but we already knew that atheists are perfectly capable of being idiots just like anybody else.

  • VicD

    Kirk Cameron is an idiot. The fact that he has a podium is mind-boggling.

  • bam bam

    such an ass

    • kpax2013

      Stop looking at his ass. His eyes are up there.

  • Lausten North

    He touches a nerve with “they hate his moral standard”. Many people fear that if they stop believing, then they will lose their moral compass. Which is why we need to be providing one that really works. Schools don’t do this and there aren’t enough groups like FBB.

  • viaten

    “two things you must cling to by faith to be a good atheist”, like atheism is some kind of desperate position that requires effort.

    • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

      I almost wonder if he’s judging atheists by his own Christian walk. Nobody who is really secure in his faith has to go to the contortions he goes to in order to “prove” his faith is valid.

      • viaten

        And they’re not even really contortions like other, more philosophical, apologists use. He seems to go for the simplest arguments to take down atheism and evolution that he thinks can convince people.

        • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

          Ah, they sound simple, but they require so much effort to maintain and require so many assumptions to stand.

    • Anna

      That’s how Christianity is treated, so perhaps he can’t conceive of a position which takes no effort to keep. Christians seem to be constantly fretting about keeping faith, building faith, losing faith, etc.

      • The Other Weirdo

        Correction: that’s how Christianity treats itself.

      • viaten

        It’s the clergy’s job to keep Christians “fretting”. “You’re probably saved, but you can’t be too sure.” It keeps them coming back.

  • curtcameron

    No relation.

    • Jason Hayward

      lol

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Sure you laugh, but some people really have mistaken his user name for a paean to Kirk and gone after him.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Well, very very distant relation. After all, we’re all Africans.

  • Jason Hayward

    The thing that pissed me off the most about this video is to hear Kirk say that we as atheists, ‘hate the way he is transforming the world even amidst tragedy and suffering’. Now does he mean tragedy and suffering that religions have created in the name of God? God and religion is transforming the world all right, transforming it into a pre thought pre free thinking society, taking it backwards. Atheism to me frees people’s minds from the constraints of religion. Kirk’s a bonehead, I’ve believed that as an atheist since his whole ridiculous ‘crocaduck’ pictures and disputes on Darwinism and evolution. Those disputes just back up my arguments that most theists just don’t get understand. It’s sad really, I feel like they just aren’t intelligent enough to grasp the concepts.

    • Gus Snarp

      Yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought when I saw that part.

    • Willy Occam

      Ditto. “…the way he is transforming the world even amidst tragedy and suffering”; i.e., the tragedy and suffering that are part of God’s Divine Plan.

      But don’t get hung up on the details, God-bots.

  • Divan Roets

    And to think this guy was supposed to be a ‘heartthrob’ in his sitcom days.

  • Yasar Sakarya

    what if there is a god

    • baal

      What if the invisible Bolivian pink unicorns teleport to my house when I’m out and leave invisible pink hoof prints on the ceiling (like spider pig but more fluffy)?

      • katiehippie

        Unicorn racist. What about the Ukranian unicorns?

        • baal

          I don’t think they visit while I go about my non-house business.

          • katiehippie

            But what if they do?????? ;)

            • baal

              Then I’d need a plan B. I hadn’t thought of that!

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          They earn like $150 an hour talking to dogs at pet stores. I think they’ll manage.

      • Yasar Sakarya

        genius man

      • allein

        Those are a bitch to clean off the paint…

        (wait, is it the unicorns or the hoofprints that are fluffy?)

    • The Other Weirdo

      What if there truly was a Sunnydale and the U.S. government has been keeping its existence–and subsequent destruction–a secret from the world? After all, we do have video evidence of its sinking into a big giant pit in the ground.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Spoiler alert! Jesus, damn immoral atheists ruining shows for everyone. :P

        • The Other Weirdo

          Dude! It’s been off the air for 10 years.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            There are people who haven’t yet seen everything Joss Whedon made. Yeah yeah, I know, they’re barely people, but we have to grant them rights anyway.

            • The Other Weirdo

              No we don’t, but let’s put that aside for the moment. He began the Avengers the exact way he ended Buffy.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                SPOILER ALERT Heehee.

                Wait a second… are you suggesting that the government instigated an alien invasion in order to cover up the destruction of a demonic portal?

                My friend, I WILL use that as a plot in a tabletop game now. That is like a whole other level of conspiracy theorizing.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Buffy had flying demons. Avengers had flying… demony-type things. You be the judge.

      • Tainda

        Then I need to redouble efforts on my Spike hunt

        • The Other Weirdo

          Um, I hate to tell you, but about Spike and Sunnydale…

          • Tainda

            Spike is not dead! He showed up in LA as a ghost.

            Or are you trying to tell me they really don’t exist? Pah! The Buffy bible clearly states…

            • The Other Weirdo

              Almost everybody in LA is a ghost(and demons) so I am not sure that’s a good gauge. Besides, I never cared much for the Angel show.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                It’s LA, what did you expect? Humans?

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Well, it’s where Hollywood is, so perhaps not. :)

    • Matt D

      I’ve already considered that, and the answer is “there isn’t”.
      Next?

    • Michael W Busch

      What if there is a teapot on an orbit around the Sun between Earth and Mars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

      Actually, that one is easy: pack a little tea on the spaceship, grab the teapot, and have a brew-up.

    • islandbrewer

      Odin might be angry that you bet on the wrong horse, then, won’t he?

      • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

        Nah, Dad’s cool with people making honest mistakes. You might not get a good seat at the banquet at Valhalla, ‘tho.

        • islandbrewer

          Aww, he sounds far better than some deities I could name. *cough*

      • phantomreader42

        ALWAYS put your money on the horse with six legs!

    • JA

      What if it’s not YOUR god?

    • Sven2547

      Then I wouldn’t worship such a blundering, malevolent monstrosity anyway. But since this alleged “God” is indistinguishable from nothingness, it seems much more logical to assume there’s nothing there in the first place.

  • Yasar Sakarya

    what if there is a GOD. Do you have a B plan?

    • Guest

      Then he’s a dick that isn’t worthy of worship anyways. But since no one has seen, felt, heard, tasted, smelled or conversed with any gods in over 2,000 years, and there is no evidence of any supernatural being that created everything and is in control of everything and everyone’s destiny I’m comfortable with my conclusion that there are no gods. So why would I need a plan B again? I may as well form a plan B for the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

    • baal

      Oh look! It’s the short form of pascal’s wager.

    • Timothy Urban

      Yes. My Plan B is to not spend eternity with someone who would give his creations logical thinking minds, senses, and then expect them to totally ignore that and just act on blind faith. If a god exists and loves his creation so much that he completely ignores it, or that he’ll make us burn in Hell for all eternity if we don’t blindly believe in him and love him back, then I’d rather not spend eternity with that type of a god.

    • Gus Snarp

      What if she’s not your god? Do you have a plan B?

      Is god cool with people just going along and mouthing the right words in a desperate bid to avoid hell, regardless of what they really, deeply believe?

      • baal

        We’ll, if He turns out to be Allah, I could probably start faking it right then and there. I might need a plan C if He turns out to be Itzananohk’u as I know nothing about Him. If it’s Cthulhu, I’m set. I’ve been engaging in ritual [nearly everything] with the people of the in the swamps in the swamps for a good decade now.

        • Michael W Busch

          But Cthulhu just eats you anyway, so what’s the point of preparing?

          • baal

            The goal is to be eaten first.

            • katiehippie

              Eat as you would be eaten.

            • Tainda

              Too bad I’m not shaped like a banana :(

    • Divan Roets

      Yes: You say ‘Forgive me’(for a Christian God). B-plans anyway don’t matter much because there are enough ‘reasons’ for why you would go to hell or get damned…

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Yeah, I don’t think a halfway decent god would punish you for using the brain that he gave you.

    • onamission5

      What if the one you’ve chosen is the wrong one? Since there are tens of thousands of deities, the likelihood of making the wrong choice should a deity actually exist is quite high.
      The “what if” game, aka Pascal’s wager, goes both ways.

      • Divan Roets

        There’s a great clip of Richard Dawkins on youtube: “What if you’re wrong”

      • Yasar Sakarya

        did you came to earth by yourself on this century?

        why did you choose this dates?

        do you have a ability to come early or late? no

        do you own your body? yes
        what is going inside? you dont know. so how can you say that you own your body?
        you own nothing except eating, smelling, drinking etc.

        your body consist of about 100.000.000.000 cells. Why these stupid cells should work for you.

        Which one inteligent you or a tiny -ivisible cell?

        A tiny stupid cell consist amasing factories such as ribosomes, mitochondria, DNA.

        did you see a inside of human or animal cell.

        no

        so do you beleive the existence of cell? yes

        WHO did make the cell?

        became itself?

        why do a cell should have many skills? you dont know?

        why a cell should have many skills: to give you perfect health

        why should behave so: they do this task automatically.

        why should they do this task automatically: they should:

        how these cells see each other: every thing automatic:

        how can you see: by your eyes:

        why do you dont have diplopia: your eyes in perfect alignment: why your eyes are in perfect aligment: they should be so:

        why: they should be

        how can you see: by a healthy retina:

        why your retina should be so healthy: they should be utomatically healthy

        every thing should be automatically?

        is this wise?

        how can you think this is logic?

        please look at the universe and the ground every thing is in perfect order: from fly to atom to ribosome to liver cell to fish in the sea etc.

        the handiwork of God is everywhere.

        think that you are made from atoms and electrons. is this amazing.
        existence of atom is a theory?

        WHO one prove that they saw an atom.

        why cern experiment is so hard?

        where you came and where you go?

        do you have a duty? yes. you should find your creator. If not you are in problem both in the earth and in thereafter.
        please read with patience:
        http://www.nur.gen.tr/tr.html#leftmenu=Home&maincontent=Risale&islem=read&BolumId=5170&KitapId=7&KitapAd=S%u00f6zler

        • onamission5

          FWIW, none of that actually answers my question.

        • Gus Snarp

          If we were made by a creator, then:

          Why are my balls outside my body where they can get easily injured?

          Why do I have a tailbone?

          Why is my back so poorly suited to upright walking that it continuously has problems?

          Why do I have a blind spot in my retina?

          Why can my eyes only process three colors of light, when other butterflies process 5 and mantis shrimp 16?

          Why, in short, do we have one of the worst eyes in the animal kingdom, capable of perceiving only the narrowest slice of what’s possible, with a hole in the image?

          Why do we have to poop?

          Why do we have appendices and get appendicitis?

          Why is there any disease?

          BTW, no one “owns” my body, I am my body. I am the sum of my cells and every decision I make and action I take is tied up in the interaction of those cells. There is no “I” outside of this.

          And you know, we actually have the technology to image atoms. It’s proven. Google it, you can find a picture. Or just look at this amazing image: http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

          • ajginn

            Why do we have to poop?

            For God’s Glory.

          • Yasar Sakarya

            You cannot behave like an animal.

            you are different from animal.

            animals knows their duty.

            you should explore your duty.

            why you came and where you will go

            if you OWN your body:

            how many cell a day do you renew

            how many count of respiration or inspiration or heart beating do you plan

            which dream do you plan to see this night?

            why should you sleep-let you omit it.

            where is your soul or memory? which type of storage system do you use.

            how many mitogenic cell do you kill every days.

            by the way let you dont produce mitogenic cells. (since you have the power you have the control )

            why do you became ill or tired. please get a mesurement.

            why do you became older or aged. stop it.

            you should be also immortal.

            you own your body

            this should be a joke

            you own nothing

            your body is like a hardware

            your soul is software.

            your soul is immortal.

            when your body becames older your soul doesnot change.
            this page proves the existence of GOD

            please read it
            (I think hermant mehta will ban me after this letter)

            http://www.nur.gen.tr/en.html#maincontent=Risale&islem=read&BolumId=8750&KitapId=494&KitapAd=The+Flashes+(Revised+2009+edition)

            • Gus Snarp

              Evidently you can’t, or won’t, read and are therefore unresponsive and pointless. Your ravings are nonsensical assertions out of thin air, utterly lacking in reason or logic. In short, you are no longer even entertaining.

            • islandbrewer

              Hate to break it to you, but you are not a plant, you are not a fungus, you are not a prokaryote (not a bacteria, nor an archaebacteria), you are an animal.

              Doubtful? Let’s check:

              Eukaryote? Check
              Multicellular? Check
              Heterotrophic? Check

              No cell walls or chloroplasts? Check

              You, sir are an animal.

              I can get more specific. You are a deuterosome, a vertebrate, a mammal, a primate, an old world monkey, an ape, a hominid, if narrowing down what kind of animal helps at all.

              If you want to argue that you’re not an animal, I’m going to want to see some tissue samples, first.

              • Yasar Sakarya

                ı agree with you in part
                animals and humans shares most principles of creation

                for example a monkey and a human shares many common principles: ear , nose, eye, brain etc
                our cells nearly same
                this shows the existence of one GOD
                but human s are unique:
                humans loves, hates, make plans, graves, become rich or poor, have family that a monkey cannot do.
                I am not animal nor are you.
                think again: you have a duty: find your creator.
                what is the meaning of life.
                what if there is a GOd. what will you do ? do you plan not to die?
                a monkey cannot think this but you should do.

                • Gus Snarp

                  Orangutans in zoos have been known to secret small pieces of wire inside their mouths, hiding them away until night to use to pick the locks and escape their cages.

                  Chimpanzees have been found to stockpile rocks in hidden places in their display areas to later throw at people.

                  Chimpanzees in the wild teach their young to make tools for catching termites. Each group has their own tools and techniques that are passed on only within that group.

                  Crows can make complex tools to solve difficult puzzles.

                  But I guess none of that is planning.

                  Many primates have complex social structures with strong familial bonds. They have been known to adopt orphans from other parents, to show extreme caring and devotion to the elderly and handicapped, helping them to get food and water, to reach high into the trees to take part in grooming, and simply to be comfortable.

                  Some primates will refuse to take part in an experimental exercise if they see that they are getting a reward for the behavior that another is not getting.

                  Even elephants have been shown to mourn their dead.

                  I expect we can find examples that correspond to getting rich, too, but even if we can’t, if all that separates us from the apes is getting rich, that hardly seems like the work of the god whose son told his followers to give away all their possessions and care for the poor.

                  No, you’ve not shown the difference between us and apes, nor any basis for you assertion that our similarities are evidence for god rather than evidence for common descent.

                • Yasar Sakarya

                  ı agree that we (humans) share common thing with animals.

                  but are we same?

                  what percentage of them like us: this ratio is less than %0.00001

                  God created them

                  as a lesson.

                  you should think that you may came to earth as an animal.
                  Orangutan says to you: hey gus, what did you do to come to earth to be human.
                  gus says: nothing.
                  explore the universe. all you see in a most perfect manner. from atom to milkway etc from ribosom to brai etc.
                  you should not miss the subject

                • baal

                  “Some primates will refuse to take part in an experimental exercise if they see that they are getting a reward for the behavior that another is not getting.”

                  While I hate to see how unhappy the one maque got, the demonstration that it was pissed for getting screwed (cucumber when other guy got a grape as a reward) was extremely clear.

                • Gus Snarp

                  I believe there’s one with chimps (maybe bonobos) in which it’s not just the animal who gets a substandard reward not performing, but the animal who gets the preferred reward not performing in solidarity with his or her associate. I don’t think that one’s on YouTube though.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  maybe bonobos. I’ve seen chimp experiments where the ‘winning’ chimp didn’t care at all about the inequity.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
                • islandbrewer

                  The commonality of traits points to a common ancestor, monkey brains (and that’s actually a compliment). Evolution is globally recognized as the most well supported explanation, whereas magically poofing into existence fully formed is part of a nomadic culture’s folklore and mythology. You are a clever animal. You love, hate, get enraged, share toys, steal toys, fuck, play with your offspring, make plans and strategies just like any other monkey. You have no duty to any magic invisible man in the sky, just because Baha’u’llah said so. Any duty you think you have is nonexistent, and you get to create your own purpose. Does that scare you? That you are responsible for creating your own purpose in life, and it’s not handed to you on a silver platter?

                  What if there are gods, and you are doing exactly what they said you should not do?

                  What if one of the many gods wants us to use reason and discover as much as we can about the universe without stupid superstitious sidetracks, and will punish people like yourself? What if yet another one abhors people who follow zealots and pedophile child raping prophets like Mohammed? Why would you want to risk damnation by following a false god, when it’s much better to just be reasonable and act as if your only obligation is to yourself and the rest of humanity?

                • baal

                  “think again: you have a duty: find your creator.”
                  mommy?

                • islandbrewer

                  I talked to my mom on the phone last night. Duty fulfilled! Moving on.

                • baal

                  I considered going with I created (grew) myself but decided it’s go over Yasar’s head.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              *snicker*

              He said duty…

            • baal

              If you’re banned, it’ll be for how you format your posts.

            • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

              Yasar: “You cannot behave like an animal.”

              You’ve obviously never heard Me speak Qat. Not only do I meow and purr and chirrup very well, but I also have a good grasp of Qat body language. (You may also make inquiries of the local squirrels, crows, robins and chickadees, as I speak with them too.)

              “you should be also immortal.”

              I am. I was there at the Big Bang… And so were you. (I looked like a bunch of subatomic particles at the time, mind you.) When I get bored with the current set, I sweat, breathe or poop out few million molecules and eat some replacements.

              Now, if you’ll excuse Me, I’m heading to the mall to adopt a cup of coffee and an ice cream cone. :-D

        • ajginn

          That was a whole lotta mud. Unfortunately, nothing stuck.

        • Matt D

          That’s it? You are convinced a god exists because you don’t have all the answers?

          • Yasar Sakarya

            ı know the answers

            • Matt D

              If you *know* the answers, then why are you on an Atheist website asking questions?

            • Gus Snarp

              No, you really don’t. You don’t even understand the questions properly.

              • Yasar Sakarya

                ıt is evident one of us missed the subject.

                • Gus Snarp

                  One of us isn’t making any sense, in a stunning combination of a lack of knowledge of both English and any kind of basic logic or argument construction or science.

                  I can forgive the lack of English, not your fault. But do go learn to think before you attempt to communicate.

                • RobMcCune

                  Probably the person who thinks knowing about breakfast means that person can fly.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  It is evident that someone took the brown acid….

            • Pattrsn

              I know the answer to what’s inside me, two fried eggs, a slice of rye toast, three slices of summer sausage, a serving of beet chard salas with cherries and blueberries, an orange and a cup of tea with lemon.

              • Yasar Sakarya

                then you can fly

                • phantomreader42

                  Can you prove they CAN’T fly?

                • Yasar Sakarya

                  ı cant .you won.

                  your anatomy was quite simple:
                  two fried eggs, cherries and blueberries.
                  what can I disquss with you.
                  salad lemon juice.
                  you should think that your creator should be grocery.
                  then become an atheist.

                • phantomreader42

                  Yasar, the fact that you can’t even figure out which person you’re talking to when the name’s right there in plain view does not support your assertion that you have some magical conduit to the secrets of the universe.

                • Pattrsn

                  Yes, but I prefer the train.

            • Pattrsn

              PS I have seen the inside of a cell, just about anyone who has taken high school biology has. If you think your questions are in any way difficult to answer then you’re either A. A complete idiot or B. completely deluded, I’ll be charitable and conclude the latter.

              • Yasar Sakarya

                that is the point

                • Pattrsn

                  You are so mystical, you’re like a koan wrapped in a riddle stuffed inside a piece of cheese.

            • islandbrewer

              Nuh-uh!

        • islandbrewer

          This is what is known as a Gish Gallop:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop. It is frequently employed by religious apologists of many stripe, muslim, christian, cthuluist.

          All of the questions you have asked have been answered, but the effort it takes in simply referring you to those answers, which you yourself refuse to investigate, is more effort than anyone here is willing to put forth just for you.

          However, if you continue to insist on me investigating religion, then I will concede and join the Baha’i, if that’s what you want. That was what you were aiming at, recruiting for the Baha’i faith?

          • baal

            Hey! I’m a Cthuluist and I don’t Gish Gallop!

            • islandbrewer

              Slow down! I can’t reply to all your arguments at once!

        • allein

          did you came to earth by yourself on this century?

          I was born in the last century, actually.

          Regarding eyes: If they’re so perfect why do I need glasses?

    • Matt D

      That question doesn’t deserve an answer because it’s too ignorant. Until you realize one religion cannot have all the answers, we have nothing to discuss. Only your lack of critical thinking is keeping you from understanding the truth.

    • Michael W Busch

      Which god?

      I can’t do contingency planning for a million mutually-contradicting cases, so you’ll have to provide evidence for any god you’d assert the existence of. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim relative to the null hypothesis.

    • phantomreader42

      Yes, I do. If there is in fact a god (a claim wholly unsupported by evidence despite centuries of death cultists murdering people for it), and if said god is such a complete and utter asshole as to take anyone who does not lick its filthy boots for eternity and resurrect them into a magic indestructible spirit body for the sole purpose of torturing them forever to stroke its own grotesquely bloated ego, then I have a plan. I plan to enlist the aid of my fellow victims, all of whom are now indestructible and have nothing to lose, to raise an invincible army of the damned, storm the gates of heaven, and tear that god into little tiny pieces! Some of said pieces will be encased in various metals or high-durability crystalline structures, others will be cast into black holes or the hearts of stars, or displaced through wormholes into other times or dimensions, in general they will be isolated thoroughly enough as to render the reassembly of the monstrous cosmic horror known as “god” highly improbably if not outright impossible. Any entities who support such a monstrosity will be imprisoned or destroyed for treason against all sapient life. THAT is my B plan*. What’s yours, in the event of a god other than your particular imaginary friend? Or does your cult not allow you to think of that?

      Pascal’s Wager is a worthless load of shit. By using it you’re admitting that there’s actually no good reason to believe your cult’s idiotic dogma, you just pretend to believe it because you’re afraid of the boogeyman. It also implies that your god is incredibly stupid, narcissistic, cruel, and in general wholly unworthy of worship even if it actually existed (which isn’t likely, since by resorting to threats you admit that you don’t have any actual evidence). Your argument is the argument of a stupid, lazy, self-centered, willfully ignorant terrorist. In short, your argument is garbage, and so are you.

      *Of course, I’m aware that this isn’t a particularly difficult plan to come up with, that smarter and more persuasive heathens than myself have died before, and that persuading desperate, abused people to strike back against their oppressor when there is literally no possibility of a downside for them is unlikely to be particularly difficult. So I never expect to have to implement this plan, not only because the existence of such a monstrous god (or any god at all) is so ridiculously unlikely, but because in the event that such a being exists, it was probably already overthrown and killed centuries ago. Which, I suppose, would explain the complete failure of your imaginary friend to produce any verifiable miracles in so long almost as well as its nonexistence.

    • islandbrewer

      I’m so glad to hear that you support emergency contraception!

    • Artor

      Can I double-down on Pascal’s wager?

    • JA

      And what if when you die, you come face to face with Anubis?

    • ajginn

      Dude. Kirk Cameron ain’t your ally.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Live a good life, and hope my heart doesn’t outweigh the feather of Ma’at….

    • Obazervazi

      Punch the genocidal tyrant in the face, obviously.

    • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

      What if it’s not *your* god, Yasar? What if it’s Me? :-D

  • Steve UK

    There is no god, yes, I’ve said it and even if proof was provided of one, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to my life.

  • Jennifer Anker

    Didn’t he convert to his crazy born-again form when he was too young to even understand such abstract concepts of gods and nonbelief in gods? o.O

    • Gus Snarp

      Wikipedia claims he was 17 when he converted, which seems to be from his own statements, but it’s close enough: you can read statements by other cast members between the polite lines to see that that’s about when he became a sanctimonious ass who wanted nothing to do with them.

    • Artor

      Umm… Cameron is still, to this day, completely unable to understand concepts like gods and nonbelief in gods, as evidenced by the video above. The man is really a low-grade moron.

      • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

        I guess it takes a low-grade moron to produce weapons-grade stupidity — A veritable dirty bomb of ludicrous ideas with a half-life that’s entirely too long.

  • Jim

    I believe that Kirk and Ray are going to make a lot of money from their respective “documentaries”.

  • Divan Roets

    If what he’s saying is right then I hate the toothfairy and Santa Clause as well.

  • Michael W Busch

    “I’M NOT MAD AT GOD! I’M MAD AT YOU AND HIS OTHER CRAZY FOLLOWERS!”

    Please figure out other descriptors that are not ableist slurs. Your next three sentences have some good examples.

    • Michael Harrison

      Now you’re tilting at windmills. The notion that Christians have suffered a break from reality is deeply entrenched in skeptic community rhetoric.

      Edit: For the record, I agree with you. We underestimate and misrepresent our opponents at our own peril.

      • The Other Weirdo

        Windmills made of mist, I would have said.

      • Michael W Busch

        That an idea is deeply entrenched does not make it correct or acceptable. Don’t fall into argument ad populum.

        • Michael Harrison

          I am not calling into question whether you are right. I am calling into question your strategy.

          Edit: However, while in some ways I agree with you, in others I think you are mistaken. My view is that we are all a bit off-kilter; it does not become diagnosable as mental illness until it renders the person unable to function in society.

          Plus, while I did agree with you over usage of the word `retarded,’ this is partly because that word is much more specific than ‘crazy,’ so I have to part with you on this point.

    • The Other Weirdo

      I read about this sort of thing once, where language had been cut down to nothing, eliminating all shades of grey and reducing people’s ability to communicate. What was it called? I just can’t remember.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Excellent sidestep of what I egotistically try to popularize as the Honeycutt Hypothesis *cough cough*, which says roughly that when someone online describes a situation as resembling that thing you can’t remember, it tends to be the case that they never actually read that thing.

        Geez I hope that was comprehensible. Anyway! The funny part is of course that you’re a legitimate exception to the hypothesis, so you didn’t even have to sidestep it. :P

    • Artor

      Crazy is not an ableist slur. The root word is crazed, as in fractured or disjointed. Take a look at Cameron’s “reasoning,” and tell me that describing it as cracked & disjointed is not an accurate description.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Then why not describe it as cracked and disjointed?

        There’s no need to insult perfectly good people by lumping that guy in with ‘em.

        • Artor

          “Then why not describe it as cracked and disjointed?
          There’s no need to insult perfectly good people by lumping that guy in with ‘em.”

          Well, there’s one word that does the job of two; crazy. And I don’t call people with legitimate mental health problems crazy. That would be ableist.

  • brentrasmussen

    He’s been doing this since at least 2004: http://www.brentrasmussen.net/uti/node/353

  • Eric

    I agree that Cameron seems to be working from some misguided stereotypes about atheists that generally aren’t true, but your “anti-science, anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman, anti-sex-education, and anti-reality” makes me think you’re doing exactly that with Christians. Bash the man’s intelligence all you want, but don’t turn around and immediately make the same mistake as him.

    • Divan Roets

      It’s only inevitable that Kirk would be the recipient of opposing views, with or without diplomacy.

    • Michael Harrison

      The Christians who go out of their way to make it clear that they’re Christians tend to be anti-science, anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman, anti-sex-education, and anti-reality. The Christians who are decent human beings need to provide more evidence that the hypothesis linking these two descriptors needs to be rejected.

      • Divan Roets

        And therefore understandable that atheists can go out of their way to question evangelists.

        • Michael Harrison

          Evangelists by definition put themselves out there, so I say they’re fair game.

    • Artor

      I have nothing against Xians who are not “anti-science, anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman, anti-sex-education, and anti-reality.” It’s the ones who are that are a problem, and they are unfortunately the vocal majority.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I can’t hate something that I have no evidence for existing. Having said that if any deity exists and they/it are like the god of the bible I would probably be either a misotheist or a maltheist. Any being with that amount of power that uses it to be capricious and cruel does not deserve respect or worship.

    Hell, I’d rather have the greek gods or any other pantheon of deity. They never claimed to loved humans and you at least know where you stand with them.

    • TnkAgn

      “Hell?” Don’t you mean “Hades?”

      Good post, though!

      • JA

        No, he clearly meant “Hel”.

  • baal

    Wanting to shut up Kirk Cameron has nothing to do with god and everything to do with how Kirk Cameron makes his arguments.

  • David

    Does anyone take him seriously? Does anyone actually beleieve at any point he was ever and atheist and ,as he put it, and “evolutionist”.

  • Lori F

    Recovering Atheist? I bet he can tell you the precise DATE he was an atheist. And the hour.
    I don’t say I’m atheist. I despise all the things that are done in the name of a god or prophet. I despise people using books that were written so long ago, and none are first hand accounts, to say how things should be today. The world isn’t the same as it was in the biblical times. Hells Bells, it isn’t the same as it was 50 years ago or even 25 or 10. How can any ‘how to’ book written that long ago be relevant today?

  • eamonknight

    Good grief. A movie that’s going to be even worse than the previous movie of the same name? Only from Kirk and Ray, I guess.

  • Anna

    You know, I’m confused about Kirk Cameron’s claim to have been raised as an atheist. Hasn’t he said he came from a non-Christian family?

    From an interview with his mother:

    I watched my children experience the struggles in our marriage. They saw how it threatened to tear our family apart. Yet through it all, they learned about commitment.They learned that running away from problems in life won’t solve anything, but instead will destroy what is precious. They learned there is a God who loved them and wanted a personal relationship with them. They learned what it really means to be living for Christ. Today, my grandchildren are being trained up in the Lord which is just so awesome to witness! My husband and I visit our grandchildren together, not separately. They will learn through my book about their grandparents’ struggles and how, through Christ, we were able to keep our marriage together … I hope that readers will come away from my book relating to my experiences and understanding that there is hope for their marriages and their children’s salvation, even in the teenage years! It’s through repentance and faith, followed by obedience and the power of prayer, that will help your family be the best it can be.

    http://christianwomenonline.net/2008/11/28/interview-with-author-heather-cameron/

    I’n not really understanding the timeline here. From the way she talks, she makes it sound like she and her husband had conservative religious beliefs and raised their children accordingly. Perhaps they weren’t super-fundamentalist at the time, but what’s that stuff about “they learned there is a God who loved them and wanted a personal relationship with them” if it’s not a reference to their upbringing?

    • Gus Snarp

      Side note: I hate the casual way a certain segment of Christians use the word “awesome”. It reminds me of going to a church full of those Christians in my teenage years and just makes me cringe. Especially when combined with “just”. Crap, now I’m going to get that song in my head. Must. Listen. To. Satanic. Rock. Music.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Another one they overuse: Amazing.

    • IDP

      I’ve seen a lot of “conversion” stories about how someone who “wasn’t Christian” either in fact was only from a casually Christian family, or from a non-evangelical fundamentalist family (Catholic, for example), and therefore not a “real” Christian. It’s how they inflate their conversion numbers. These converts knew about the Bible and Jesus from the get-go, it’s not like there’s tons of lifelong Buddhists and atheists and Pagans watching movies like this and going “I was wrong! Teach me the right way!” No, it’s dabblers in other religions at best.

  • Steve UK

    Can’t hate something that doesn’t exist. I still wouldn’t believe even if proven to be true.

    • Anna

      Well, if it was proven to be true, we’d have to believe in it, but we wouldn’t have to love or worship it.

      I don’t think it’s possible to force oneself to feel emotions, so if their god really demanded love and adoration, we’d be out of luck no matter what. Pretending wouldn’t fool an omniscient deity.

      • The Other Weirdo

        If it was proven to be true, we wouldn’t need to believe in it. We would simply know it.

  • Mr.Rational

    If he’s really a recovering atheist, then how could he possibly be so wrong? It’s pretty funny. I don’t claim that I have proof that god doesn’t exist, I just don’t have any to prove that he does and for that reason, I refuse to believe in him. Also, I don’t hate god. I can’t hate something I don’t believe in. But I find the main character of The Holy Bible to be an ass hole. Have you read it lately??

  • kpax2013

    I don’t think Kirk Cameron was an atheist like you and I are an atheist: someone who did their homework and outright reject the religious bullshit and dogma. I think he was the type of ‘atheist’ that simply didn’t pay enough attention in church or school to care about God or Science and then one day he did. It’s so obvious by this video. He wasn’t atheist enough to have even the most basic understanding of what atheism is. Weak atheist at best. Totally not qualified to be telling us what we have to believe in.

    • Mairianna

      Exactly! My first thought was, “how do you go from being a reasonable, intelligent person to being a moron, without head trauma?”

      • The Other Weirdo

        Find extreme religion.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Ummm… I’m pretty sure that counts as head trauma…

          • The Other Weirdo

            Shh. Don’t say that, or someone will come along and complain that you’re making fun of people with head trauma.

            • Bdole

              Hey! ignr gaqqqqoir’t fnoir fnikrn fnarkn, gn3ro!

          • islandbrewer

            Mandatory helmet laws violate my religious freedoms!

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              I think there was actually a case (or lawsuit) to that effect brought by Sikhs. Can’t remember if it was here in the USA or up north in Canada, though.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                There have been several headgear lawsuits brought by Sikhs in Canada, both required RCMP headgear and helmets. Also the Sikh religious requirement that males after a certain age carry religious daggers at all times.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Ah, thank you for confirming this, I’m not always sure of my memory.

  • ORAXX

    Kirk Cameron just isn’t very smart. There is no other way to put it and it’s always a waste of time to argue with an idiot.

  • Ben

    I actually don’t doubt Kirk when he says he was an atheist before he became a Christian.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of how “atheist” he was. I think it’s a matter of how intelligent he was (and is).

    He doesn’t strike me as a deep-thinking guy. So he probably wasn’t a deep-thinking atheist either.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Typical Evangelical preaching to the choir. I’ve never heard an atheist say either thing or anything like either thing. I don’t cling to anything. But please, provide me with evidence that a god exists. Any god. That still doesn’t prove that YOUR god exists but it would be a step in that direction. Go ahead. I’m all ears.

  • edwin

    Either he’s a liar or he’s reveling in his denseness.

    its a little of both i’d say ,he is a young earth creationist after all.

  • Paul Reed

    I’ve just discovered the perfect name to describe Kirk, Ray, Kent, Eric, Sye, and all the others like them:

    Pullastrine patzers.

    Google it to find out why! :D

  • Ryan Hite

    Wow…. Really? I don’t think that this is what atheists believe and it’s sad that Christians think they do… The Christians are trying to answer the wrong questions.

  • Ray Bear

    Damn you, Kirk Cameron… WHY DO YOU HATE CASPER THE FRIENDLY GHOST??????!!!!!!!!!!

  • Kenton Forshee

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, via the Bible, Talmud, and Quran, has written its god into oblivion. There is simply WAY TOO MUCH wrong with it. The god of the Jews, Christianity, and Islam does not exist. I cannot say that some other, likely unknown, deity doesn’t exist, but I can say that the Biblical/Islamic god doesn’t exist. It is the arrogance of the religions of the Middle Eastern desert that want to conflate the claim that “their god doesn’t exist” with a claim of “absolutely no god exists”. Because to them a claim that their god doesn’t exist, IS to claim that there is no god.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Well, it’s cold comfort to know it’s not just us pagans that get to deal with the uppity “I used to be…” crap from Christians.

    • IDP

      I’ve a relative who was trying to tell me & my husband all about what “pagans” believe because their best friend was supposedly an 8th generation Druid, trained for priesthood in both the Wiccan and “Pagan” religions…but who has a bachelor’s degree in apologetics. This person is also like 30. That it never occurred to my relative to call bullshit on ANY of these claims is mind-boggling. They also think ol Kirk here is awesome sauce.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        LOL @ “8th generation Druid”

        The terms “Pagan” and “Heathen” cover many, many religions, there is not one monolithic “Pagan” religion!

        (Seriously, some people…)

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I did initiate with a Pagan (again, back in Canada) who claimed to his family had been Pagans for centuries. Although, he didn’t claim to speak for what “Pagans” believe, other than his family. No real proof, but then no real reason to doubt him either.

        • IDP

          This same person doesn’t know the difference between an agnostic and an atheist, which to me is theology/comparative religions 101 stuff. I don’t know if they are just that misinformed or if there’s this bizarro evangelical definition of agnostic I don’t know about. I guess it should come as no surprise they could think there’s pagan clergy getting degrees in Christian apologetics. My guess of what really happened is somebody of Scottish extraction read a bunch of beginner Wicca books as a teen in a fit of teenage rebellion, thus giving them conversion street cred now.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Sounds like this person is really, really confused.

            Maybe one of the gods will smack hir with a cosmic clue-by-four. With some people, it really does take a cosmic smack-down to wake them up. (I should know.)

  • Jennifer T

    I don’t really have a problem with saying “There is no god”. I don’t say “I don’t believe in phlogiston, but if you can bring me the evidence for the existence of phlogiston then I will accept that our current model of combustion is incorrect”. If somebody did come up with rigorous evidence for phlogiston then I would accept it, but I don’t consider it incumbent on me to give credence to that hypothesis in the absence of such evidence.

  • ThisGivesMeGrowingPains

    Too bad Richard Stabone aka Boner is Dead…. He would smarten up Kirky Boy

  • Lauryn

    Kirk bothers me so much! I just want to shake him and yell, “WHAT ABOUT YOU?”

  • hyphenate

    I’m surprised that anyone still cares. Cameron is weird, partly illiterate, stupid and batshit crazy. I pay as much attention to his ilk as I pay to the sandwich board guy on the corner with the “The world is coming to an end” message. I occasionally check up on an old friend who went the way of the flaming retarded right wing, but even then, it’s short and infrequent. Someone told me once, “Living well is the best revenge.” I like to keep that in mind, as it speaks literally volumes about what should be important in life.

  • Paul (not the apostle)

    I have a co-worker that said atheists are just angry at god. I told him you are not angry at Santa for not bringing you a Christmas gift and atheists are not angry at god for the exact same reason. I didn’t explain and it took him a while to figure it out.

  • Santiago Brin

    question is…..how much money does he make peddling the idea of a ‘god’?

  • Whirlwitch

    “Either he’s a liar or he’s reveling in his denseness.”

    False dichotomy, I say. I consider it quite likely he is a liar who is revelling in his denseness.

  • Bob

    I actually agree with no. 1. I’m quite happy to say that there is no God. I’ve seen no evidence for god and modern science can explain how we got here just fine. Sure, it’s possible I’m wrong, but until I see some evidence, I disbelieve in god’s existence.
    And I really think this is the one basic thing that all atheists must agree on- by definition. I mean, atheist means ‘no-god’, Richard Dawkins might not be 100% certain that there’s no god but he’s certain enough for the purposes of everyday life.
    His 2) is ridiculous though because it contradicts 1), You can’t hate something you don’t think exists. I feel nothing for god. God is, to me, imaginary. What I hate is the destructive parts of organised religions.

  • Just a gal from TX

    My guess is Kirk is just dense. He didn’t go to school once he was on Growing Pains and just had on set tutors. He never went to college, not even a Bible college.

  • SitCritical

    This is obviously an American perspective. I say that because in Canada I would disagree that religion has that much influence (crazy is Cameron is Canadian). I personally believe all personal bias should not be in school and a fact based system should be in place. Science says evolution….I agree….people are able to think, feel and love…this says to me something else beyond science, but not anything defined by a religion. I have had people try to peg me as agnostic, deist and other thing, but I don’t buy any of it. I don’t buy atheism either…all people created bull. In Canada there is sex education, tolerance of gays (even allow marriages in the province I live in….I don’t believe in the whole gay thing either, but guess what….that’s my choice. I don’t show hate…I just don’t approve…..similar to Atheists not approving religion…..my choice. Basically I don’t like what religion does to people…wars and yet I see another brewing between Atheists and Religions. Several sites make reference to Richard Dawkins….he is the Pope of the Atheist religion

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Atheists don’t have a Pope.

      • baal

        I’m sure Dawkins was floated for the job but noone could find enough smoke of the right color or even agree if there should be a smoke signal what this being a modern age with faxes and things.

      • SitCritical

        No kidding…..really? I was saying that in an attempt to vilify organized religions Atheism has become a religion…..I said Dawkins is the Poe cuz he seems to be the one everyone turns to and has literature like the Atheist 10 Commandments. Atheists are as quick to try and convert me and attack non believers as religious people….Atheists protest for their beliefs and change the same as religious people….Atheists congregate and discuss beliefs same as religious people….in an attempt to debunk religion Atheists have created a new religion. I dislike alll organized religions….and non religions that try and dictate how someone should live or what to believe. I don’t believe in God and I don’t believe in the nothingness….I believe that life is to complicated to be a fluke and that religion does not have the answer. I believe in evolution that might have had a bit of help…not from a God, but something else. I believe that religion and anything to do with religion including Atheism create wars and hate…..read these posts and I see hate all over the place for non Atheists….so bring on the hate….how do you handle someone that doesn’t believe in religion and doesn’t believe in Atheism either….I think anyone that needs to put their faith into something is missing the big picture of simply loving life and those around you….without having an agenda and trying to flip people or convert them.

        • GCT

          I can’t imagine why someone posting a bunch of bigoted and religiously privileged stereotypes about us would receive a chilly reception.

          Atheism is not a religion. Period. It doesn’t meet the definition, and the fact that atheists get together means nothing, unless you’re going to say that gatherings for specific sports teams also constitute a religion, not to mention book clubs, quilting circles, etc. And, it seems your ignorance of the meaning of common words is not limited to “religion” as you also seem to not know what “atheism” or “atheist” mean.

          • SitCritical

            Laughable….bigoted and religiously stereotyped? Seriously? First if your going to make a post use your name or remain anonymous and mute. Second, you are reacting the same way a religious person does….defending you “beliefs” and “faith”. Learn top read….I am saying that Atheism is evolving in to a religion with structure, set of beliefs, “commandments from Dawkins” (like a Pope). You are like the religious people….blinded by your faith and it’s actually funny, because you have no problem attacking someone else and their religious views, but get all crazy bent out of shape and start the bigot comments to defend yours. Here is a word for you….hypocrite…. that would be you get over yourself and if you really believe in something….put your name on it.

            • phantomreader42

              Since I sincerely doubt your parents named you “Sit Critical”, your whining about anonymity under a pseudonym only makes you look like a hypocritical idiot desperate for any excuse to flee in terror from arguments you are too stupid and lazy to address. The fact that you babble about “commandments from Dawkins”, but have not been able to provide a speck of evidence that such things exist outside your hallucinations shows once again that you have no idea at all what you are talking about, and refuse to learn. You are an idiot, and you are babbling nonsense. Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Refusing to learn the meanings of words does not magically make you right, it only makes you a willfully ignorant asshat.

              • SitCritical

                Touchy touchy…..thanks for proving another point, but first let me introduce myself….Chuck ….I am a guy that simply believes that once someone subscribes to a “belief” they become victim to the propaganda of that belief. Simply put……the only way any of us will ever know what does or does not exist is when we die and until then simply enjoy life. I find it sad that people have the need to define themselves and conform to someone else’s ideology…..religious and non religious are all sheep…..and as evident in the hostile replies I got Atheists are just as arrogant as religious people….congratulations for taking a side/belief and becoming the bigot you claim I am. I could meet you on the street and you would never know where I stand and I would treat you no different if you were religious or not….until you started preaching your stance…..yes preaching. That is what is another common thread. See the funny thing is that Atheists claim to be this entity that is not a religion, but there are so many similarities, which I have mentioned, but your blinders will not let you see it. I feel sorry for you that you need to form a group to disprove something. I never said to believe or not to believe, but that religion and Atheists are very similar….that’s it….oh and for your info….Richard Dawkins’ Ten Commandments
                1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you

                2. In all things, strive to cause no harm

                3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

                4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

                5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder

                6. Always seek to be learning something new

                7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

                8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

                9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

                10. Question everything

                This is on the Dawkins site….you should educate yourself in the things you believe in.

                • GCT

                  I am a guy that simply believes that once someone subscribes to a “belief” they become victim to the propaganda of that belief.

                  Put your money where your mouth is and tell us all what belief is encompassed by atheism. Don’t strain too hard.

                  religious and non religious are all sheep

                  Then, you are sheep too, since that encompasses all humanity.

                  and as evident in the hostile replies I got Atheists are just as arrogant as religious people

                  Whatever hostility you are receiving is because of your bigoted attacks. If you walk up to someone else and slap them, and they yell back at you, does that prove the other person is whatever you want to think of them? Of course you’re going to get testy replies when you launch an offensive that is bigoted and hateful.

                  I could meet you on the street and you would never know where I stand and I would treat you no different if you were religious or not

                  True, except if you were to open your mouth and start spewing your bigotries as you’ve done here. Then, I would know that you’re a hateful bigot, just as I know it now from your words.

                  you should educate yourself in the things you believe in.

                  I’m reminded of the first rule of holes…

                • phantomreader42

                  I know that the propaganda of your bizarre cult has brainwashed you with the belief that all atheists worship Richard Dawkins for some reason, but it just simply IS NOT TRUE. Of course, it’s obvious that you don’t acutally CARE whether or not the bullshit you believe is true, all you care about is incessantly babbling nonsense. Your obsession with Dawkins is really not healthy for you. I haven’t looked at Dawkins’ site in months, because unlike the straw man of me you’re hallucinating I do not feel a need to seek marching orders from some old guy with a beard. I keep seeing idiots like you babbling about Dawkins being worshipped, and no matter how many times the reality is explained to them, they never learn, because they don’t WANT to learn. You have shown no sign that you’re any different in that respect. Atheists don’t worship anything. Atheists do not believe that gods exist. The only people who see Richard Dawkins as some kind of god or pope are incredibly dense, dishonest, and delusional religious apologists such as yourself.

                • SitCritical

                  You are laughable at best. Once again resorting to name calling and trying to label me….it’s impossible since I don’t believe in anything, but living. You should simply accept that not everyone will agree with you and move on. I really don’t care one way or another what you believe in or don’t believe in….I gave an observation and you feel the need to make it more than it is, which is sad really. One reference to Dawkins and you take that as the underlying of my observation…sad. You asked for more of a reason why I mentioned him and I gave it…..calm down, take a Valium and breathe. This is why I don’t believe in anything because it would be far to stressful to have to carry the weight of a group on my back like you are. We live we die and enjoying life is the only guarantee. I am hopeful to see family that have died, hopeful that there is more to this life, but realistic that it may not…..and am okay with that. I believe that evolution and a helping hand may or may not be why we are here, but don’t let it consume me to hate, where I think you have ended up here today with the labels and name calling. I find it funny that you are labeling me and trash talking me and then in the same breath calling me a bigot and stereotyping….you don’t see the problem with that? Probably not, but like I said….I will not let it bother me. I only reply in hopes to settle you down and see I am not attacking anyone…..for the last time and I hope it will sink into your stubborn mindset…..I made an observation and if you were as open minded as you may think you are you would see that and engage in a conversation not an attack position. You are a sad representative or Atheists. I have had great conversations with Atheists and religious people and it’s also funny that you have taken the attack charge for GCT and others have not. Is picking a fight instead of using conversation how you work in the real world too or is this just a case of keyboard steroids? Just asking.

                • SitCritical

                  In a simple non babble way…..Have a nice Day and find something positive, because what your doing now isn’t working for you….way to stressed out.

                • phantomreader42

                  You said something that was stupid and false, then persisted when you were corrected. You lied. Is lying through your teeth and then whining when people don’t instantly fall to their knees and praise your ridiculous lies how you work in the real world? No, you just wallow in a puddle of your own filth, jerking off and screaming at the top of your lungs that your solipsism magically makes you the bestest thing evar, while pretending nothing else exists but your poorly-constructed strawmen.

                  If one person points out that you’re babbling bullshit, you hypocritically whine about names and refuse to address any relevant points. If two people point out that you’re babbling bullshit, you find some more vague irrelevancies to whine about and still refuse to address any relevant points. How many people need to point out that you’re babbling bullshit before you switch to whining about people ganging up on you as your excuse to refuse to address any relevant points? Because we all know there is no force in all the universe that could induce you to discuss anything honestly. There is no point in trying to be civil with you, because you lie constantly, and LYING IS NOT CIVIL!

            • GCT

              Laughable….bigoted and religiously stereotyped? Seriously?

              Yes, seriously. You’re posting stereotypes about atheists.

              First if your going to make a post use your name or remain anonymous and mute.

              And, you’re not using your real name either, hypocrite.

              Second, you are reacting the same way a religious person does….defending you “beliefs” and “faith”.

              So, if I don’t react to you making stereotypical barbs at atheists, then it’s true, and if I do react, it just reinforces that it’s true. I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. Or, we could have you point out what faith is inherent in atheism and save us all the trouble. Pro tip: there isn’t any.

              Learn top read

              I’m doing just fine. It is you that needs to learn something.

              I am saying that Atheism is evolving in to a religion with structure, set of beliefs, “commandments from Dawkins” (like a Pope).

              You don’t even have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, yet it doesn’t stop you from continuing to dig. There is no religion inherent in rejecting your religion. There is no structure beyond what any group of humans comes up with when they have similar ideas and goals. And, there are no actual commandments. Those so-called commandments came from Adam Lee, not Dawkins (he writes Daylight Atheism right here on Patheos) and they are not binding rules for atheists. In fact, they are just rules for being a decent person. I’m sure you don’t know anything about that though.

              …but get all crazy bent out of shape and start the bigot comments to defend yours.

              Not at all. I call bigots out when they attack atheists using stereotypes and untrue/unfair generalizations, especially ones not based on anything beyond the writer’s need to attack us.

              • SitCritical

                Actually I am using my real name….would you like my address as well? Chuck is my name and have made several posts using my name on other threads. In fact I have used my address as well, so not hiding from anything. This thread started as a critique of Cameron’s character and belief, and all I did was make a comparative….same as Atheists did about him. So when I make a comparison about Atheists and religious people it’s horrible….my observation as someone that puts no stock in either…but you are allowed to attack him for his beliefs and it’s okay? Makes no sense and then to say I am a bigot…..I have taken no sides and have only offered an opinion on something. Bigot and stereotype? Nope. Just an observation and pointed out the similarities of Atheists and organized religions and how the structure of the Atheists world is similar to that of religious structure. People are so quick to scream about bigotry, stereotypes and even racism these days that the real definitions are clouded and in many cases misused like you are today. Did I say derogatory comments…nope…pointed out similarities and observations. You chose to get defensive and start with the labeling, not me. You are clouded by your beliefs and that’s fine. I was hoping for intelligent conversation about what I see….yet you resort to the same thing you are upset about regarding Kirk Cameron. This again draws the similarity to religion….you are willing to fight to the end for your cause. See I will go to bed at night with a peace of mind since I believe in simply living, my family and enjoying the gift of life….and don’t care about is there or is there not a God, because I am just living and enjoying life without someone telling me how to live it. Be nice, experience things and observe…..question. That is a common belief in all facets of religion and non religion. Finally, your Pro tip…..if that is your belief….so be it, but don’t get upset with me for drawing comparisons when you are attacking Kirk Cameron for drawing his own beliefs.

                • GCT

                  Actually I am using my real name….would you like my address as well?

                  No, you aren’t. And, even if Chuck is your first name, I have no way to verify that. And, no, I don’t care what your actual name or address or anything else is. It’s irrelevant. I’ve never accused you of anything except being a hypocrite for using a pseudonym and demanding that others not do that.

                  So when I make a comparison about Atheists and religious people it’s horrible….my observation as someone that puts no stock in either…but you are allowed to attack him for his beliefs and it’s okay?

                  You really don’t see the difference between making remarks about Kirk Cameron, based on the actual merits of his argument, and remarks that generalize atheists based on stereotypes and demonization?

                  Makes no sense and then to say I am a bigot…..I have taken no sides and have only offered an opinion on something. Bigot and stereotype?

                  Yes. That’s what you are when you use stereotypes to demean, dehumanize, demonize, and generalize about atheists.

                  Just an observation and pointed out the similarities of Atheists and organized religions and how the structure of the Atheists world is similar to that of religious structure.

                  Except you are very wrong about this and seemingly impervious to correction.

                  Did I say derogatory comments…nope…pointed out similarities and observations.

                  So, as long as it’s just an observation, it’s OK? If you told me that black people sure do like watermelon, I would call you a racist, even if you claimed it was only an observation.

                  You are clouded by your beliefs and that’s fine.

                  I’ve asked you to point out what those beliefs are, and you can not do so.

                  I was hoping for intelligent conversation about what I see….yet you resort to the same thing you are upset about regarding Kirk Cameron.

                  Not. Even. Close.

                  This again draws the similarity to religion….you are willing to fight to the end for your cause.

                  Yes, I’m willing to vociferously argue for equal rights for myself and other atheists. There’s nothing religious about that, as I’ve already pointed out and you are dishonestly ignoring.

                  See I will go to bed at night with a peace of mind since I believe in simply living, my family and enjoying the gift of life….and don’t care about is there or is there not a God, because I am just living and enjoying life without someone telling me how to live it.

                  No one is telling me how to live my life either…except you.

                  Be nice, experience things and observe…..question. That is a common belief in all facets of religion and non religion.

                  No, it is not. Religions do not teach people to question.

                • SitCritical

                  wow….you have issues….take off your blinders…get over yourself and try to simply enjoy life….you are spouting the same crap that is not even making sense…clueless….I am done with your ignorance and grand standing…..enjoy your posturing, playing lawyer and being mad….hope that works for you. Cuz I really could care less….you have no impact on me enjoying life. You are simply another blinded person trying to justify your beliefs….just like religious people…have a good one and chill out.

                • GCT

                  You still have no presented a single belief that is encapsulated by atheism. I’m going to take this to mean that you don’t have any. Given that, your whole contention that atheism is a religion and that we are blinded by our beliefs is obviously wrong, as it is not possible to be blinded by non-existent beliefs.

                  You also were entirely unable to respond to a single point I made. Why is that? Could it be because you are the one unable to see past your blinders and your hatred for atheists?

                • SitCritical

                  Let it go already……you have gone way beyond the initial post I made…..I am not attacking Atheists, merely drawing a comparison….quit making things that aren’t there. I am pointing out as well that you are making a lot out of things that don’t exist. Address your points? What points? That I am who I say I am? That you have decided I hate Atheist? Never once said that….thanks for deciding what I hate. I said I don’t believe in any of the defined categories of religion or non religion, but you took that as I hate Atheists…you are a moron (or Mormon….never know).

                  Stereotypes and demonetization? Really? Again I will try to get through your stuck in mud ways….no stereotypes….what are you talking about? I made an observation and comparison….food for thought type thing. What stereotypes and demonization? That’s a joke. When did I do that?

                  What I am about to say has nothing to do with Atheism okay….nothing at all….this is directed solely at you. You need to get off your keyboard, take a walk outside, say hi to a random person, pretend you actually don’t care what someone believes in and get your head out of your a$$.

                  The other part you missed was I do enjoy conversation and have had great conversation with Atheists, religious people and not once have I had to deal with someone so clueless as you.

                  I am not here to debate theology or Atheism as a whole and you most likely have a protest to get to since you are so desperate to argue all the time…..so good bye. I am not wasting anymore time dealing with a yutz that is grasping at straws to argue….grow up, learn how to make sensible arguments….the cut and paste garbage is lame and proves you are not paying attention and only seeing what you want to see….I hope your not Canadian cuz that would be embarrassing for those of us that are….get a life and maybe go to church since you aren’t aware of what it means to be an Atheist….the Atheists I know don’t act like a spoiled rich kid on a mission….you are an idiot. Most likely protest the fact I was in the military too.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  SitsCritical,

                  You came here and made a number of incorrect assertions, and got called on it. Every bit of advice you have for GCT to ‘let it go’ applies doubly to you. With the addition that if you don’t wan to continue being wrong, you should pay attention to what ze’s saying, because although you say you don’t care, you did come here spouting BS and stuck around to defend it.

                  so good bye

                  Please.

                • SitCritical

                  I was thinking about not replying till I looked up your previous posts….wow you need to put down your phone and quit trying to educate/convert everyone. Seems all you do is try to convince people you are better….you are not and again I will say….I made a comparison, that is all. If you are offended by that…too bad…get over it. When you believe in something it is not always perfect and subject to discussion. To label someone as demonizing, stereotyping and not in this case, but racist, is pathetic. I bet if I said praise and hip hip horahs about the article you would be all thumbs up and happy joy joy….how dare someone think outside the box….wait if people didn’t questions and draw comparisons there wouldn’t be…as you have posted as a retort in your posts…..

                  SCIENCE!!

                  So stick this in your intellect pipe and smoke it….by drawing a comparison I have in fact used scientific method. But you’ll find some quick witted lame thing to discredit this as some sort of attack on Atheism and a demonization….do what makes you feel good…you are a sad little man that has to grasp a cause to validate your existence….since you have no where to go after you die.

                  Kiss my a$$…..please.

                • GCT

                  Let it go already……

                  No. I won’t sit here and be demonized. I won’t sit here while you shove your religious privilege down my throat. I will speak up, I will talk back, I will continue to show you that I won’t take that from you.

                  I am not attacking Atheists, merely drawing a comparison….quit making things that aren’t there.

                  As I’ve explained many times now, you are attacking atheists. You are making judgments about us based on stereotypes meant to demean us.

                  Address your points? What points?

                  I’ve pointed out repeatedly that you are employing stereotypes. I’ve pointed out repeatedly that your definitions don’t fit. I’ve also asked you to back up your assertions and you ignore those requests. You have not provided a single belief that atheists hold, nor shown how we must follow it. You’ve not provided a single tenet that we have to believe or follow. You’ve done nothing except make baseless and bigoted accusations.

                  Never once said that….thanks for deciding what I hate.

                  Not my decision, it’s based on your treatment of us. It’s based on your penchant for generalizing us. It’s based on your uncritical acceptance of stereotypical bigotry and your repeated use of it to demonize. It’s based on your tactics. It’s based on your accusations that you refuse to back up. It’s based on your strategy of slapping us in the face, then claiming that your stereotypical and bigoted views are confirmed because we don’t sit down and take it from you (which re-affirms your own religious privilege).

                  What stereotypes and demonization? That’s a joke. When did I do that?

                  You’ve been doing it from the get-go. You generalize. You group us together as a monolith. You claim that we are closed-minded zealots that have to be led like sheep, which is a stereotype that is used to demean and demonize us (ironically by Xians and other theists who don’t seem to see the obvious problem with that). You shove your religious privilege down our throats and complain when we don’t sit down and STFU and simply take it from you, pretending that we fit your stereotypes when we don’t treat you as if you are some wise sage that we must devote our lives to (again, ironically since you’re also criticizing us for doing that…meaning maybe it’s not OK to do that unless we worship you?)

                  You need to get off your keyboard, take a walk outside, say hi to a random person, pretend you actually don’t care what someone believes in and get your head out of your a$$.

                  Victim blaming and more bigotry. Yes, because I argue with you over the internet and because I’m an atheist, that must mean that I only ever sit in front of a computer, never go on walks, never say hi to anyone, am obsessed with their beliefs, and I’m a moron – and on top of it all, it’s all my fault for standing up against your bigotry. Of course, it’s completely lost on you that I could make the same claims about you, except that I have more integrity and moral sense than to engage in such base bigotries.

                  The other part you missed was I do enjoy conversation and have had great conversation with Atheists, religious people and not once have I had to deal with someone so clueless as you.

                  I have no way to verify this, but I’m calling BS. Most people you talk to are too constrained by polite society to call out your BS, and some simply accept it even when it’s detrimental to them because of the religious privilege that pervades our society. You may have been able to sling your accusations and bigotries around and not have them challenged, making the conversation more pleasant for you, but it would not make for a great conversation.

                  I am not here to debate theology or Atheism as a whole and you most likely have a protest to get to since you are so desperate to argue all the time…..so good bye.

                  No, you’re here to dictate to us how horrible we are and we are supposed to sit there and take it and tell you how wise you are. You’re right, that’s not a debate, that’s you being an ass to our faces and expecting us to praise you for it. Stick the landing on your flounce.

                  the cut and paste garbage is lame and proves you are not paying attention and only seeing what you want to see….

                  It’s so you can know what I’m replying to, you asshole. By doing this I’ve gone through so much more effort to try and communicate than you have and shown you so much more respect than you’ve shown anyone here. And, you shove that back in my face as if it’s a failing of mine? Shame on you. You are a horrible person.

                  get a life and maybe go to church since you aren’t aware of what it means to be an Atheist….the Atheists I know don’t act like a spoiled rich kid on a mission….you are an idiot.

                  This is nonsensical. Why would going to a church make me aware of what it means to be an “Atheist” (BTW, you don’t capitalize that word.) How am I acting like a spoiled rich kid? Oh yeah, it’s because I’m standing up to you and your bigotry. Well, if that’s acting like a spoiled rich kid, I will continue to do so, because I’m not going to roll over and play dead while you dance on the grave of my civil rights.

                  Most likely protest the fact I was in the military too.

                  Wow, that’s desperate. Now you want respect for being in the military, because you’ve not gotten your fix from simply showing up and dropping your pearls in front of the atheist swine. This is beyond pathetic.

                • SitCritical

                  I have looked at the many posts you have posted on this subject and it’s clear that if people do not agree with you then you get militant. To talk trash about my military time shows you are a second class citizen that hasn’t the grapes to truly stand up for anything…..unless it’s behind a computer and keyboard. Based on that alone you are not worthty of any more chatter. You are a sad little man living in mommies basement and wallowing in self pity. I showed this post to my atheist friends, whom I have had the comparison discussion without as much stereotype BS and they have never felt demonized and laugh that you say that. In fact they have said it is people like you that put negative focus on Atheism. I feel sorry for you that you have to have so much hate in you….you are the pathetic one. I don’t take anything you say personally, because I see you hate all over this post and others and the world would be a better place with people like you not in it….and by people like you I am not talking about atheists….I am talking about a$$holes. There…finally a stereotype for you. Bigotry? Still full of hit buddy. You need to put away your soap box, go outside and try to find something good in the world, because all you are doing online is creating fights and looking for negativity. YOU ARE A LOSER AND NEED TO SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE.

    • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

      First of all, SitCritical, please substitute commas or periods for those ellipses as your comment is very hard to read.

      Secondly, I’m puzzled by your comment “even allow marriage in the province I live in.” Gay marriage is legal in *all* of Canada, and has been since 2005.

      • SitCritical

        A punctuation gripe….petty.
        I am talking to Americans that largely don’t know a lot about Canada. You obviously missed the main points I made by focusing on punctuation and provincial allowances. Please read the rest and then comment.

    • Gus Snarp

      Atheism is not a religion and Dawkins is nothing like a pope.

      • SitCritical

        I said Atheism is like a religion and yeah Dawkins is the figurehead/influence of Atheism. You as an Atheist will fight for your non religion status as much as religion people do for theirs….you are blinded by your beliefs as much as religious people. Thus….. a religion structure/organization. I don’t buy any of it so it’s easy to see the similarities and the BS in all of it.

        • GCT

          No, you are flatly wrong and bigoted to boot. Dawkins is a prominent figure due to the fact that he is well-known, but that is not even close to being a pope.

          Additionally, what beliefs are we supposedly blinded by? Atheism is defined by a lack of belief.

          Lastly, how dare you. Seriously, how dare you criticize us for fighting for our rights. Hell yes we are going to fight for our rights, but that makes us no more a religion than any other civil rights group that has fought for their rights. Do blacks constitute a religious group? How about women? How about the LGBTQ community? That you would even put forth such a bigoted and religiously privileged notion speaks volumes about who you are as a person. Shame on you.

  • glenco

    He is only promoting his new work, nothing more. No point in reading into it and analysing it. Unfortunately religious people are more gullible than non, so they will even defend this conman. Easy money.

  • MadSat

    Funny how religion is always about money. Oh, you thought Kirk was doing this because he’s a true believer now? No, it’s to make money for a movie. The real converts are to crisp green pieces of paper.
    Kirk certainly doesn’t know the truth about the nature of the universe. Neither do I. But I’m dead certain that a bunch of people worshipping a late stone age sky god aren’t on the right track.

  • Joycey

    Great video by Kirk, and he’s spot on. My experience of Dawkins on Facebook is that it posts so much anti-theist and anti-Christ pictures and comments. He even had a blasphemy party last week. He demonizes Christianity and Christians as the root of all evil in the same propaganda vein as the Nazi’s towards Jews. He exhorted his followers to mock, jeer and generally be nasty to people of faith at the reason rally and so many have taken up that call with glee.

    • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

      Well, Joycey, if Christians hadn’t raided My ancestral homeland in Scandinavia and forced Christianity upon us on pain of death, you might have a point there.

    • Godlesspanther

      The Nazis? Oh my!!!! Atheists are just like the Nazis, huh?

      Tell me — why is it that you are so quick to label people ‘Nazis’ who are obviously nothing of the sort — and yet you ignore groups like Arian Nations, Christian Identity, The Creativity Movement — those who really are self-described Nazis?

      Gee – I wonder why that is.

      And if you believe in god, then look at it this way: if god did not intend for religions to be mocked, then why did it make them all so fucking stupid?

      • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

        Kind of hard not to mock a book that goes from the creation of the universe to a Talking Snake™ in 3 chapters. If it was such an important character, it should’ve been in chapter 1 like in Good Omens. :-D

    • Gus Snarp

      Do you know why he had a blasphemy party? Do you know that in many countries you can be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for blasphemy? Three women in Russia were convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to hard labor for it. One man from India had to flee the country to avoid prosecution for blasphemy because he revealed that a supposedly miraculous “weeping” statue at a Catholic church had an entirely mundane cause (leaky pipes, I believe). In Bangladesh and other Muslim countries people are executed for blasphemy or attacked by mobs.

      So Dawkins stance (and mine) is that all blasphemy is free speech, and ought not to be prevented by law, threat, or violence, so he had a blasphemy party to make a point.

      Do you think blasphemy should be a crime? Whose blasphemy? Is criticizing Islam or Mohammed blasphemy? Or only criticizing the Bible or Jesus? Is it blasphemy to speak out against the government by behaving rudely in an Orthodox church? What about a Baptist church? Is demonstrating the falsehood of a claim by Catholics blasphemy? By Scientologists? By Pentecostals? Baptists? Lutherans? Non denominational Christians? Your particular church?

      Also, your Godwin is just plain insulting to anyone who suffered due to the holocaust. The accusation that Dawkins criticism is anything like the way the Nazis represented Jews is blatantly and obviously false.

  • Ty

    Wow, I consider myself ‘non-religious’ but if you are considered a “Friendly Atheist” I would hate to find the “Venomous Atheist”.

    • Gus Snarp

      Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and other fundamentalists of their ilk have long since spent any friendliness currency they might have started with through constant dishonest attacks on science, atheists, and the LGBT community.

      Friendly is when you meet a stranger and say hello, good morning, and smile at them. Or it’s engaging in polite conversation with someone interested in the same.

      When someone is actively lying about you and what you believe in an effort to discredit you or label you evil, responding with anger to that does not make you a less friendly person. Did you watch the video? Kirk is lying about atheism and atheists. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior. He’s treated the LGBT community similarly, and don’t even get me started on his constant attacks on science.

      So if you have friendly chats with your coworker at the water cooler, always smile and ask how they’re doing, invite them over for your weekend barbecue, then you’re being friendly. But if they tell your boss all sorts of false things about you in an effort to get you fired, and you politely call them on it and ask them to stop and they keep right on doing it, do you stop being a friendly person in general if you yell at them about it, stop inviting them over, and stop having friendly chats with them?

  • Stanley Dorst

    I think it’s quite possible that Cameron was an atheist, but if so, he was a confused one. I think many people get confused by the difference between not believing in a God and believing that there is no God. It takes a certain degree of linguistic and logical clarity to understand the difference between them, and many people don’t get it. I also think that some atheists and many religious folks can get confused between belief in God and religion, so our anger at religion seems to them to be anger at God.

    I’m wondering whether anyone is writing to Cameron about his mistake. After all, it’s fine to discuss the problem among ourselves, but it’s not likely to make any difference to any believers. The believers who come here come here to argue, not to listen and think. On the other hand, if Cameron truly is just confused, if someone patiently explains to him why he is confused about this, perhaps that could get him to think about it.

    Thoughts?

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Cameron, and Comfort, have ‘heard’ the explanations. They’re not interested in paying any attention.

  • kn3jerk

    Wow, watch a load of old twaddle that ‘trailer’ is! So atheists hate someone they have to not believe in (Return without Gosub anyone?). As well as that they are also against ‘his’ moral standards and some unsubstantiated claim that ‘he’ is changing the world while all around is despair and tragedy? Two of the most throw-away statements I think I’ve ever heard in defence of a God. May as well have said ‘he’ is orange and plays the banjo which, as everyone knows, are the only two requirements for world peace and harmony.

  • baal

    What?

    Have you considered that it was your husband who is infertile and changing partners helped that instead of magic?

    • GCT

      Seems better to flag it as spam than to engage as if it’s a real comment.

  • moon_goddess235

    Recovering atheist….bah! More like a recovering asshole with an allergy to intelligence!!

    • Koyaanisqatsi

      Intelligent argument.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Not everything is an argument. Sometimes people just express their feelings.

    • Dr. Rocketscience

      Doesn’t “recovering asshole” imply that he’s now less of an asshole than he was before?

      • moon_goddess235

        That’s true….he certainly seems to be MORE of an asshole now than he was previously. Maybe I should have said die-hard asshole. That’s something that seems to be hard to recover from. Even for non-religious types.

  • Heather Hammond

    I’m a Christian, and I agree with the critique of the Cameron piece. To assume the conclusion (i.e.atheists know there is a god to be mad at) as he does is an appalling lapse of basic logic.

    As far as what Christians are like, I respectfully suggest considering a wider pool of the Christian population. As Sam Adams observed long ago, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” In that wider pool you will find the descendents of those who preserved learning through the dark ages, began free public schools, worked to abolish slavery, and built many of the hospitals that still serve people of all beliefs today. Today’s Christians work on environmental issues, immigration reform, poverty, ending world hunger, equipping villages with safe drinking water, ending torture, pushing for marriage equality, and scores of other things central to the well being of societies and individuals. None of that makes good news copy, not when there are loud-mouthed dingbats willing to spout off in front of any camera they see. Atheists are misunderstood, and so are Christians like me.

    As to “100%certainty,” nearly every Christian I’ve known (and there have been thousands in 29 years of ordained ministry) has moments in which they feel so despairing they wonder if a deity even exists. That’s pretty typical of any belief system. Even the poets who wrote the Psalms (Hebrew scriptures, 900-1000 BCE) said as much.

    I cannot show “definitive proof that God exists” any more than an atheist can show me definitive proof that God doesn’t. Atheist or Christian, it’s always a leap of faith. Pascal’s famous wager stands. Come to think of it, none of us can definitively prove that even we, ourselves, exist. Drove poor Descartes crazy ’til even he had to conclude that making an a priori assumption that the subjective experience of having a thought indeed indicated existence was as much assurance of existence as anyone could have. I’m going to carry on, assuming my experience of my existence reflects something actual; and trusting that my experience of God reflects something actual, indeed something actualized and actualizing. Peace to you in your own search for meaning in this mad undertaking we call life.

    • GCT

      In that wider pool you will find the descendents of those who preserved learning through the dark ages, began free public schools, worked to abolish slavery, and built many of the hospitals that still serve people of all beliefs today.

      Sorry, but you don’t get to do that. The Dark Ages were dark because the church kept learning away from others. You don’t get to claim credit for them keeping learning alive when they were the problem to begin with. Additionally, it was Muslims that brought a lot of learning back to the European population.

      In regards to slavery, you also don’t get to claim that. Xians were the ones fighting hardest to keep slavery, especially since it is sanctioned by the Bible.

      For hospitals, again, you don’t get to claim that, especially today when church groups are buying up hospitals in order to deny treatment to people in an attempt to do an end-run around the law.

      Today’s Christians work on environmental issues, immigration reform, poverty, ending world hunger, equipping villages with safe drinking water, ending torture, pushing for marriage equality, and scores of other things central to the well being of societies and individuals.

      Xians are much more likely to deny global climate change, to push for real change that will help eradicate poverty, world hunger, and safe water, are more likely to push for torture, are standing against marriage equality, etc. This is a load of bollocks.

      None of that makes good news copy, not when there are loud-mouthed dingbats willing to spout off in front of any camera they see.

      Yet, here you are chastising us instead of speaking out against these so-called “loud-mouthed dingbats”. That’s because when the rubber meets the road, so-called moderates like you claim to be are more interested in being on team Jeebus than in doing what is right. That, and you don’t actually have any way of showing them they are wrong since you both rely on faith.

      Atheists are misunderstood, and so are Christians like me.

      You don’t get to do that either. You don’t get to pretend that you aren’t drowning in religious privilege and that you have it as bad as us.

      I cannot show “definitive proof that God exists” any more than an atheist can show me definitive proof that God doesn’t.

      That’s not my job. The burden of proof lies upon you since you are the one making the positive assertion.

      Atheist or Christian, it’s always a leap of faith.

      No, it is not. There’s no faith involved in rejecting your unevidenced faith position.

      Pascal’s famous wager stands.

      Pascal’s wager is a horrible argument, and the fact that you seem to think it “stands” speaks volumes about your understanding of the issues.

      I’m going to carry on, assuming my experience of my existence reflects something actual; and trusting that my experience of God reflects something actual, indeed something actualized and actualizing.

      Yes, since you have no evidence in your deity you must rely upon faith. Too bad you can’t or won’t understand why that is bad.

      • paizlea

        Christians have done a great deal of good in the world, led by the tenets of their faith. That truth isn’t diminished by the fact that others have done wrong in the name of Christ, as well.

        • GCT

          I disagree. It is certainly diminished by the fact that no one can actually claim that it is a tenet of Xian faith to do good things in the world. This is a religiously privileged idea where Xians have been able to shape the discussion on morality to the point that people automatically assign good to “real” Xian morality, and downplay all bad actions as “not real” Xian morality. The Bible certainly supports slavery, for one example, and Xians who supported slavery had the backing of the Bible. To claim that it was one’s Xian faith that caused one to stand up and declare slavery to be wrong is not only anti-Biblical (and therefore anti-Xian) but it also completely ignores all those Xians who found it to be part of their faith that slavery was just fine.

          Additionally, the person I responded to was attempting the tried and true method of whitewashing all sins of the religious by claiming everything that is good for Xianity. This is another religiously privileged argument. In 50 years they’ll probably be claiming that they were the ones behind the movement for LGBTQ equality all along and they are the one responsible for LGBTQ people having equal rights. I don’t stand for them rewriting history now and I won’t stand for it then.

          • paizlea

            People of all religious and nonreligious persuasions, be it Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, etc, have committed atrocities, both individually and in groups. The larger an organization is, the more power it has to do harm, even unintentionally. But this is a function of human nature, not religion specifically. I’ll keep fighting right along with you to undo and prevent harm, but saying religion is the cause of it ignores all the crimes committed by armies, governments, corporations, and other secular groups.

            • GCT

              Again, I disagree. There are *isms that are more prone to violence and harm than others. You can’t tell me that the prohibitions written into the Bible against women/gays/atheists/etc are simply human nature? The Xian holy scriptures teach hatred.

              Now, I’m not saying that were religion to disappear tomorrow that everything would be sunshine and roses. What I’m saying is that religion is a destructive force. It teaches hatred. It teaches that faith is a virtue, which leads to atrocities. Atheism has no similar teachings. Have atheists done bad things? Yes. Was it a part of atheism or influenced by it? No.

              • paizlea

                If the Christian scriptures teach hatred, then why are there so many progressive Christians? Although nutbag right-wingers are getting most of the attention these days, liberal, inclusive Christians have existed for as long as the faith has, and they base their values on the Bible as much as the fundies do. To me, that means that people have faith due to some ill-defined psychological phenomenon, then apply their own values to it. If religion didn’t exist, people would come up with some secular reason to do bad things…like politics, for instance. Stalin killed millions in the name of an atheistic governmental philosophy. Religion’s just had more time. Some people are awful, some are wonderful, most are in between. No artificially imposed structure will change that.

                Side question, are you an anarchist? It may be true that people in large groups tend to do bad things, and that anarchism reduces that. But claiming that religion is worse than other monolithic movements forgets that humans have always perpetuated evil, no matter the setting.

                • GCT

                  If the Christian scriptures teach hatred, then why are there so many progressive Christians?

                  Because morality has evolved and Xian “morality” has been brought along for the ride. How many Xians will be claiming that they were the ones who brought about marriage equality for LGBTQ people a couple decades from now?

                  If religion didn’t exist, people would come up with some secular reason to do bad things…like politics, for instance.

                  But, those secular reasons already exist. If people were to drop one of those reasons, it would make it harder to “justify” harm.

                  Stalin killed millions in the name of an atheistic governmental philosophy.

                  The Stalin cult of personality was practically a religion. It had nothing at all to do with atheism. Please don’t push this sort of BS argument as it feeds into the false and religiously privileged arguments made against atheists.

                  Side question, are you an anarchist? It may be true that people in large groups tend to do bad things, and that anarchism reduces that. But claiming that religion is worse than other monolithic movements forgets that humans have always perpetuated evil, no matter the setting.

                  Religion provides the “justification” and the impetus that allows good people to do evil things. See, we have to attack those “others” because they are immoral. Why are they immoral? Because they don’t believe in our god, therefore they are immoral by default. I really don’t understand why you are trying to defend religion, especially in such a terrible way. You’re basically saying, “Well, religion sucks, but so do other things, so why should I care?” It’s like you’re advocating that if we can’t solve all problems that it doesn’t make sense to try to solve any problems.

                • paizlea

                  Because morality has evolved and Xian “morality” has been brought along for the ride. How many Xians will be claiming that they were the ones who brought about marriage equality for LGBTQ people a couple decades from now?

                  Morality has not evolved. Throughout human history, there have been periods of acceptance and inclusion, and periods of intolerance and exclusion. It’s a pendulum, not a straight line. Progressives fight against conservative social mores, hopefully make a few gains, then ride out the next period of conservative backlash. Also, you completely ignored my statement that there have always been progressive Christians, since Christianity began. It’s not like a small but vocal group of Christians just decided a couple of decades ago to fight against the conservative beliefs of their faith. They have always been there, and always will be.

                  The Stalin cult of personality was practically a religion. It had nothing at all to do with atheism. Please don’t push this sort of BS argument as it feeds into the false and religiously privileged arguments made against atheists.

                  So there’s no such thing as a atheistic movement, because if it has a charismatic leader, “it’s practically a religion”? That’s ridiculous. Stalin was an atheist, and that informed his philosophy. All you’re doing is trying to ignore an inconvenient fact that atheists can cause as much harm as theists.

                  Religion provides the “justification” and the impetus that allows good people to do evil things. See, we have to attack those “others” because they are immoral. Why are they immoral? Because they don’t believe in our god, therefore they are immoral by default. I really don’t understand why you are trying to defend religion, especially in such a terrible way. You’re basically saying, “Well, religion sucks, but so do other things, so why should I care?” It’s like you’re advocating that if we can’t solve all problems that it doesn’t make sense to try to solve any problems.

                  Religion is just one of many ways we identify the “other.” Nationality, ethnicity, skin color, class, gender… it is human nature to classify. And atrocities have been, committed for all of those excuses. Religion doesn’t suck, human nature does.

                  Do you honestly think religion can be eliminated? Religion has existed since the first hominids developed language. Why not focus on making gains that are achievable?

                • GCT

                  Morality has not evolved.

                  Depends on your definition of “evolved.” Regardless, I think we both understand it to mean “changed for the better” in this context (which I admit is certainly a layman’s definition). If you look at the evidence Pinker has put forth, it seems that it has.

                  Throughout human history, there have been periods of acceptance and inclusion, and periods of intolerance and exclusion.

                  Yes, but the overall trend seems to be in one direction. And, religion seems to not ever be leading the trend.

                  Also, you completely ignored my statement that there have always been progressive Christians, since Christianity began.

                  Apologies. Yes, some Xians are better than others in regards to progressive issues; that’s just a fact of any group. They still have no argument against the less progressive factions and are generally behind the curve of freethinkers.

                  It’s not like a small but vocal group of Christians just decided a couple of decades ago to fight against the conservative beliefs of their faith.

                  From my perspective, it’s not like that at all, because I don’t see a lot of Xians standing up for progressive causes. I don’t see a lot of Xians standing up against their retro-grade fellow Xians.

                  So there’s no such thing as a atheistic movement, because if it has a charismatic leader, “it’s practically a religion”?

                  I didn’t say that at all. What I said was that the particular example of Stalin was very irrational and had all the hallmarks of religion. We are in an atheist movement right now. It’s a movement where we are fighting for our civil rights. It looks nothing like Stalin.

                  Stalin was an atheist, and that informed his philosophy. All you’re doing is trying to ignore an inconvenient fact that atheists can cause as much harm as theists.

                  I’m doing nothing of the sort. Yes, atheists can cause harm, but not because of atheism. There are no teachings inherent to atheism that lead to human rights abuses. None. There is nothing inherent to being more rational about the god question that leads to genocide or anything else. The same can not be said about religion(s).

                  Religion is just one of many ways we identify the “other.” Nationality, ethnicity, skin color, class, gender… it is human nature to classify. And atrocities have been, committed for all of those excuses. Religion doesn’t suck, human nature does.

                  Now, it is you who is doing the ignoring. Repeating yourself won’t make your argument better, and it doesn’t answer the objections I’ve already brought up. Yes, religion is one way, as are those others. We are trying to eliminate othering based on those other factors as well, so why not also try to eliminate it based on religion? Is it not worthwhile to try to eliminate racism? That’s what you’re effectively arguing now. You’re effectively saying that racism doesn’t suck, classism doesn’t suck, sexism doesn’t suck. I find this attitude to be defeatist and frankly a bit scary.

                  Do you honestly think religion can be eliminated? Religion has existed since the first hominids developed language. Why not focus on making gains that are achievable?

                  This is the argument that if you can’t completely eliminate something that it makes no sense to at least alleviate the issue as much as possible. We may not be able to get rid of racism or sexism completely, so I guess that means we shouldn’t try to make as much gain as we can?

        • GCT

          I should add that as soon as someone claims that they’ve done something in the name of their faith, they’ve lost the argument and lost any standing to criticize those who are also doing things in the name of their faith. Any declaration made on faith (i.e. sans evidence) can be dismissed without debate. For any amount of good they do, they provide cover for those who would do harm.

    • paizlea

      I’m an atheist, but I have no problem with people of faith so long as they leave alone people who don’t agree with them. It’s wonderful to see a rise rise in progressive Christianity, whose values I support. So thank you, for helping to give your faith a good name. Please know that there are many atheists like myself who support your work and your right to believe as you choose.

      But you’re wrong when you say, “I cannot show “definitive proof that God exists” any more than an atheist can show me definitive proof that God doesn’t. Atheist or Christian, it’s always a leap of faith.” Nearly all atheists accept there’s a chance (however small) that some god exists. Logic tells us that it’s impossible to prove a negative – no one can ever prove that something doesn’t exist. But understand that it also means there’s a chance that unicorns, leprechauns, and diet that allows you to eat whatever you want exist, too (very unlikely, but the possibility is still there). So all atheists will claim is that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. Anyone who argues they know for a fact that there is no god, is a fool.

      • Guest

        Progressive Christianity is just agnosticism veiled in religious language. Dishonest to the core, I prefer a Kirk Cameron – dude is honest, if not whacked out a bit.

        • paizlea

          It seems as though you’re saying that if someone has accepted Christ as their savior, has read and follows the Bible according to their God-given conscience as well as the teachings of respected Church leaders, but you don’t agree with them, they’re not real Christians. It doesn’t matter how many Christians disagree with you, because you know the THE TRUTH. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is alive and kicking!

  • Disqusdmnj

    One night only? Wouldn’t he want this looping in perpetuity until he’s “called home”?

  • play4blood

    Well, at least he got the part about “hating god’s moral standard” right. There’s no disputing that.

    • Phred_P

      I’m inclined to disagree with this statement. I don’t hate “god’s moral standard” because so far as I can tell, no such thing exists. Any bits of morality, good or evil, that appear in the Bible are purely accidental, and any that one might discover must be evaluated and then accepted/dismissed on its own merits, regardless of what the Bible or anything/anyone else says. I’m not inclined to be dogmatic and reject the whole of it out-of-hand.

  • QJordon

    1) There is no god – One of my favorite philosophers is Bertrand
    Russell, and Mr. Russell made the claim he was an atheist, however, in
    public speaking he had to admit to being an agnostic. Though he had felt
    with all the evidence given – there was no god, but in public speaking
    he openly had to claim there was not enough evidence to completely make
    the claim of no god.

    2) Where does this angry atheist come from?
    I am not angry at a non-existent. That is like saying one is angry at
    the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot for creating cryptozoologist. No wait,
    the search for those supposed is cryptozoology. That would be a bad
    example, and a case of apples and oranges toward this subject – or would it? This god creature is only through testimony – rarely through empirical evidence that can be peer reviewed. Perhaps, cryptozoology fits.

    In fairness to those that talk of angry atheist, perhaps they should go no
    further than the religion they are worshiping. Many times it is not
    about the god one follows, as much as the damage the religion they
    follow has done.

    I am a person that has never had religion, a
    god, or any spirituality. As a person told me that I must be a sad
    person, and one that is in denial about death, I rest assured this
    person that I am quite happy and have accept this is the only life for
    me.

    It has suited me for over forty years, as I have just
    celebrated my forty-ninth year of living. Yes, I have been without a god
    since the age of nine. And if a nine year old can take his hands off
    the wall, walk on his own, and dismiss something that is equivalent to
    tooth fairies, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and all the rest of the
    ninety-nine point nine percent of the other god(s) and goddess(es), then
    how it is adults cannot.

  • Guest

    I’m Lutheran but have athiest friends too where we give and take conversations. I am frustrated that these non-scholarly (not sure what word I am looking for) types of Christians seem to run the world. Oh, yeah the Lutheran Seminary professor I hope to visit with is really against the Kurt Cameron Left behind series as well!! I got this link through an ELCA church.

  • centropian

    I’m Lutheran but have athiest friends too where we give and take
    conversations. I am frustrated that these non-scholarly (not sure what
    word I am looking for) types of Christians seem to run the world. Oh,
    yeah the Lutheran Seminary professor I hope to visit with is really
    against the Kurt Cameron Left behind series as well!!

  • Mark

    Wouldn’t god prefer Leonardo DiCaprio as a spokeman?

  • Marosi

    I think most of you are cowards when you wine about whether it is ok to call someone stupid or unintelligent. H.l. Mencken never hesitated to call someone a moron when he thought they were a moron (I think before he died he had basically called everyone who ever lived an idiot), and he very expressly stated that he did not care, at all, what impact his opinion had on the world at large, meaning that he did not take the feelings and wellbeing of the universe on his shoulders when he expressed his personal opinion.

    He also had a very specific object in attacking stupidity in the name of religion and.or morality, and that was to stem its restrictive impact on the rest of us (an impact which we suffer each day):

    “It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.”

    “The meaning of religious freedom, I fear, is sometimes greatly misapprehended. It is taken to be a sort of immunity, not merely from governmental control but also from public opinion. A dunderhead gets himself a long-tailed coat, rises behind the sacred desk, and emits such bilge as would gag a Hottentot. Is it to pass unchallenged? If so, then what we have is not religious freedom at all, but the most intolerable and outrageous variety of religious despotism. Any fool, once he is admitted to holy orders, becomes infallible. Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied to all the rest of us. . . . What should be a civilized man’s attitude toward such superstitions? It seems to me that the only attitude possible to him is one of contempt. If he admits that they have any intellectual dignity whatever, he admits that he himself has none. If he pretends to a respect for those who believe in them, he pretends falsely, and sinks almost to their level. When he is challenged he must answer honestly, regardless of tender feelings.”

    In the spirit of Mencken, lets call a spade a spade. Cameron is a moron, he spouts garbage, and those who follow and believe the stupidity that comes out of his mouth are idiots. We do not need to spare their feelings – they are the enemies of true freedom in any respect, and are a scourge that must be fought vigorously at all levels. We here in the United States are poised on a knife’s edge of becoming a theocracy, and it is only by putting things in the starkest terms and engaging with these morons in a direct and real manner that we have any hope of overcoming their moral and intellectual despotism.

  • Marosi

    typo – “whine”

  • keith

    his best friends name was boner. that is all.

  • Aviatrix

    Kirk Cameron tells us he doesn’t know what “atheist” means.

    He might have, at one time, been simultaneous sure that a “god” does not exist and also have been angry at the being he believed was nonexistent, but I’m pretty sure that would be called “cognitive dissonance”, not atheism.

  • Jim Henderson

    nice explainer my brother

  • chriss65

    How can someone be angry at something they don’t believe in? I certainly know a lot of people who claim to be Christians who are NOT moral people…so don’t want to emulate them. Also, prove that there is a god Kirk or anyone and I don’t know many of us who wouldn’t change our mind…providing there was true proof. He’s full of shit…I don’t believe he was ever, ever an atheist!

  • jeux999

    this article’s pretty arrogant.

    • GCT

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      • paizlea

        “It’s arrogant to call someone wrong when they’re wrong!” Hahaha!

  • friendlyandskepticallikeHemant

    And atheists like Hemant tell us a billion things we have to believe in and they are all wrong! At least Kirk only gave us two.

  • b-girl

    What a fucking nimrod! How can I hate something that I don’t believe in? I don’t hate the boogieman . What I (and I suspect many other atheists) hate is asshole religious people shoving their dumb fairy tales in our faces constantly and trying to force “rules” from their rather contradictory book onto all of us. I hate the fact that there are people who think we should believe a book written thousands of years ago by primitive goat herders over modern scientists; I hate the fact that “preachers” go on TV and convince gullible senior citizens to send money (that they cannot afford to lose) to their ministries and use that money to build themselves mansions and such; I hate the fact that millions of people have been killed over various versions of god-belief (look at Northern Ireland – Catholics and Protestants, tiny differences in their beliefs, yet they were blowing each other up over it), and I hate the fact that Christians are whining about being “persecuted” just because they are being told they cannot force their beliefs on other people.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X