kent hovind...

Originally posted by blader
What have the atheists you know or have come in contact with done that is different from Christians you know, to make you think that they have no morals, no sense of right or wrong?

Click to expand...

I think atheist know exactly what is right or wrong, which is why many have shown a good display of morals.  Of course, I see this as even more proof of God.

Souljah explain your last post, please. Why are non-believers moral acts more proof of God?

--tibac

Being that we live in America, where federal laws based on religion are forbidden from being created, I tend to think this analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

  And that was so effective in stopping Bob Barr from trying to prevent US servicement from following a religion he disliked. And it's been so effective with all those school boards that, even now, attempt to sneak in prayer and religious indoctrination.

   It's the fact that you guys keep trying. If you'd stay on your soapboxes, shouting, I wouldn't care at all. It's the fact that, even in the face of the 1st Amendment (when you're not trying to interpret it as powerless), you keep trying.

I think atheist know exactly what is right or wrong, which is why many have shown a good display of morals.  Of course, I see this as even more proof of God

Click to expand...

  Yes, we've already established that you prefer the version of atheists that exist in your head, as opposed to the atheists that actually exist.

 

Originally posted by wildernesse
Souljah explain your last post, please. Why are non-believers moral acts more proof of God?

--tibac

Click to expand...

Oh, its the whole objective morality thing.  If we all know on an emotional level that torturing babies is wrong, I tend to see that as a moral law written on our "hearts" by God.  Others would say it comes from nature or society.

Yes, we've already established that you prefer the versioni of atheists that exist in your head, as opposed to the atheists that actually exist.

Click to expand...

Again, may God Bless you Morat. Take care buddy.

Originally posted by s0uljah
Oh, its the whole objective morality thing.  If we all know on an emotional level that torturing babies is wrong...

Click to expand...

Unless you're God, who thinks killing the first born of every family in a nation is moral.

Originally posted by s0uljah
Being that we live in America, where federal laws based on religion are forbidden from being created, I tend to think this analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think so at all. Look at the outrage whenever anyone proposes changing marriage laws. Why? Because, having religious beliefs about what marriage should be like, we feel this somehow translates into a moral imperative to prevent other things from being called "marriage", even just for legal purposes.

Religion *DOES* affect the laws we pass, and most religious people do things, whether they mean them that way or not, which are pretty hostile to people with other beliefs. Atheists have plenty of grounds for fussing about us.

I'm saying that people who don't believe in ANY god have no morals. Not that they would rape and murder, just that they don't believe in right or wrong. Everything is relative to them.

Click to expand...

So why wouldn't people rape and murder if they don't believe in right or wrong? Do you really mean that all the atheists you know have told you that they see no difference between right and wrong and that to them there's nothing wrong with murder? Apparently they're a quite different set of people from the atheists you met here, whose opinions don't seem to be making much impression on you.

It's interesting how a thread about Kent Hovind has turned into a discussion of morality.

It was inevitable.

By the way, I'm an atheist, and I'd like to say that I see no difference whatsoever between stealing a candy bar and murdering.

Edit: How odd.   That's actually partially true.

Cantuar wrote: "It's interesting how a thread about Kent Hovind has turned into a discussion of morality."

As Caffeine Socialism wrote, it's inevitable. Hovind is one of the most unprincipled of men who ever hid behind the Bible. He knowingly and systematically distorts modern science for crowds of people who want their religious prejudices confirmed but are too lazy to do their own research. (I say "knowingly" because he has been publicly corrected too many times to suppose that his repeated claims are based on anything other than greed and mendacity.) He misrepresents his credentials. He bilks the gullible out of untold amounts of money by peddling his trashy, dishonest videotapes. He uses scripture as a justification for being a tax evader. He slanders scientists and religious nonbelievers by suggesting -- incredibly, given the source -- that they are dishonest, immoral cretins who are propogandizing the unsuspecting. He repeatedly claims that he has no time to engage in a written debate with someone learned in the field(s) he misrepresents, even as he criss-crosses the country to appear at scores of the dog-and-pony shows his supporters too generously describe as debates.

The real shame of it is that he has not yet been unambiguously repudiated by the entire Christian community for the fraud and embarrassment he is. Moderators, I realize that these may seem like strong, unfair charges to lay at the feet of someone who is not a contributor to these boards, but I assure you that I am not writing anything here that I wouldn't say to the man's face.

SoulJah mentioned that he has attempted to contact Hovind to give him an opportunity to respond. I, and others who have followed this charlatan, would like nothing better than if he came here to defend himself. However, I predict that he won't. If he responds to SoulJah's offer at all, I'll bet that it will be in the form of a private email which SoulJah will dutifully relay to the rest of us. Why do I suspect Hovind won't personally come to these boards? Because, as I wrote above, he won't engage in a written debate; he knows that would be the end of any credibility he still has in certain circles. No credibility, no cashflow. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by s0uljah
Being that we live in America, where federal laws based on religion are forbidden from being created, I tend to think this analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

OK, here's the exact line of thought, no analogies:

1) Christianity is a flawed belief and incorrect.
2) However, millions of people are Christian.
3) Why do millions of people subscribe to a flawed belief?

[endless debates begin here and go on and on and on and on...]

Of course, Infidels also has its fair share of just fun, joking-around topics, just like Christian Forums. It's both a debate board and an atheist community.

Christianity is not a flawed belief, atheism is a flawed belief.

Morat and LadyShea

I am not a conservative. I don't believe in people like Bob Barr and Kent Hovind, I don't shout from soapboxes, and I don't support (mandatory) prayer in schools. I just said that the few atheists I know have no absolute sense of right and wrong. I never said YOU or all nonreligious people were like that, and I certainly did not call you monsters.

Originally posted by Sky77
Christianity is not a flawed belief, atheism is a flawed belief.

Click to expand...

I was trying to explain why atheists talk about Christianity so much. I wasn't attempting to make a universally true statement.

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
It was inevitable.

By the way, I'm an atheist, and I'd like to say that I see no difference whatsoever between stealing a candy bar and murdering.

Edit: How odd.   That's actually partially true.

Click to expand...

Actually, God sees no differece either, so you and he agree.

"-brett"
Get a life man!

Originally posted by wb3
"-brett"
Get a life man!

Click to expand...

um, I have one and I assure you it's very fulfilling.  But your tremendous concern for my social calendar is appreciated.

-brett

I just said that the few atheists I know have no absolute sense of right and wrong.

Click to expand...

No, you said this:

"Not that they would rape and murder, just that they don't believe in right or wrong."

Usually when Christians are talking about morality, the use of "absolute" refers to some external God-given standard. Your first comment didn't mention anything about "absolute."

I don't know that I have a sense of absolute right and wrong. In fact, based on experience, I'm pretty sure that most people don't correctly sense the absolute standard of right and wrong. I'm quite confident that I'll eventually discover myself to have been in error in some of my moral beliefs.

I have met plenty of atheists who believe in morality which is absolute, albeit not God-given. I have also met plenty of Christians whose interpretation of God's law is so fuzzy as to be, frankly, a lot less of an absolute moral system than that of your typical atheist who has a moderately strong committment to some set of rules.

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
By the way, I'm an atheist, and I'd like to say that I see no difference whatsoever between stealing a candy bar and murdering.

Click to expand...

Let me know when you'll be in my area so I can get rid of any candy in my house so you won't get confused.