Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering? (7 of 11)

A panel discussion and debate on the meaning of evil and suffering from theists Dr. William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, atheist Dr. Bernard Leikind (a plasma physicist and senior editor of Skeptic magazine), and Hindu Dr. Jitendra Mohanty (one of India's most distinguished Hindu philosophers and professor at Emory University).

Table of Contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CD8F305BAABB463A

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Meaning
• Evil
• Suffering
• atheism
• theism
• Christian
• Hindu
• polythiesm
• hindu
• Eastern
• religion
• morality
• ethics
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Ravi
• Zacharias
• Jitendra
• Mohanty
• Bernard
• Leikind

[chert95]

Leikind wants to eat his cake and then have it as well.

[newbirth17]

Leikind is talking nonsense. His theories are a joke. But billions are satified with him and people like Dawkins because they want and have to believe the lies in order to feel better about their sinful lifestyle.

[Megaritz]

@newbirth17 I became an atheist because I was no longer convinced that the arguments for God's existence were valid. It was hard for me to deal with and took a long time. By all means, call me wrong. If I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. Explain why there's good evidence. I love debate. But please, don't call me and millions of other atheists liars. It can't be taken seriously. You'd like it if I called all Christians liars? You'd know it was a silly accusation.

[horsie111]

I agree with the top commenter... It's a common atheist conceit, to use terms such as "moral values" when the debate itself is about whether those terms even mean anything at all. Leikind actually uses expressions like "the societies that happen to exist today", "that somehow survived" in arguing against the use of the term "accidental" as the source of these "ancient people's moral values". (7:00+)

This stuff only works with atheists *because* they have a moral conscience rooted in Right.

[TheNewday2]

A problem is found in saying, "evil is a depature from the way the things aught to be implying a designed plan of the way that the universe aught to be and It aught to be a certain way morally" with the assertation it will be best attained through theism only for anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

[polopowers1]

Christions affirming God moral is wrong. God is not moral never described Himself as moral. Morality is not the end for God neither is it His Nature. God is superior Virtue more than moraityl laws.Morals are powerless virtue done by flesh of man. God is Spirit, so are His people. Spirit not intended to live morality but Spirit Virtue superior.Christions lose argument on morality because God is not moral He gave powerless morality before Christ Morality is not the objective,but Spirit

[ApologeticsArsenal]

Given Leikind's idea of the socio-biological emergence of relative morality, we would have no real basis for objecting to anybody else's behavior. His notion of socio-biological morality is one of a herd mentality, and acts such as lying, stealing, murder, and rape would be nothing more than being socially unfashionable. The rapist is merely out of fashion and not objectively wrong. Hitler was unfashionable, not one who committed moral abominations. Naturalistic atheism fails on morality.

[clovek456]

there cant be moral experience there can only be morality which cannot be turned into someones experience...that is the same as to say that morality evolves which is absurd..We come to know morality but morality is not a thing which could enter this world and become a thing of this world..At best it can come to a soul who loves it(Him)...to understand morality is only possible if we totaly give up on ego and stop following it..there are many people who "understand" but dont give up on their ego.

[Godbtheglory1]

Dr. Leikind appears to be very elementary. And is not straight forward. Speaks without substance.

[IloveYOUviruses]

What is Leikind doing there!?