Kirk Cameron: On faith, those gay comments, childhood stardom and a visit to Naples

and live in miserable, right wing, Republican, Naples. I grew up in NYC and spent 12 horrible years in catholic school up unitl 17. Did Kirk? I doubt that since he was a child star. While he claims he was an athiest as a "kid", I became an athiest as an ADULT. I've probably seen far more of life when I was in my 20s then he has in his entire life.

He can keep his religion, Republican views, AND Naples, Florida. I prefer the REAL WORLD of NYC, and not being PREACHED at. Had enough of that for 12 years of my life.

8 years of Catholic grammar school and 4 years of Catholic high school. What part of NYC are you from?

West Village as a kid (St. Joseph's) and West 21st and 7th Avenue as a teenager (St. Michael's HS).

I went to St. Vincent Ferrer with the Dominicans, then Power Memorial for HS. The Dominicans are running St. Joseph's now.

at our "brother" school. Remember them very well. That is where I met one of their most famous grads, Lou Alcindor, aka, Kareem Abdul Jabar. I was a Sophomore. He was a Senior. Really nice guy. Very shy back then. "Interesting" how so many of catholic school grads turned out, if you know what I mean. lol

You and I graduated the same year. Lew was two years ahead of me, class of 65. He once went to a dance which was held in the lower church at St. Vincent's. Yes he was really, really shy. It didn't help that the ceiling in the lower church was low and all these teenagers were gawking. He was already famous.

Unless you're Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort who note that it fits in their mouth and is curved for easy insertion.

Note: It is also... Dun, Dun, Dunnnnn!... The Atheist's Nightmare.

See it here, and realize that, yes, they are actually speaking about a banana. No! Really!

See?

Thus an atheist.

Atheists don't need to reject a concept of a god. They just don't have belief in one. If someone was raised somewhere and never even told the concept of a god, they would still be an atheist even if they weren't rejecting someone's concept of a god.

Atheism is specific nonbelief.

What you describe is simply ignorance: the absence of knowledge of a concept which, after examination, has yet to become a belief or not.

Is this pull a definition out of your ass day?

So you are an atheist, then, right?

I've posted it before.

And no, I'm not an atheist. I've examined it and rejected it.

You should know that a-theos is without . . . a what?

Do you believe in Zeus? Mithra? Seems like you have a specific nonbelief.

Unless your definition is shitty, you're an atheist.

To believe in a God, but not Zeus or Mithra, makes one a theist but not a pagan.

It also doesn't flow from the discussion.

The topic was ignorance versus nonbelief.

You said atheism was specific nonbelief. You have a specific nonbelief in a god number of gods. You could just say your definition was stupid and be done with it but you're too stubborn for that.

A definition that upsets your neatly ordered concepts is hardly stupid.

I'll keep it simple for you.

A Theos is a specific concept. Zeus, Mithras, etc. are all concepts within it.

Now, you confidently assert you're an atheist and so is everyone who never encountered the concept of a god. By that logic, King James was a nonbeliever in radio waves: he never encountered the concept.

To return from the realm of startled absurdity you've led us to, the nonbelief here that is specific is the notion of a deity, not any particular deity. To have a nonbelief in god, there must first be a notion of god.

"What about Mithras?" is a stupid question. If you know what a Mithras is, and do not believe it, you're simply an a-mithrasist; it has no bearing on theism or a-theism.

It's elementary.

Be careful tossing around the word stupid, it can backfire.

“When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?”

It is a general statement that the person has no beliefs in any gods.

YOU said it was a specific non-belief.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in any gods. Not the gods I know and not the ones I don't know. That is how A Theos applies to me. But that same A Theos would apply to someone that has never even encountered the concept of a god. Like an infant. Different paths and pasts to get there, but both A Theos.

Your statement that it is specific non-belief is just your own bluster to try an win an argument. And now, rather than just admit that you misspoke or whatever, you are digging in further and looking more foolish in the process.

To be without god, i.e., a-theist, you are without that specific concept. You lack that specific belief.

You continue to equate ignorance of god with nonbelief in god.

It's not me looking foolish.

And, while I see a persitent stamping of feet here, I don't see any bluster.

Why isn't ignorance = nonbelief? If, as you state in your first sentence, you are a-theist if "you are without that specific concept (of god)," then why wouldn't someone who is ignorant of that specific concept also be a-theist?

It seems to me that you want to have atheism be a specific rejection of the concept which isn't the case. I've always felt that that definition puts too much credence on the belief rather than putting the emphasis on the fact that the person that is a-theistic just lacks any of the beliefs that the theistic person has.

It is impossible to believe, not believe, or disbelieve that which you don't know.

On the other hand, if presented with an idea, a statement, or an assertion, one will either believe it, not believe it (a more passive stance than disbelief), or actively disbelieve it.

Whatever the conclusion, it is in response to that specific idea, statement, assertion - or belief. Hence, it is a specific nonbelief or, a specific disbelief.

If you hold that anyone, either actively rejecting a notion of god or completely unaware of the idea of a god - the infant - is an atheist, then you hold that anyone unaware of an idea is perforce a denier of that idea.

Ignorance does not equal nonbelief. An acceptance or rejection of an idea follows the idea; it cannot precede it.

is that you want to see an a-theist as a "denier" of god whereas I am seeing an a-theist as one that just lacks the belief. It is not about denying the god but about just not having a belief in the concept.

"It is not about denying the god but about just not having a belief in the concept."

That, I think, is the difference between nonbelief and disbelief. The former is one who remains unpersuaded, unconvinced. The latter is one who understands the concept and decisively rejects it for whatever reason.

In either case, though, the concept first has to be presented.

That's all I'm saying.

Though I think the difference between our positions is not that great.

I think that being without the belief can come from ignorance of the concept or from exposure and not being convinced/persuaded. A person who has never been exposed to the concept of a god is still a-theistic because they lack the belief.

But, again, we aren't too far off on this one.

Jebus. You seem even crankier than usual lately.

Try a long walk after meals. And maybe some prune juice.