ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

7/16/2007                                                                                       View Comments

The Loftus v. Wood Debate on the Problem of Evil is Now Online!

Posted by John Loftus

.

Click on the play button above to see Part 1, which will introduce you to the participants in this debate. Then you can see the debate on evil we had on October 7th 2006, at the Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, VA, by clicking here, in four additional parts (just click on the next part to keep watching). When I give my opening statement just ignore the slide show for the first 3 1/2 minutes, because it was out of sync. Make sure you turn up the volume, and please, we want to know what you think.

You can read my initial comments on the debate here, and David Wood’s comments on the debate here. To see our ongoing debate after that night you can see it here, and in the archives here.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .

5 comments:

ST. JUDAS ISCARIOT'S disciple said...

No human being is perfect. The philosophy of "karma" explains why good things happen to bad people and vice versa than the christian concept of "satan and pure evil". according to evangelical zealots such as baptists who have written booklets for the "salvation" of every other religion (Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist etc..), those that believe in all other faiths are sure bound for hell and hellfire. with this approach how are they going to build bridges in increasingly diverse America and the world in highly globalized environment. their version of "christianizing" the whole world will never happen..i would advise them to go to mississippi and new orleans and help rebuild the damaged houses. instead of going out of the country and doing 'missionary' work, a lot of americans are in need of help. these evangelicals can do social service within america first. how many will step into ghettoes and do some social service for a change. there will be no imminent 'second coming' or 'third coming' (if resurrection really happened). anti christ is another fiction. let american christians and their korean converts get real. other parts of the world are not this nutty....

ST. JUDAS ISCARIOT'S disciple said...

Old Dominion is a place known for some good schools in engineering and sciences including social sciences.

this debate must have been held in some christian school in virginia beach.

i am disappointed that ODU hosted this. america's lead in science will be under serious challenge this century. the last thing that america wants is to opiate itself in a very nutty version of religion. america will lose badly if it gives into this opiate version of "evil" "second coming" etc..and I don't want it to lose.

atheistjoe said...

wah? I thought that because an atheist is reading all the science books, they are less gullible to believe in a god, much less the judeo christian one.
This is interesting for me, one reason is I get to read an opposing veiw point (I think I have a curiosity for opposing view points), with someone at least with a creditable degree in biology from a creditable uni. And be able to speak real science (unlike 'the banana is god's infinite wisdom and speaks of god's glory' guys)

What made him turn christian? which demonination is he following. How did this happen? why didn't he choose other religions?
I am reading his refutation of all the other skeptics, seems interesting.

I wonder what he thinks about eating his own dung and drinking his own piss (isiah 36:12), and killing everyone except the virgin girls.

boomSLANG said...

Honestly, why is it that whenever there's a debate pitting Theist against Atheist, that it's always pointed out, somewhere along the line, that the Theist is a "former Atheist"??? Sure, in his or her own mind, the Theist may think it holds weight with the non-believer, but it actually does no such thing. In fact, to say such a thing, is to be disingenuous; to intentionally mislead.....and they know it.

EVERY human being comes out of the womb a passive "Atheist"--that is, they have no belief in "God"/gods, or for that matter, no "beliefs", period. It isn't until the passive Atheist(each and every person) is exposed and/or indoctrinated with the notion of there being a "God", that they either actively accept, or actively deny, such a notion.

That said, what I would find truly impressive?... is if when they call themselves "former Atheist", that they meant that they were indoctrinated with Christianity, then later actively became Atheist, and then went back to Christianity. THEN I might take notice.

Moreover, if we could somehow have a legitimate way to determine how many current Christians there are who fit that chronology?.....I bet the numbers would little, to none.

You cannot "unring" a bell.

atheistjoe said...

strike 1: Hitler was not an atheist. Why is it these religious schwines keep saying that hitler was an atheist? He himself said he is doing god's work. He followed the teachings of the roman catholic church, which they claim is the original church for christ and the teachings of the roman catholic church on jews that motivated hitler.(based on reading answeringskeptics site)

strike 2: If the arms for the venus statue did not exist, because the scuptor did not intentionally put arms, the most likely reason would be cultural. This is because the statue can be dated. The scuptor can be proven and dated. the era can be proven and dated...evidence!
Also historical evidence of why there are no arms, tho controversial.
___________________________________
quick note: the earth's structure is perfect for volcano formation and earthquakes. what was god's reason for an earth such as this?
____________________________________
tunnel vision: who else has tunnel vision? just about everyone!!
____________________________________
Argument for god's existance using design, a joke and an insult to all biologists who studies biology which is about the body (in a nutshell statement) and it's bad design!
____________________________________

The idea of right and wrong is influenced from a religious P.O.V.
Even if an atheist starts talking about high morals or all powerful-capable-knowingness about this god, it does also question why god put the damn tree in the garden if he knew that all these problems were to happen. That includes 'creating' satan. Did angels have free will, how did evil and suffering exist if the fruit was not eaten by satan. unless satan did eat it and god did not know about it, so it was not in the bible? PARADOX BULLCRAP.
____________________________________

If humans invented god, then in my opinion they probably invented their 'god' rules such as respect and love and not stealing and raping for people who believe in that god and for their community in a small flat earth, and for outsiders and non believers, kill everyone except the virgin girls. Except today they try to stretch the love and respect to everyone. yet the bible was a source for segregation and racism.
____________________________________
What are the reasons for hitler existing because god knew it in advance and what was the purpose of the holocaust if god knew it was going to happen? the roman catholic church's teachings on jews.plus hitlers mum and dad getting jiggy between the sheets without a condom.
_____________________________________

I admit that now i started to lose interest. I mainly concentrated on the theist point of view and not the atheist. Also it started to get predictable and boring.
_____________________________________
Strike 3, you are debunked: You being a biologist and able to see the bad design of the body, yet chose to think that there is a god. Also the not very concrete view on why evil exists. but most of all you were a very bad atheist. :p