Kent Hovind vs Negation of P: “Methodologies for making moral decisions: Atheism or Christianity”

Complete argument title:”What provides the best methodology for making moral decisions: Atheism or Christianity.”

Aftershow to adhere to (with King Crocoduck as well as various other unique visitors).
Kent Hovind Authorities:

Negation of P:

Connect to sign up with the Great Argument Neighborhood:

Connect to the Fantastic Argument Neighborhood website as well as discussion forums:

Connect To Great Argument Neighborhood Wiki:

In order to help sustain my network:.


(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)

You might be interested in

Comment (0)

  1. Christianity is dogmatic.
    Atheism allows for any answer.
    Christianity has a ceiling and a floor regarding morality.
    Atheism has a higher ceiling but also a lower floor.
    Therefore, it depends on the exact situation and the people involved to determine which is better.

  2. Seems this guy is basically arguing for utilitarianism. A raw assertion, which if true, then mob rule or what is beneficial to the majority could lead to slavery or mass confiscation of the wealthy. A despicable ethic, which usurps the right of the individual.

  3. Virtually everything God says not to do in the Bible, he ends up doing himself. How can one respect such a being? He does lie to a man to sacrifice his child, he interferes with free will of kings so that Moses can steal land after slaughtering everyone in a town (even the children), and he condemns people in the most counter-productive and cruel means of punishment instead of exercising his unlimited power to rehabilitate and help them. Whether these events actually occurred is irrelevant to my point. The fact that these may even be metaphorical stories to 'glorify God' should make it clear to the readers that they're worshiping a narcissistic psychopath who's method of being glorified is by slaughtering and ego boosting.

  4. It's very simple to trap these "no objective morality" depraved thinkers. Just ask them one simple question:Is there absolute truth? If they say "No", then ask them, "Are you absolutely sure?".It doesn't matter how they answer, yes or no. Either way if they answer, they just contradicted themselves.It's that simple.

  5. Maybe it gets clarified later, but the thought-process Ned uses to determine that bestiality should be restricted for the sake of the species (around the 40 min mark), would also make unprotected sex between non-virgin humans who've previously had sex with other non-virgins worth restricting . . . you know, for the health of the species! He had a strong foundation up to that point, but i don't think i can get on board with that exact argument against bestiality.

  6. Rebuttal: God does not passively watch nature take care of its own. Animals were not gifted with free will and so must be commanded. Psalm 104 says “They all wait for You (God) to give them their food in due season” (v. 27). Young lions "seek their food from God" Given animal's lack of free will, who is to say that the children were not the food they seek from God? So the bears MUST have been following the will of God and thus no action could be taken against them without interfering with his plan.

  7. Moral standard implies purpose. Simple put, the atheist position is to propose a purpose that will benefit humanity, while the theist position is that God is the ultimate benefit to humanity and knowledge of God is the purpose. Seeing that "Negation of P" negates God and attempts to use intellectual argument to establish purpose void of ultimate good, he has lured himself into an acknowledged compromise.

  8. That was a totally waisting of time for both sides…For Mr. Hovind because kept him away from his great project and for Mr. McRae and his debater because they lost a valuable time of playing computer games and watching science-fiction movies…

  9. Our Lord Jesus Christ is going to ask you, did you use your heart, did you prayed , did you opened your mind toward Me ? And you will answered, no Lord, I just memorized "sophisticated "words and I hided behind them to give the impression I am a scientist…

  10. I don't feel as though either speaker understands that predestination and foreknowledge are not the same. Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. In 1 Samuel 23:1–13 it is clear, God foreknew a possible outcome that never actually happens—foreknowledge does not command that it is predestined to happen. In other words, the means by which God works are His own—God can predestine things if He wants, but we cannot conclude that everything that happens was predestinated.

    For the "Elisha and the two bears" incident, scholars provide context for it, and so, I'm certain only a layman on the subject would try to simplify it: