600+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

by Luke Muehlhauser on December 9, 2008 in Debates

This page has moved here.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 535 comments… read them below or add one }

LatinAgnostic December 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Dr. Willian Craig seems to be unbeatable. What do you think of him?

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 11, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Craig is a very skilled debater. He has won nearly all his debates, with the exception of his debate with Eddie Tabash. Atheists do not properly prepare for his approach, I guess.

  (Quote)

eric December 12, 2008 at 9:22 pm

I disagree about the Tabash debate. Tabash never defended secular humanism, as he was required to do, while Craig answered all of Tabash’s arguments and counterarguments against Christianity *in addition* to critiquing secular humanism. Also, Tabash failed to respond to Craig’s responses. I think Craig won that debate rather easily, though Tabash offered more criticisms, in terms of volume, than Craig’s opponents usually do. That, however, seemed to be his strategy: talk very fast, ‘dump’ as many arguments out as possible, and hope that Craig can’t find time to respond to them all. Well, he did, and Tabash had no answer.

  (Quote)

drive1 December 16, 2008 at 3:20 am

Hi .. the video link in “Kenneth Humphreys vs. Gary Habermas: audio, video. Topic: resurrection” leads to a McGrath : Atkins debate.

I managed 6 minutes of the audio version, before I was forced to turn off. This was when Mr Humphreys raised the vitally important topic of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the topic was supposed to be the resurrection of JC. I’m sorry to report that Mr Humphreys was the atheist in the debate.

Thanks for all the links. There’s good ammo here (Mr Humphreys notwithstanding).

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 17, 2008 at 7:36 am

drive1: Fixed, thanks.

eric, you may be right. Do you think Craig has lost any of his debates?

  (Quote)

Al December 26, 2008 at 5:24 pm

I agree, for a theist William Lane Craig is an excellent defendant of his position.

Would be good hear him debate the great Dawkins.

Apparently Dawkins has said on the challenge something like;
‘Im sure it would look good on his resume but not on mine’

Thats a shame im sure that would be a debate to remember.

  (Quote)

rebekah December 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Hi. Thanks so much for this list! When you update, will you put the new debates at the bottom?

Thanks again.

  (Quote)

Charles December 29, 2008 at 1:16 am

I wonder if it is even legitimate to debate with the likes of Craig, et al. Craig is superb debater — controlled, seemingly disinterested and objective, cool, calm and collected and always extremely prepared. I think he often blinds his opponents (and supportst)with these honed forms and with the simplicity of his “evidence.” Unfortunately, if you take some time to consider his assumptions, his use of biblical criticsm, and even in some cases, mathematics, one finds that hidden just below his brilliant skills is a highly positivistic and naive conception of historical witness, historical method, probabilistic calculus, epistemology and a very contended use of the word “fact.” By debating such an person, one implicity gives his opponent a certain validity. Craig blows his interlocuters out of the water with his powers of oratory, and the completely belie very problematic philosophical and epistemological assumptions. I get more annoyed with his proponents than with him, sometimes — “why did you let him get away with saying that?!” I will think…oh, well.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

rebekah: done.

  (Quote)

Jason December 31, 2008 at 11:34 am

I would agree that Dr. Craig is an excellent debater, although I wouldn’t say that gives any merit to his arguments. A shifty used car salesman can make an excellent debater, after all. Craig’s strength lies in the fact that he possesses a confidence found only in true believers, who “know” all kinds of things they cannot possibly verify. He is able to dismiss his opponents with a casual wave of the hand and the confident declaration that his points are obviously true and his opponents’ are patently false, when often the opposite is true. While he appears to win nearly every debate he engages in, it is primarily on charisma or the ineptitude of his opponents.

One debate I would say he lost was his debate with Raymond Bradley on whether or not a loving god would send people to hell. Bradley argues with Craig on Craig’s own terms, and in doing so shows that his arguments rely entirely on his belief in a hypothetical scenario. In the end Craig draws the conclusion that while it is possible for God to have created a world where everyone gets into heaven, it would not be feasible for Him to do so. But how could something that is possible be unfeasible for a being with limitless power & knowledge? Check it out – the debate gets a little technical, but it’s a good one.

  (Quote)

Killjoy January 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Craig is a very competent debater, but is arguments are all answerable. I would personally love to debate him on the existence of God. Provided he used the same 5-way proof he usually does (and didn’t throw any curves) I think I could best him on his own terms.

  (Quote)

Jason January 6, 2009 at 1:27 pm

I just heard the Craig/Tabash debate. Tabash definitely nailed Craig to the wall on a couple of issues, but he did focus more on attacking Craig’s points than defending Humanism. He was a whirlwind of criticisms, but in the end I’d have to call that one a draw – he didn’t answer enough of Craig’s challenges, and those of his Craig answered were answered badly.

  (Quote)

Killjoy January 8, 2009 at 1:34 am

I would love to see a debate between Dan Barker (theist turned atheist) and Alister McGrath (athiest turned theist) describing their respective reasons for switching sides. Listening to people who have been on both sides of the issue would be very interesting.

  (Quote)

lukeprog January 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm

KillJoy: or Barker vs. Boyd, for the same reason!

  (Quote)

Frank Lovell January 30, 2009 at 7:48 am

“…Do you think Craig has lost any of his debates?” — Lukeprog

In terms of debate performance — nary a one; in terms of logical content — every one!

‘At’s my own personal opinion, and I’m stickin’ with it!

  (Quote)

sean lathee February 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Super collection of stuff well done Luke. If I might return to WLC?
Firstly, he is used to playing in front of the home crowd and has that cocky and confident oratory, you’ll not get him unless you ignore his ‘proofs’.

He can summon up the pure hot air from experience and the ladies faint away naturally its the usual stuff which he repeats ad naseaum.Its confidence plus reassurance he works it well.

Convoluted logic that does not make a titter of sense.

Use the subjunctive and always finish the point in the imperative mood. The crowd thinks its classy.

If the opponent is getting near flick an ad hominem on the double reverse, you’ll be pleased with the results.

This was well illustrated when prof Robert Price destroyed him with an opening statement that was simple but profound. Craig,on rebut, accuses Price of not doing his job.just a hint of mockery, The crowd almost cheer with relief.

Prof. Bradley got him by returning to stick his nose in his precious Bible pointing out the places where it did say that hell was a fire driven reality he squirmed but Bradley has his feet right up to the fire.No escape,KO second round.

His arguements are built on roccocco castles in Spain,basically,it says in the Bible and he argues from there.I’m right just read the bible! ‘You people are totally shut off to the supernatural gee I feel sorry for you’.

Appeals to the writings of other big wig conservatives with a soupcon of out of context quotes from the hellbound bunch is the stock in trade for our WLC.

you have to forget them, all his proofs let them ride call them what they are baloney then just announce that he believes the world is full of demons who are about the town looking for lost souls. These kind of arguements he hates goes against his ‘thoroughly modern Billie’. Hit him there and watch him fold.

  (Quote)

becky February 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm

You make my iPod very happy. Thanks for all your hard work scouring the ‘net for these debates!

  (Quote)

GeneralTHC February 5, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Ehrman destroyed Craig.

  (Quote)

Bruce February 21, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Luke, thank you for all the work you do to maintain this wonderful collection of links to debates! It is amazing to see what a wonderful job the theists do, considering they are defending ancient fairy tales.

  (Quote)

ChristianJR4 February 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Nice!! You put it into table form. Looks much, much better. Did you have to redo the list by putting each debate into the table individually, or did you just convert it somehow? The sorting columns is very impressive. I’m definitely going to have to check out that -sorrtable- site and see if I can apply their applications to my own list. Anyways, AWESOME list! It is by far, the best and most comprehensive Atheist-Theist debate list on the net.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 25, 2009 at 7:45 am

All manual work, unfortunately. Took me about 5 hours.

  (Quote)

Arya Eshraghi March 22, 2009 at 11:05 am

Craig is sneaky more than he is wise. That should be obvious from the fact that he is still a devout theist. At any rate, the way he speaks makes his side sound good and because of the layout of these debates, he can fill the final word with as much crap as he wishes and there is no way to rebut them logically. Craig is good speaker, but in the field of logic, he is still quite lacking….

  (Quote)

Steven Carr March 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Thank you for including my debates. I think your list is one of the most comprehensive lists I have ever seen or ever even imagined seeing.

I also have a debate on the resurrection at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/ and an audio debate with Canon Michael Cole a http://tinyurl.com/krdcq

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 22, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Great! Please do post again if you do more debates.

  (Quote)

BeStrong March 24, 2009 at 1:24 am

This list is VERY impressive. I'm a Van tillian presuppositionalist myself and while I reject the Axiomatic (AKA Rational or Dogmatic or Deductive) presuppositionalism, Scripturalism, and empirical skepticism of (the late) Gordon Clark and Vincent Cheung; I noticed Cheung's debate with Derek Sansone isn't on the list. However, Sansone's debate with Paul Manata is here. So for the sake of your trying to be exhaustive, here's the link

BIBLICAL RATIONALISM vs. PSYCHO ASSERTIONISM http://www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone…

By the way, Paul Manata best represents my apologetical method and approach. The only major difference is that I'm not a cessationist. I believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts. In my opinion, Dan Barker had never lost a debate until he debated Manata. However, in the debate with Barker, he had one major weakness. Manata couldn't properly respond to Barker because of his cessationism. Paul is one of the regular blog contributors at http://www.triablogue.blogspot.com

  (Quote)

BeStrong March 24, 2009 at 1:41 am

Oh, I forgot to mention that Scripturalism has been refuted from a Christian perspective by many online authors. Especially by the mysterious Aquascum http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 24, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Added. Thanks!

  (Quote)

becky March 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Luke, I'm having a hard time getting access to your table — very few of the audio links are showing up for me. I've tried in both Firefox and IE. I'm not sure if it's from my end or if something's happened on yours.

Thanks for looking into it. I really enjoy listening to all the debates you find.

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 28, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Thanks for letting me know. I haven't yet found any links that are currently broken. Can you list a few specific links that are not working for you, please?

  (Quote)

becky March 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm

If you can email me, I've got a couple of screenshots that illustrate what I'm talking about, in terms of the table being a bit screwed up. Thanks!

  (Quote)

Buster08 March 29, 2009 at 7:53 am

Dershowitz v Keyes
should religion be present or a guiding force in government? This turns into a very lively debate after opening arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B7D15BE…

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 29, 2009 at 8:08 am

Thanks!

  (Quote)

Blue Pongo April 10, 2009 at 9:12 am

This is a truly remarkable collection of debates and by far the best of its kind that I have found. I hope you are able to keep up the excellent work.

I don’t know how obsessive you are about empty spaces, but I can give you some information that is missing from the table. The Barker vs. Friel debate is from 2006 and Hitchens debated David Allen White on the Hugh Hewitt Show in 2007. Just because some of us have a touch of OCD.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 10, 2009 at 11:31 am

Blue Pongo: I don’t know how obsessive you are about empty spaces, but I can give you some information that is missing from the table. The Barker vs. Friel debate is from 2006 and Hitchens debated David Allen White on the Hugh Hewitt Show in 2007. Just because some of us have a touch of OCD.

Great! Yes, I will fill in the holes wherever I can. I appreciate your OCD.

  (Quote)

Euphorix April 15, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Brilliant collection; these are always fun to watch and listen to.

Any chance of getting Hitchens vs Craig? I heard that Craig destroyed Hitchens, and I’d sure like to see that. Craig’s usual barrage of very short arguments defeat most opponents, but Hitchens is a very capable orator and should be able to respond to them all, despite his unquenchable urge for anecdotes….

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Euphorix,

I will post the Craig-Hitchens debate when a copy becomes available.

Craig destroyed Hitchens, as I explain here. :)

  (Quote)

Euphorix April 16, 2009 at 3:38 am

Alright, thanks for that Luke. There’s 400 other debates here I could listen to instead. Great list.

  (Quote)

Ian Olson April 21, 2009 at 11:43 am

This is the complete Does God Exist debate between Christopher diCarlo and Joe Boot. http://www.calvary.on.ca/BlogEntry.aspx?site_id=10169&entry_id=132712

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 21, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Thanks, Ian!

  (Quote)

Blue Pongo April 27, 2009 at 4:23 am

The audio link for the second Singer vs. D’Souza debate was a stub.  Know anything about the full debate? I really enjoyed the first one. I thought Singer did extremely well, not condescending to D’Souza’s level of empty rhetoric as Hitchens has done in the past.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 27, 2009 at 6:38 am

Blue Pongo,

The link works for me. Want to try again?

  (Quote)

Blue Pongo April 27, 2009 at 9:01 am

The link works, I meant the file was a stub. As in the debate ends in the middle of D’Souza’s question time.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 27, 2009 at 9:58 am

Oh, okay, thanks. I’ll look into that.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Blue Pongo:

I created a full mp3 of the debate, and the audio link in the post above now points to it.

  (Quote)

Blue Pongo April 28, 2009 at 6:33 am

Thanks a lot. I think you’ll find though that the second debate is from 2008 as well. The first one was held at Biola University on 25 April on the resolution “God: Yes or No”, while the second at Princeton on 3 December with “Can There Be Morality Without God?” the topic. You can use that information to distinguish between them in the table.

  (Quote)

Donald E. Flood April 29, 2009 at 7:04 am

Hello,

Great website!  The link for the Hitchens v. Craig & Friends appears to be swapped with the Hitchens v. Sharpton debate.
Cheers,
Don

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 29, 2009 at 8:53 am

Uh-oh! I’ll fix that. Thanks.

  (Quote)

Damion May 3, 2009 at 11:31 am

Talbot/Law debate mp3 is available now:
http://www.oxfordphilsoc.org/LatestNews.html

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 3, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Great! Thanks, Damion.

  (Quote)

Dan Barker May 4, 2009 at 6:57 pm

The Barker/Fernandes debate was February 29, 2009 (a leap year that happens on the century every 400 years!) The Barker/Payne debate was March 14 (pi day!), 2005. Barker/White was in the mid 19980s, I think 1986. James White and I did another debate last week, April 30, 2009, at the University of Illinois (my 69th formal public debate), which should be available soon (probably on his Alpha & Omega site). The Barker/Gastrich dialogue was not really a debate . . . it was a casual radio dialogue, unmoderated, untimed . . . but still fun! Barker/Manata was also a radio show format, which I didn’t realize was to be a formal debate, but it worked okay (especially if you like broccoli). The 2009 date is wrong for Barker/Wilson, whom I debated twice: first at the University of Delaware (1997), then later in his home town of Moscow, Idaho (2005). I do have to admit that the presuppers are the hardest to debate . . . they give you nothing to sink your teeth into.

  (Quote)

Dan Barker May 4, 2009 at 7:57 pm

Oops. Barker/Fernandes was Feb. 29, 2000 . . .

  (Quote)

Lorkas May 4, 2009 at 8:03 pm

Wow! Dan Barker!

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 4, 2009 at 10:02 pm

Thanks, Dan… your additions/corrections will appear in the next update of this page.

BTW, “Losing Faith in Faith” was, I think, the very first atheist book I ever read, and it had a HUGE impact on me. So, thanks.

  (Quote)

Damion May 6, 2009 at 5:57 am

I second Bruce and everyone who thanked Luke for compiling and expanding and maintaining this list. Also I’ve a possible addition, from my hometown of Edmond, OK: video

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 6, 2009 at 6:10 am

Thanks, Damion! I’ll add it in the next update.

  (Quote)

Simeon May 11, 2009 at 4:28 am

Dan Barker: James White and I did another debate last week, April 30, 2009, at the University of Illinois (my 69th formal public debate), which should be available soon (probably on his Alpha & Omega site). 

I’m intrigued that, when many ministries offer free downloads of these sort of debates, James White is of the school that seems to prefer to charge. Perhaps White would argue that there are costs involved in putting on events, recording and webhosting but in audio of White’s radio show which reviews the Barker debate, he thanks his regular financial supporters for largely footing the bill. 
Actually, that review by White is pretty self-congratulatory, accusing Barker of poor prep and predictable patter. But you won’t actually get to hear the full debate without paying White for the privilege. All he features on the show is his own closing statement and scads of chuckling amateur radio jock schtick.

  (Quote)

Spencer Thayer May 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm

I think Dr. Price kicks Craigs ass. Price’s opening statement totally derails everything Craig tried to setup.

  (Quote)

Damion May 18, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Spencer Thayer: I think Dr. Price kicks Craigs ass. Price’s opening statement totally derails everything Craig tried to setup.

I’ve totally gotta disagree with you on this one.   Price’s main argument was basically a circumstantial ad hom.  Of course we know that Craig and other apologists are committed apriori to their conclusions, but that is not the same as giving an argument.

  (Quote)

Damion May 18, 2009 at 6:41 pm

BTW – Here are my comments on that debate:
http://agnosticpopularfront.blogspot.com/1999/01/price-vs-craig.html

  (Quote)

JustintheChristian May 18, 2009 at 9:29 pm

The Craig/Kagen Debate was the most interesting out of all the Craig debates I have heard.  It was the only debate where someone posited a positive defense for a moral ethos without God that was fully comprehensible.

  (Quote)

vision May 26, 2009 at 4:41 am

Please, please, everyone listen to Stenger vs. Craig debate!!! It’s the best one to date! Stenger won and showed Craig’s profound narrow-mindedness in many respects. Also Stenger’s closing statement is the most powerful one I’ve ever heard in this kind of debates (and I’ve read/listened to over 100 of them in last 2 years). For the first time I felt that Craig’s “theological gymnastics” weren’t as impressive also on the outside (meaning that on the inside Craig’s arguments were always just a mambo-jumbo, but on the outside they were always presented with enormous skill and eloquence, but in this debate even on the outside he seemed inconsistent in many places).

  (Quote)

sapere aude May 31, 2009 at 8:30 am

Here you find the video for the Craig vs. Stenger Debate:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=37946867

  (Quote)

Deist Novice June 2, 2009 at 10:30 am

I enjoy your websites debate listing immensely. But I tire of Craig’s “four points”. First, who was Joseph of Arimathea. I know he was the guy that buried Jesus but what credibility can you attach to a figure in “history” that apparently did one and only one thing and apears nowhere else. With Paul barely mentioning the burial circumstances and the Gospel’s mishandling of the empty tomb discovery, how can anybody rely on the veracity of that fact? Finally, with the multitude of Virgn Mary and Jesus sightings in clouds, food, stained glass,etc, how can Craig rely on this stuff as irrefutable evidence. It seems that Bob Price has the scriptual chops to deal with Craig but can’t abandon that voice in the wilderness persona he’s got going. Carrier actually had Craig on the ropes but refuse to rough him up with his mass hysteria thesis whcih I thought was effective. Of all the people that I have heard Craig debate, he showed Erhman the most respect. I was disappointed that Erhman did not use his encyclopedic knowledge of scripture to neutralize any of the famous four points.

Finally, why are there not more attacks on the virgin birth. Is it that both sides pretty much agree that it is the result of an embarrassing translation error? I think I heard Barker use this but it seems to never come up

Again, good list and good web site.

  (Quote)

Ranzo June 4, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Hi,

first of all thanks for a great site. my hours at work have been shortened by listening to this interesting collection of debates.

Now I would like you a question regarding your opinion that William Lane Craig has won most of his debates with atheists.

If you really think that he has won against atheists why haven’t you turned to Christianity?

Secondly, you write:   ” Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won.” I have followed his tactics at the end of the debates and he just claims that no evidence has been presented to reject his views.  The fact that he says repeatedly does not make it true.

Also in every debate he presents his religious experience as not being proof that god exists but at the same time he says that people should not think too much and ask too many questions about existence of god since that might prevent them from experiencing god and finding the truth. That is logically incoherent. Also at the end of every debate he uses his final remarks by saying to people that they should seek personal experience with Jesus and that is the only was they can know that god truly exists.

I can see that you live in America and from what I have read Americans are the most Christian nation in the western world. You are probably used to reverends like Fred Phelps who claim that god sends floods because gays live in that town. From that stage Craig is probably an improvement. I myself am a Bosnian refugee living Denmark because of the religious war in my country. The Danish people are the least religious of all westerners. In Denmark Craig would be treated like Fred Phelps is treated in the US. Especially Craig’s debate about „morality and hell“ is laughable. Also in every other debate he repeats the same things. I especially laugh when I hear his argument that there are no universal morals if we don’t evoke his god. At the same time he says that there are universal morals because people all over the world have somewhat same moral values. Ergo there is no need for his god. He uses circular logic all the time. He also says that we can not judge gods commands to kill people which is written in the bible because we are not in position to judge god by our human standards. At the same time he uses the human standards to point out the fact that there is a god and so on.

I truly don’t see in which way you think that Craig wins his debates. Can you explain it further?

Cheers

Ranzo

Btw. English is my third language so sorry if there some grammar mistakes in what I have written.

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 4, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Ranzo,

Craig wins most of his debates by giving a superior performance, not by offering sound arguments. Debates are not going to be what decide my beliefs, though they help to inform my beliefs.

  (Quote)

Deist Novice June 5, 2009 at 8:13 am

One of the posters mentioned that Stenger had bested Craig. Well I downloaded that debate hoping to hear soemone really take it to Craig. I thought Stenge started out strongly after Craig gave his patented 6 point reasons for God ‘s existence. Stenger is a retired physicist so he could talk credibly about th holes in the causality argument that Craig uses. However something incredible happened. Stenger actually allowed Craig to coopt his area of expertise even calling Stenger’s views quantum appearances of particles (an argument that things don’t need  a cause to come into being, “dated”.  Even in the question and answer periond, Stenger muffed a softball tossed on the Virgin Birth.  Rather than respond that the Isaiah passage was badly translated and probably didn’t refer to Jesus or that Parthonegenesis , if possible , would produce a girl;Stenger meekly responded that the whole thing was fairy tale anyway.

On the other hand John Shelby Spong acquitted himself rather well. First as Episcopal Bishop, he was able to take away Craig’s religious high ground. His Spritual interpretation of the Resurrection made Craig’s interpretation look primitive and he nearly said as much. He would have none of Craig’s pander /smash strategy that he utilizes on esteemed opponent. I could be mistaken but I thought I heard Craig agree thaPaul was talking about a Spiritual resurrection in the infamous Corinthians 15 passage which would be an astonishing admission fro an evangelical.  By the end of the debate , Craig was so frustrated that  he launched into rather lengthy sermonizing in his closing remarks.  I would be interested to read your impressions of the CRaig Song debate.  Oh yea. He stripped Craig of his usual appeal to authority argument by citing the “quality” of his scholarly support in the Jesus seminar etc.  All in all a masterful performanc by Spong.

  (Quote)

Tobias June 10, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Hi,

you state that my plugin WP-Table Reloaded fails to sort your tables. I don’t see why it should though. What have you tried?

Best wishes,
Tobias

  (Quote)

Penneyworth June 11, 2009 at 11:05 am

I’ll never understand why people think Craig wins debates. Because of his pompous, self-assured tone? Shelly Kagan absolutely dismantles him without even touching on the real issues with seeing the christian god as a source of morality (god’s genocide, evil people not being accountable for sins after accepting jesus etc etc).

This page is a treasure chest! Such wealth! Thank you!

  (Quote)

Alex June 12, 2009 at 1:20 am

Thanks for making this site.  have you started an email list to let us know about updates?  please let me know periodically.

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 12, 2009 at 5:29 am

Alex, you can subscribe by email. See the sidebar.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer June 13, 2009 at 9:59 am

I’ve recently added as a “friend” on facebook, the Atheist scholar, David Ramsay Steele, who is the author of Atheism Explained.  On par with Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis. He posted on his wall a few dates for debates he’s having.
Luke & Lorkas,
Have either of you had the time to review the material in this book and to the extent that you did, what did you think?
And have either of you heard, seen or read the transcripts of any of his debates?
Regards

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 13, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Jake de Backer,

I have not read Steele’s book yet.

  (Quote)

Alex G June 16, 2009 at 9:11 am
Alex G June 16, 2009 at 9:14 am

Sorry. The first dawkins one is just an interview with lennox.

  (Quote)

Alex G June 16, 2009 at 9:16 am
Alex G June 16, 2009 at 9:25 am

And a very interesting debate on whether faith and science are compatable:

 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Thanks, Alex!

  (Quote)

Lorkas June 16, 2009 at 4:54 pm

:(
The Shermer-D’Souza debate was removed by Shermer. Alas… I like watching that guy (even if the price is watching a bit of D’Souza as well).

  (Quote)

Amanda June 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Thanks for compiling this extremely useful list! These debates are super fun to listen to and I’m sure it took a lot of time to put this list together. I appreciate all your hard work!

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 16, 2009 at 7:33 pm

Thanks, Amanda.

  (Quote)

myprecious June 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Having watched some of Craig’s debates I must say that – technically he is a very good debater. However, most of his arguments are simply not valid. My favourite one is calculating the probability of Jesus rising from the dead – hilarious;)

  (Quote)

Alex G June 18, 2009 at 12:15 am

Shermer/D’souza debate is up again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaojzb-7tIg

  (Quote)

Alex G June 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
D C Cramer June 30, 2009 at 9:44 am

There was a debate in 2005 at Bethel College, Indiana, between John Shelby Spong and Bill Craig over the historicity of the resurrection. Might merit addition to the list.
http://www.bethelcollege.edu/news/?articleID=1674
http://www.ccn.tv/programming/event/evt_20mar05.htm

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm

D C Cramer,

It’s already there, but I will add the link to the DVD. Thanks.

  (Quote)

sean lathee July 1, 2009 at 1:23 am

The way Craig says Joseph of Aramathia reminds me of my father. When you would ask dad if he knew somebody that he really did not know he’d say ,
‘Do I know Joe from Aramathia, sure thems his trousers I’m wearing now!
Just a short word to you people on battleshipamerica.
There is at the edge of the galaxy a star nursery that is 52 trillion high? long! whatever you like.
The bible is a book that is so time sensitive that the writers would have considered a bicycle, depending how introduced to them , as the work of demons. I could go on about the thing but its a silly long sometimes interesting  book. Read the shagging thing it is not profound its Abrahams how to live in the desert book that got ambitious. Atheists should start to treat it as such.
You folks can not leave the house to get a pint of milk without passing,count them yourself, churches chapels and meeting houses. None paying real estate tax. Sucking up your money to continue their interesting spiritual quest to nowhere.
Joseph of Aramithia my royal irish arse!
 

  (Quote)

Paul July 24, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Any chance of adding a “listener’s” rating to these debates?

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 25, 2009 at 12:19 am

Paul,

You mean, like an interactive star-rating thing, like on Amazon or something?

  (Quote)

Paul July 27, 2009 at 1:48 am

Yes, Luke – a star rating would be nice. Not that I’m ungrateful, btw! It’s just that there are so many! I did notice after I posted, though, that you marked your personal favorites.

  (Quote)

mattr July 27, 2009 at 1:51 am

Someone here said that Craig wins ALL his debates. He certainly wins most of them, if debating is a sport with winners and losers, and he certainly is a master rhetorician. But Shelly Kagan wins by a KO in my opinion,  on all counts, mainly because of the length Q & A session, where Craig can´t rely on his speech-making prowess but has to actually respond on point to specific objections.
That said, one of the single most puzzling things I´ve encountered lately on the web is the ABSENCE of anyone who seems capable of refuting Craig on the ridiculous idea of the Resurrection. Isn´t there some secular Bibilical historian out there with a little skill at debating and a little knowledge of epistemology??  Specifically, why hasn´t anyone taken Craig to task on his claims about the “general reliability” of the Gospels as sources of “ancient history”? Very frustrating indeed…

  (Quote)

mattr July 27, 2009 at 1:53 am

sorry– i meant also to say what a great site this is. and richard carrier ALMOST does the job, but as he himself admits… not quite!

  (Quote)

Sam July 27, 2009 at 8:15 am

I’ve read about a debate between Madalyn Murray Ohair vs John Warwick Montgomery, but have not been able to locate audio for it. Might anyone here know where know I might find a copy? Also, this page loads VERY slowly.

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Sam,

Looks like you used to be able to order the Montgomery-O’Hair debate here.

  (Quote)

Jason July 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm

After reading all the comments I finally listened to the Shelly Kagan/William Lane Craig debate. Kagan really did nail Craig’s moral argument to the wall. I don’t precisely share his view of atheistic morality, but he deftly handled the majority of Craig’s inquiries.  When on the offensive, he knocked Craig off-guard frequently – typically Craig has a canned answer to everything and delivers them without hesitation, but in this debate he was actually at a loss for words at times, and even STAMMERED occasionally.
Well done, Mr. Kagan!

  (Quote)

AL Williamson July 31, 2009 at 6:18 am

“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts

“the big-bang is an atheists god, the Christian god is the one who created it”
-Al Williamson

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 31, 2009 at 9:30 am

Al Williamson,

The Big Bang is an atheist’s god? What? How?

  (Quote)

Deist Novice August 3, 2009 at 10:19 am

The Hitchens -Craig Debate -2009 is not on the link that is posted for it. Everytime that I try to acquire , I get this web page that says it doesn’t comply with their rules and that it has been deleted.

On another note, what do you think of of Dr. Robert Price.? I think he gives outstanding Bible  commentary and also posits very plausible explanations for the   origns of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Deist Novice,

I love Price’s work.

Yes, Biola is defending their copyright on the Hitchens-Craig debate quite vigorously.

  (Quote)

CA August 20, 2009 at 12:20 am

The question was posed, “why isn’t the bible’s accuracy pulled into question more”.  For example, the age of the earth.  Doesn’t the bible say that its around 6,000 years and hasn’t it basically been proven to be over 4 billion?  I’m new to these debates, and was wondering the same thing, especially when its used to backup historical events like the ressurection.  On a side note, is there a good audio debate on the age of the earth?

  (Quote)

Andrew August 24, 2009 at 9:08 am

I thought William Lane Craig lost against Shelly Kagan.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer August 26, 2009 at 1:17 am

Al Williamson,
 
That sentence, amongst other things, is syntactically retarded.  I don’t mean in the disparaging cultural “haha you’re stupid” sense of “retarded”; I mean the literal sense in which the quality of comment’s like that actually retards the cultivation of language in general.  We’re dealing with topics which even when articulated by those good at it, we’re still often lost in an intellectual mire of obfuscation.  I am not taking aim to be the pedantic atheist-grammarian but for Christ’s sake (apropos, I feel) employ some effort into phrasing your thoughts in an intelligible form so we can open a thread of dialogue based upon them.
 
Luke,
 
It may just be my computer, but the video link on the Hitchens-Turek debate just brings me back to the top of the debate page.
 
Regards to you both,
J. de Backer

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 26, 2009 at 6:25 am

Jake,

Oops – actually, I have no video link for that Hitchens-Turek debate.

  (Quote)

Jason August 27, 2009 at 1:18 pm

I just listened to the 2009 Hitchens/Turek debate, and it is every bit as infuriating as their 2008 debacle. I had to hand the 2008 debate to Turek, if only on the grounds that he was able to point out the flaws in Hitchens’ arguments better than Hitchens did his. It really pains me to say that, too – I see Turek as a blithering idiot with paper arguments that a sharp child could tear to pieces.
Sadly, Turek once again was able to point out where Hitchens meandered off topic, failed to address the issue at hand, etc. with ease. Hitchens, however, was once again too busy meandering from the point and failing to address the issues to properly rebut Turek’s vapid points!
Hitchens is a good writer and can give a fine anti-theistic speech. However, I just don’t think debate is his strong point. The man just seems to be incapable of answering a simple question or keeping his points relevant to the question “does God exist?” (versus the question “is God wise/likable”)

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I have a question for anyone who may be willing to answer it.
 
I have read several times over the past 2 years from several of atheism’s greatest protagonist debaters that the reason why some of the debates are lost despite the atheist’s position’s superior tenability is due to time constraints.  The, “it takes twice as long to rebut an argument as it does to make one”, theory.  I don’t doubt that such is the case but my question is, and I shall put this delicately:
Why the fuck do professional debaters (i.e. Shermer) spend so much time littering their remarks, particularly opening statements, with quasi-comical, entirely irrelevant biographical details or banal anecdotes.  Christopher Hitchens is notorious for anecdotal introductions which although funny –except after hearing the same ones a few thousand times (“thanks for that suspiciously terse introduction..”)– are intimated at the expense of using time which could have been productively employed at deconstructing his antagonist’s arguments.  Shermer, no one fucking cares about bumping stickers or what you did going door to door either as a Christian or an Atheist and no one needs to hear (again) Woody Allen’s now trite aphorisms about religion.
 
Why doesn’t anyone take to the podium and literally start with, “Ok, the first argument was from contingency…”?  Why after several hundred audio, video and transcript debates have I not seen, read or heard that one god damn time?  Someone please help me before the big vein in my head pops.
 
Regards
J. de Backer

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 8, 2009 at 5:47 pm

jake,

That stuff frustrates me to no end. These atheists are, simply, not trained in LD-style debates.

  (Quote)

sean lathee September 12, 2009 at 1:25 am

In Great Britain and Ireland we have the convention of calling only medical doctors by the appelation doctor. Even MDs when they complete a speciality once more become plain Mr. or Mrs. Much less vulgar, dont you know, than than having Doctors of Theology given that coveted honour. Just a thought! The nightmare is breaking ones leg in the foyer of the Intercontinental Hotel and calling out for a doctor only to have WLC decending on your pain raked body.
On a different note I would dearly love to see the face of WLC when confronted by Professor Morrison and the idea that WLC ridicules eternity in the past yet proposes the same infinity for the  followers of Jesus in the future.  This recent debate I have been unable to find despite spirited forays into the interwebs. I suspect Craig had to waffle in jig time to wriggle from that trap.  Have you come across this debate Luke?
In any case this is an uncommonly good web site.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 12, 2009 at 2:28 am

sean,

I have been dying to get my hands on the Craig-Morriston debate, too. Here are Morriston’s thoughts on the debate.

  (Quote)

sean lathee September 12, 2009 at 11:55 am

Luke,

Thanks for link which I read through. I can only imagine WLC trying to slither out this one. He is caught in a trap of his own making perhaps this is why the usually wide open WLC site is so mum on this debate.’Indefinite’ time and ‘potential’ time.

Professor Morriston’s arguement is so simple it is just lovely. What annoys me is that it was there ,all the time, in front of my eyes. Well done you.

  (Quote)

Terri R September 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Wow…
Ive never been able to pin point a good enough reason why people fight over religion. I understand that everyone holds their own beliefs and sometimes they are strong ones. However, you cannot prove your beliefs so why are people fighting over a topic when no one actually knows who the winner of the argument is? Since there is no winner then their is no looser. So why fight? Why are people dieing over religious beliefs when everyone is aware that a million people have a million different beliefs. Doesnt make any sense to me. Why dont you these people use this wasted energy on something good. Why dont they refocus their bent up hostility onto something tangible that will change the world or make it a better place. Instead of arguing for an hour go do community service. Instead of killing people or starting a war go volunteer at the hospital for those people who are hurt over ligidimate reasons. Just doesnt make sense to me.

Everyone has their own websites these days portraying their beliefs and trying to convert others. Atheists too. Why are these people trying to change other peoples beliefs. Isnt the goal for us all to live in harmony since there are so many of us in a little space and we all have to be here together. Stop wasting everyones time and energy including your own on ridiculous goals. If you want to convert someone then pick a person who has not lived a moral life and show them how to (it doesnt have to include any religious beliefs). Teach them to believe in themselves. To care about themselves and others. Give them the tools to function in such a critical society. However, such a plan would only work if we ourselves stop being critisizers. Stop being judgmental on others beliefs and start practicing acceptance and understanding. That is how this world would be a better place.

  (Quote)

sean lathee September 25, 2009 at 7:02 am

Now that would take a lot of doing.

  (Quote)

Justin September 30, 2009 at 11:00 am

To Terri R:
What’s the harm in letting people believe what they want to believe?

http://www.whatstheharm.net

That’s the harm.

  (Quote)

André September 30, 2009 at 6:51 pm

When I first starting watching those debates, I thought Craig was very good at it. Now I think the atheists are in fact bad at it. He ALWAYS says the same things, in the same order, in the same way. Someone who could prepare himself previously watching some of these debates would know precisely Craig would say and what he could say back.

I think maybe Matt from the Atheist Experience show could be a good atheist debater. Or maybe the ‘TheoreticalBullshit’ guy from youtube, he’s good.

That said, personally, I think Austin Dacey nailed Craig in their debate, specially in the ‘unecessary suffering’ matter. Craig went back and back until at one point he says: ‘oh, well, you can’t possibly know God’s mind.’. I think that’s the worst argument he could use.

  (Quote)

Deist Novice October 14, 2009 at 9:59 am

Lukeprog,
I have just begun listening to your interview with Mike Licona.I’ve listened to about half of it. Is it just me or did you find his arguments somewhat grating. You seem to get off to a slow start and let him establish his foundation for the resurrection with what amounted to a gigantic appeal to authority. I’m amazed that Habermas still gets away with this but was astonished that Licona has practically integrated into his bedrock principles or whatever he was calling his justification for the resurrection.

But your early docile manner had the effect of lulling Licona into a false sense of security. I’ve heard Licona several times but had never heard him recount what amounted to “Ghost Stories”. I could hardly beieve my ears as he related the story of the friend that was attacked by a demon. About that time you went to battle stations and scored heavily with several discreditied miracle stories.

I was kind of surprised that you agreed with on the dearth of dying and rising gods before Christ point. Ascharya S and others have pointed out Osiris, Attis, and Dionysus amoung others that appear to precede the Chist story. Even Robert Price seems to accede the point.

You seem to be hitting your stride when I got to work. But just getting this guy to admit thathe believes in modern day demons was worth the price of admission. Good work and I look forward to listening to the second half.

  (Quote)

Ken Williamson October 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm

SOMEONE ASKED::
Currently looking for a way to make the table sortable in Wordpress 2.8. Tested and failed so far: Yoast Table Sort, sorttable, Standardista Table Sorting, tablesorter, Dynamic Table, Tiny Table, Sortable Table, phatfusion sortableTable, WP-Table Reloaded.

Try MS EXCEL. It worked right off for me. Unfortunately the names are entered as: FIRST NAME-LAST NAME making it a bit cumbersome to manage.

  (Quote)

lukeprog October 16, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Ken,

But I want it sortable in a web page, not in Excel.

  (Quote)

Landon October 21, 2009 at 9:42 am

Luke,

You may not be aware that the NWMSU philosophy club paid to have the Craig-Carrier debate professionally recorded. It looks like the video you have linked to is of very poor quality. See here: http://landonhedrick.blogspot.com/2009/08/craig-carrier-resurrection-debate-video.html

-Landon

  (Quote)

lukeprog October 21, 2009 at 10:11 am

Thanks, Landon. I’ll change the link in the next update!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer October 24, 2009 at 3:42 am

RE: Arif Ahmed & Gary Habermas Debate

Is Habermas kidding me with all this Near-Death Experience bullshit? We have obtained anecdotal accounts of people identifying discreetly placed objects around a room or rooftop, therefore the Judeo-Christian God exists along with Christianity’s interpretation of heaven, therefore Jesus was resurrected? When collectively 20 (or so) minutes of your 90 minute long debate (including Q&A) is pinning your beliefs in the afterlife on the veracity of N.D.E.’s it’s time you tender your resignation to the scholarly world. I will gladly concede him his debate with Flew but Ahmed unequivocally destroyed the fabric of Habermas’ arguments. How many times did Habermas preface a sentence with “The majority of critical scholars agree..” or “Is it not possible then, that if such and such state of affairs is in place, then such and such consequence is possible..”? I can’t believe someone of Habermas’ credentials is conflating and misrepresenting the possible with the plausible. I expect to encounter this spurious fallacy as it’s employed by my fundy friends who have the logical and philosophical acumen of a toothbrush but this man is, I’ve been told, the penultimate deliverer of the historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection. Ahmed’s opening remarks were astute and auspiciously timed as they served to undermine most of what Habermas had to say immediately following. Habermas just does not seem to have the razor-lined analytical style that Ahmed and Craig do. He seems all over the place in some parts and starts, re-starts, then re-restarts the same borderline incoherent sentences. Particularly during the discussion of N.D.E’s in the informal discussion segment. Notice how at the outset of his responses, Ahmed has already calculated his replies specifically and almost each time begins with, “Ok, I have three things I’d like to say about that.” Ahmed was cogent, erudite, precise and well suited for his presentation of the naturalism-based approach to religion in general and Christ’s resurrection in particular. His analogies were skillfully employed and apropos of the topic in dispute. I don’t see how anyone could conclude in Habermas’ favor. Now if people who get a much wider audience and therefore possess the capacity to do a tremendous amount of good for our cause, i.e. Shermer, Barker, Hitchens, etc. would shut the fuck up with their predictable, tangential nonsense and quasi-comical anecdotes and deliver arguments like this, I think we’d be a lot further ahead than we are currently.

J.

  (Quote)

Richard Ball October 28, 2009 at 6:11 pm

“‘I’m sure it would look good on his resume but not on mine’”

The Bible says that prideful arrogance keeps a person from the knowledge of God. Atheists regularly affirm the truth of the Bible’s spiritual message, however unwittingly.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer October 30, 2009 at 11:33 am

Richard,

Mind if I call you Dick?

Dick,

Theist’s do the same thing all the time. Like Craig who will only debate PhD holders. Reputation and Status directly influence, though not exclusively, the career’s and livelihood of speakers on both sides of the divide. Ensuring that those you engage with have obtained commensurate credential’s is common practice in the scholarly world.

In addition, I doubt quite sincerely that any atheist debater or speaker is going to be made contrite by the consequential loss of “the knowledge of God”. Particularly, Dawkins.

The Bible also says we should stone to death those bundling sticks on the Sabbath or those who proselytize to us from different religions. With each slammed door in the face of your friendly neighborhood Jehovah’s Witness, are you losing your “knowledge of God” for not having killed them? How about when your neighbor is doing yard work on the weekend? You plunge a lot of shovel’s in the necks of your neighbors for not honoring the sabbath?

J.

  (Quote)

alex wills November 7, 2009 at 3:39 pm

is there a good website for all the upcoming debates? I want to travel and go to some of them if possible… at least to know where and when they are coming up… (reply to my email too)

  (Quote)

Keith November 19, 2009 at 1:44 pm

You know what…i find it very disturbing, that some of you people can sit there and say how much WLC is a good debater, but his “logic” is flawed. Then you just leave it at that. You dont leave us no kind of counter-argument against his views whatsoever. That makes me come to the conclusion that you dont really mean what you say, you are just TALKING. If you cant come up with refutations against his arguments, then why even comment?? I challenge ANYONE on here to give a rebuttal for Craigs 6 point argument for the existance of God. I looked through all of the comments and no one even made an attempt to do such. Everyone is so quick to give an opinion, but no one is ADDRESSING THE ISSUES. One dude even said that he think he can debate Craig on the issues. I doubt that, I challenge anyone in here to debate ME on the issues. We can have an online chat conference if you want. I dont think anyone on here can even shake ME in a debate, let alone WLC.

Cmon now people, focus on the issues. If anyone think that they can take me on in a debate on the existance of God, let me know. I will be more than happy. If you cant beat me, then you cant beat Craig.

  (Quote)

André November 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Keith,

Watch Austin Dacey’s debate against Craig.

Then, read this:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2963

Nobody ‘answered’ Craig’s arguments here because this is not the place to do this. It has been done A LOT elsewhere. You don’t even have to leave this blog.

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Keith,

Which argument are you referring to? Throughout my website many commenters have said explicitly what they think is wrong with some of Craig’s premises, especially concerning the Kalam argument.

  (Quote)

André November 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hermes November 24, 2009 at 6:13 am

Keith: Cmon now people, focus on the issues. If anyone think that they can take me on in a debate on the existance of God, let me know. I will be more than happy. If you cant beat me, then you cant beat Craig.

I accept.

To start, I’ll state my position that the Christian deity Yahweh as described in the Christian Bible does not exist but that some other deities may exist and that I can be convinced of them given proper support for them.

Look me up on the WWGHA forums, and mention your message here, if this interests you.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php

We can go over the ground rules first, set the question(s) we will discuss, then discuss them in as much detail as you wish.

If you determine that I am not a worthy person to discuss these issues with, then I have a short list of people who are more than qualified to do so and should give you quite an intellectual workout.

The next step is yours, but note that while I monitor this blog, I don’t monitor this specific thread. As such, please go to WWGHA and start the discussion there if you want to be assured of a response.

  (Quote)

Dan November 24, 2009 at 11:49 am

Do mini-debates on TV shows count?

There is Sam Harris vs. Hugh Hewitt. It’s a little over 10 minutes long. Video of it can be found here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5afgu_hugh-hewitt-vs-sam-harris_tech

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 24, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Thanks, Dan, I’ll put it down as a “short”

  (Quote)

Dan November 25, 2009 at 12:00 pm

I have another addition, and it’s over 1hr 30min! And it’s video! And it’s Dan Barker Vs. Dinesh D’Zouza….

http://www.pcawebcast.com/316/

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Thanks, Dan! I’ll add it in the next update.

  (Quote)

GeneralTHC December 2, 2009 at 10:31 am

There is no doubt that there are allot of absurdities in the bible but the one that really makes me chuckle is one man defeating a thousand in a fight. LOL! Good gracious, I could sooner believe the earth was young.

  (Quote)

Hermes December 3, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Keith, you offered a challenge and I accepted.

It’s been over a week now, and no word from you.

Were you serious, or do you acknowledge that André and Luke’s quick responses were sufficient to have you reassess your position?

Do you acknowledge that things are not as you asserted when you offered your challenge?

————-

Note to all theists, especially Christians: If you agree with Keith’s initial sentiment, and have read the replies he has received, then my offer is open to you as well. Drop by the Why Won’t God Heal Amputees forum, send me a personal message there, and let me know you have arrived and are ready.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 4, 2009 at 12:23 am

Luke

The Dan Barker Vs. Kyle Butt video is up in 14 parts on youtube. You have audio only, currently.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 4, 2009 at 7:34 am

Thanks, Jake.

  (Quote)

DJ December 10, 2009 at 6:28 am
lukeprog December 10, 2009 at 9:11 am

Thanks, DJ!

  (Quote)

RA December 10, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Paul Draper provided what many believed to be a very good performance against Craig. I didn’t see it on your list. The audio is available on YouTube.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm

RA,

It’s on here already. Just search the page for “Paul Draper.”

  (Quote)

RA December 10, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Oh, that’s how it works.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm

RA,

Did you really retire at 40?

  (Quote)

RA December 11, 2009 at 9:49 am

Yes. Technically 41.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm

RA,

May I ask who you are?

J.

  (Quote)

Keith December 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm

lukeprog: Keith,Which argument are you referring to? Throughout my website many commenters have said explicitly what they think is wrong with some of Craig’s premises, especially concerning the Kalam argument.  (Quote)

I’m sorry Luke, I didn’t check out everything on the website. Apologies

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 December 15, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Luke, Kent Hovind aside, are all of the debates labeled
“creationism” about intelligent design?

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 15, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Not necessarily. I think most of those debates about “creationism” are about Young Earth Creationism.

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 December 16, 2009 at 2:51 am

I see.
All of the ones I’ve heard so far are about intelligent design.

By the way, the Darwinism and Nazism debate is between
Avalos and richard weikart, not WLC.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 16, 2009 at 6:07 am

Ah. Thanks, majinrevan666!

  (Quote)

Hermes December 17, 2009 at 1:16 pm

An active Kalam debate is going on at Why Won’t God Heal Amputees.

The participants are;

* Keith (from this thread Majesty on WWGHA)

* Kcrady (a veteran of WWGHA and fellow blogger)

So far, it’s quite enjoyable with some interesting ideas coming from both sides, though Keith/Majesty has kept it fairly close to WLC’s play book.

Title: WLC Style Apologetics Debate
Link: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11160.0

  (Quote)

Hermes December 19, 2009 at 7:28 pm

The Kalam debate mentioned in my last post is wrapping up. For the most part, Kcrady had some interesting and insightful comments — many that I have not heard before or as insightfully — while Keith held tightly to WLC’s play book and unfortunately missed or ignored some of the core ideas that Kcrady presented.

Even with those disappointments, I encourage people interested in this topic to take a look and decide for yourself. Please post in the Comments thread there if you notice any glaring omissions or mistakes by any of the participants.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11160

Note: To view these threads, I’ve just realized that a valid WWGHA login is required.

  (Quote)

sean ledwiidge December 21, 2009 at 12:29 am

http://www.gunnersburybaptistchurch.org/events/opentoquestion/

Luke the above link is to a debate called “what does science teach us about god”? With Lewis Wolpert and Russell Cowburn. There are some other mp3 there.
Its from the Gunnersbury Baptist church in London UK.
I believe you may find Baptists here a little different to the home grown variety in the US.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 21, 2009 at 1:00 am

sean,

Thanks. As it happens, I stumbled across that link just yesterday, and it’s on my list to add here when I have time for another update!

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 December 31, 2009 at 11:50 am

  (Quote)

zugu December 31, 2009 at 11:20 pm

Thank you so much for this amazing resource! It’s hours and hours of entertainment for me. I can’t thank you enough!

  (Quote)

Rick January 3, 2010 at 8:25 am

Man – nicely done! This will save me a lot of time!

Thanks again for listing these in one place!

  (Quote)

Keith January 4, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Hermes: The Kalam debate mentioned in my last post is wrapping up. For the most part, Kcrady had some interesting and insightful comments — many that I have not heard before or as insightfully — while Keith held tightly to WLC’s play book and unfortunately missed or ignored some of the core ideas that Kcrady presented.Even with those disappointments, I encourage people interested in this topic to take a look and decide for yourself. Please post in the Comments thread there if you notice any glaring omissions or mistakes by any of the participants.http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11160Note: To view these threads, I’ve just realized that a valid WWGHA login is required.  (Quote)

This is just a clever attempt to undermind how well i did in the debate. I challenge Hermes to name one place where I missed a point that my opponent made. His arguments were not that technical. Now if you mean “missed” by overlooking them, I did miss some. But if you mean “missed” by being ignorant of the point that he made, I challenge you to name one time that I did such a thing. I feel like you people do a great deal of injustice by spitefully downplaying people that you disagree with. It is very immature.

  (Quote)

MauricXe January 7, 2010 at 11:21 am

Thanks for this list! Amazing.

  (Quote)

MattHunX January 15, 2010 at 5:57 am

Hey people!

Nice site! Been looking for new debaters other then Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and PZ.

Keep it up!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer January 19, 2010 at 12:01 am

Peter Atkins Vs. Shabir Allay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAVV3dUrrYI

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer January 19, 2010 at 12:41 am

Alan Conradi Vs. Mike Paget

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3955939770430269270&ei=HWdVS8zvDIfmrgKPlZQa&q=alan+conradi&hl=en#

Christopher diCarlo Vs. Shabir Allay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhNHyCgHN44
(This is debate is spread over several series of approx. 10 min, this link being part 1)

Andrew Copson Vs. Adam Deen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOE98BWPemM

Norman Ralph Vs. Adam Deen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3W8P-tpwo

Pedantic Note: You have the Bana Bashour Vs. Hamza debate under “Dana”

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog January 19, 2010 at 1:16 am

Awesome! Thanks, Jake!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer January 19, 2010 at 2:15 am

Yessir.

  (Quote)

Hermes January 23, 2010 at 9:49 am

The following link is broken, and a quick review of the net doesn’t show a replacement;

http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/isuaas/audio/Avalos-Craig%20Resurrection%20Debate.mp3

I did not check to see if any video sites had the same debate.

It is referenced in the following line from the table;

“Hector Avalos William Lane Craig link 2004 resurrection”

  (Quote)

Hermes January 23, 2010 at 9:58 am

Wait … here’s a playlist from the “drcraigvideos” YouTube channel;

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=941908367ED0CF35

Is this the same one?

  (Quote)

lukeprog January 23, 2010 at 10:40 am

Hermes,

Luckily, I keep copies of all the text and audio (and much of the video) on this site. So I’ll upload the file and change the link on the next update. Thanks for the heads up.

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 January 27, 2010 at 10:42 am
Dan January 30, 2010 at 9:58 am

Why does WIlliam Craig always get to go first? It gives him the ability to say “My opponent must answer my points and add his own.”

  (Quote)

Chris January 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm

drive1: Hi .. the video link in “Kenneth Humphreys vs. Gary Habermas: audio, video. Topic: resurrection” leads to a McGrath : Atkins debate.
I managed 6 minutes of the audio version, before I was forced to turn off. This was when Mr Humphreys raised the vitally important topic of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the topic was supposed to be the resurrection of JC. I’m sorry to report that Mr Humphreys was the atheist in the debate.Thanks for all the links. There’s good ammo here (Mr Humphreys notwithstanding).  

It got worse shortly later when Humphreys invoked Snow White’s “resurrection.” As a Christian theist who enjoys such debates, I have to say that I didn’t enjoy this one. Humphreys was condescending, triumphalist, often not on point, unable to address the actual arguments Habermas employed, and, to top it off, didn’t seem to understand the point of the “open discussion” portion–the first several minutes of which he stood to give a rebuttal to Habermas’s prior (scheduled) rebuttal. Bad form. Humphreys strikes me as an ill-informed dilettante. I’ll take a Hitchens or a Dawkins every time over him, both of whose debates with theists I have quite enjoyed.

  (Quote)

Jim February 4, 2010 at 10:15 am

Video of Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath debate at:
http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Thanks, Jim!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Simon Conway Morris & David Perks Vs. Steve Fuller & Alex Hochuli

Debating Darwin
http://fora.tv/2007/10/28/Battle_of_Ideas_Debating_Darwin

Victor Stenger, Lyn Allison, & Richard Ackland Vs. John Lennox, Ian Pilmer, & Suzanne Rutland

Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?
http://fora.tv/2008/08/19/Would_We_Be_Better_Off_Without_Religion

I’m aware of the time constraints you face which preclude you from undertaking tedious projects, but I have a suggestion (which I’d be surprised if you hadn’t already considered yourself): Include either on this page or as a different but similarly designed page a collection of Lectures, Discussions, Interviews, etc. If you’re interested in this, I have a good amount of material relevant to those categories.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 5, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Thanks, Jake!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 6, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Eddie Tabash Vs. Joel A. Reef (I think that’s his name)
The Existence Of God

Part 1 – http://www.vimeo.com/2191278
Part 2 – http://www.vimeo.com/2191696

Philip Kitcher Vs. Vinoth Ramachandra
People Suffer – Who Cares? A Secular Humanist & Christian Dialogue

Part 1 – http://www.vimeo.com/9029687
Part 2 – http://vimeo.com/9047448

Daniel Dennett Vs. Alvin Plantinga
Science & Religion: Are They Compatible
(Audio Only… and shitty audio at that)
http://vimeo.com/8433513

Alex McLellan (In Favor), Dave Perks (Opposed), Christopher Brookmyre (Opposed), Julian Baggini (Opposed), & Marc Surtees (In Favor)
Should Schools Teach Creationism?
http://vimeo.com/3342628

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Thanks, Jake. The Kitcher/Ramachandra debate is already here, as is the Dennett/Plantinga exchange.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 6, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Shit, sorry, dude. You currently have only the William Provine & Phillip Johnson audio, but the video is up in 11 parts. Here’s part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-H6NxdCd4

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Thanks again!

  (Quote)

Jim February 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm

The link to the Richard Dawkins debate with Alister McGrath at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival on 26 March 2007 is stale.

But here it is in 2 parts – from http://beemp3.com/:

http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/OxfordFestivalMcGrathDawkins1.mp3

http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/OxfordFestivalMcGrathDawkins2.mp3

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 7, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Thanks, Jim, though the link still works for me. I’m listening to it right now. We are talking about this one, right? :

http://www.bringyou.to/McGrathDawkinsDebate.mp3

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 7, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Why is it that Dan Barker & Michael Shermer haven’t debated William Lane-Craig? They’ve each debated basically everyone from the opposing side except each other. I know Shermer hold’s a PhD, shouldn’t that qualify him for a few rounds against Craig? Barker’s been debating these people since I was in Dinosaur onesies and to my knowledge, still hasn’t gone against Craig either.

Anybody have any idea why this is?

J.

  (Quote)

Akil February 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Hi,

Really great list. Kudos for being so passionate about these debates and making such a comprehensive list. Also- I tip my hat for including the few Muslim debators against atheists. Hopefully, looking forward to more debates between muslims and atheists – esp. someone like Shabbir Ally or Hamza Tzortzis against Hitchens.

There is a debate which should be available in audio or video between Dan Barker and Adam Deen which took place in November, 2009. Hopefully it makes this list.

Again – thank you for your efforts. Keep it up.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 8, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Akil,

I found it and added it. Thanks.

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 February 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Jake de Backer: Why is it that Dan Barker & Michael Shermer haven’t debated William Lane-Craig?They’ve each debated basically everyone from the opposing side except each other.I know Shermer hold’s a PhD, shouldn’t that qualify him for a few rounds against Craig?Barker’s been debating these people since I was in Dinosaur onesies and to my knowledge, still hasn’t gone against Craig either.Anybody have any idea why this is?J.  

This probably isn’t exactly what you had in mind, but I guess it could be considered a debate. (I haven’t seen it though)

http://gospel-net.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid=1161703800,91130,

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 February 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm

majinrevan666:
This probably isn’t exactly what you had in mind, but I guess it could be considered a debate. (I haven’t seen it though)http://gospel-net.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid=1161703800,91130,  

Working link:

http://pdf.gospel-net.com/god_in_america_national_debate_added_guest.pdf

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 9, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Yeah, that was in 2006. I don’t see a recording of it anywhere.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 9, 2010 at 11:40 pm

Thanks, Majinrevan. As you guessed, that’s not quite what I had in mind but I definitely appreciate you submitting it and it’s certainly better than nothing. Do you have any other debate transcripts that aren’t posted here? Thanks, again.

J.

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 February 10, 2010 at 3:37 am

Jake de Backer: Thanks, Majinrevan.As you guessed, that’s not quite what I had in mind but I definitely appreciate you submitting it and it’s certainly better than nothing.Do you have any other debate transcripts that aren’t posted here?Thanks, again.J.  

I get most of my debate resources from here.
The only other obscure debate I can think of is one between David Berlinski, Richard Dawkins and others.
It’s supposed to be available here for
$2:

http://www.shmuley.com/store/debates/shmuley-archives-oxford-debate-with-rabbi-shmuley-richard-dawkins-david-berlinksi-and-more.html

  (Quote)

matt February 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm

hi luke, just a small request/suggestion: can you list content tages (creationism; morality etc) next to the “recently added” items? it would save time going back and forth. thanks regardless and keep up the splendid job here!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 19, 2010 at 1:53 am

Chris Hallquist,

I understand that you frequent this site at times and am compelled, after listening to your debate this evening with Tim, to make a quick remark.

I was excited to come across your debate in my iPod this afternoon as it appears to be one of the only ones of the several hundred I have on audio that I hadn’t heard yet. I barely made it through your introduction. Not because it wasn’t cogent, well-though material (in fact, I thought it was) but um, uh, how do I, uh, um, um say this, um. Something needs to be done about the “um”‘s which occupy a place in between each word of nearly every spoken sentence. I’m not a professional speaker, nor do I practice public speaking so I am not some nagging pedant professional who views you as a flagrant neophyte. Even as a rank amateur inexperienced in public speaking, it drove me quickly into lunacy.

Please take this in the manner in which it is being offered, should you even read this at all, which is meant constructively and with your public speaking skills interest at heart.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 19, 2010 at 5:40 am

Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 19, 2010 at 11:37 am

lukeprog: Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters!  

In deed.

Or view the audience in there underpants, I’ve always heard was effective.

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm

What’s the deal with the Alan Dershowitz vs. Alan Keys debate? The link opens a youtube page which plays no video/audio and has the typical 12 part video series of which the first doesn’t open. Has it always been like that?

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm

Jake,

Thanks, I’ll look into it.

  (Quote)

Jim February 19, 2010 at 4:35 pm

MP3 of 2/9/10 debate “Does the Christian God Exist?” with John W. Loftus & Dinesh D’Souza at Univ of Illinois just posted at: http://www.sjcnc.org/news.aspx

Seems that video may be available later.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 19, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Jim,

Yeah, thanks, that’ll be added in the next update.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 19, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Albert Cipiani vs RGD (link is fine) But Albert is the Theist and it’s my understanding that the Atheist/Naturalist is listed first to avoid confusion for readers.

Australian Skeptics vs. Answers In Genesis (transcript) link is defunct.

Bob Higgs vs. Inquiretruth (transcript) link is defunct.

Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson – You offer two links for transcripts, one from 2007 and one from 2008. However, both are for the same “Is Christianity Good For The World” which is the book they co-authored. One is a pdf and the other is a site called ChristianityToday which appears to be a blog which reproduced the content of that debate and has it broken into a 5 pages. From what I can tell, this is exactly the same debate in two different links.

Christopher Hitchens vs. David Allen White – Brings you to Hugh Hewitt’s blog.

Christopher Hitchens & Others vs. Schmuley Boteach & Others transcript link is actually an audio link.

Earl Doherty is spelled Early Doherty in his debate against Brian Trafford.

Irwin Tessman vs. William Harris (transcript) link is defunct.

JustCallMeTarzan vs. InquireTruth (transcript) link is defunct.

JustCallMeTarzan vs. cto09 (transcript) link is defunct.

JustCallMeTarzan vs. Bthr004 (transcript) link is defunct.

JustCallMeTarzan vs. DiablosChaosBroker (Transcript) link is defunct.

Mogget vs. Joze14Rock (transcript) link is defunct.

Paul Willis vs. Carl Wieland link is in the transcript column but is in fact a video link.

Philosopher vs. InquireTruth (transcript) link is defunct.

Puck vs. DiablosChaosBroker (transcript) link is defunct.

RoyLatham vs. Vorxxox (transcript) link is defunct.

And remember, folks, Jason Gastrich is a tool.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 19, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Jake,

That is most excellent. I’ll fix everything that I can in the next update. Sucks that debate.com went down, and took all those debates with it.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 19, 2010 at 10:34 pm

Ah, I see that the debate.com debates are available at http://www.debate.org. However, I decided to take those off my list as they were the lowest quality on my list, anyway.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 19, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Samuel Tyler-Smith vs. Ray Comfort is listed under the transcript column but is in fact a video.

TheSkeptic vs. DiablosChaosBroker (transcript) link is defunct.

TheSkeptic vs. Mangani (transcript) link is defunct.

TheSkeptic vs. InquireTruth (transcript) link is defunct.

TheSkeptic vs. Blessed-Cheese-Maker (transcript) link is defunct.

Tholos vs. InquireTruth (transcript) link is defunct.

Tom Clark vs. Andrew Cohen is in the transcript column but is an audio file and it’s currently in two parts but those two parts are the same 30 min debate.

Once again, Jason Gastrich = Tool.

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 20, 2010 at 12:07 am

Christopher Hitchens vs. Dennis Prager audio link unavailable.

Dan Barker vs. Gene Cook audio link unavailable.

That’s all for tonight folks, and in case anyone forgot since the last time, Jason Gastrich is still a tool.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 20, 2010 at 4:39 am

Most excellent. Thanks, Jake.

  (Quote)

matt February 20, 2010 at 8:44 am

I just listened to the loftus-dsouza debate and as a consequence left the “william lane craig should debate john loftus” group at facebook. I don´t know what others here think, but I have never heard such terrible debating (loftus). dinesh d’souza is the most overrated and small-minded debater in the english speaking universe, as far as i´m concerned. his arguments are like cardboard cutout versions of anything william craig has to say, for one thing because he makes no effort to hide his cultural and ideological bigotry. (he actually claims with a straight face that christians invented empathy as a moral good. what an asshole.) loftus comes across as a well-meaning college student trying to argue with his professor. i don´t understand why there´s a “movement” to see him embarrass himself and atheism generally by publically confronting the Terminator of christian apologetics himself. soooo disappointing!

  (Quote)

matt February 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

speaking of embarrass, make that “publicly” :)

  (Quote)

Jim February 21, 2010 at 8:09 am

Bart Ehrman and Dinesh D’Souza debated “God and the Problem of Suffering” at UNC Chapel Hill on 10/7/09:
http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/debates/30-debate-at-unc-chapel-hill

Audio can be purchased at:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Problem-Suffering-Dinesh-Dsouza/dp/B002Y50K3G/ ($4.95)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/god-problem-suffering-dinesh-dsouza/id341794229 ($9.99)

  (Quote)

Jim February 21, 2010 at 8:16 am

Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells discussed “Evolution and Intelligent Design” in 2005.

Tanscript at http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2933961.html

Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvPv3ANwAhg

  (Quote)

Jim February 21, 2010 at 8:27 am
lukeprog February 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Thanks, Jim! I’ll add it in the next round.

  (Quote)

Jim February 21, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Audio of a 52-minute conversation between Richard Dawkins & John Lennox at Trinity College, Oxford in April 2008 (previously submitted by Alex G on 6-16-09):
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2834 (free streaming)

Also available for purchase:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/richard-dawkins-john-lennox-an/id341820833 ($9.99)
http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox-Interview/dp/B002Y4WW06/ ($3.96)

  (Quote)

matt February 22, 2010 at 6:53 am

hi there,

for some reason the link to the meyer-ruse debate a few posts above this one isn´t working. any suggestions?

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 22, 2010 at 7:06 am

matt,

Wait for my next update. My links will work. :)

  (Quote)

Jim February 22, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Video of entire “The God Delusion Debate” with Richard Dawkins & John Lennox held in Birmingham, AL on 10/3/07 can be streamed online at:
http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

  (Quote)

Jim February 24, 2010 at 6:26 am

Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World (10/11/07)
Christopher Hitchens & Alister McGrath

Transcript in MS Word at:
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20080107_PoisonorCureTranscript.doc

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 24, 2010 at 11:15 am

Wow. Jim’s on a fucking roll. Where are you coming up with all these transcripts, friend?

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 24, 2010 at 11:43 am

Me likey.

  (Quote)

Jim February 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm

I’ve been a big fan of atheism/theism and evolution/ID debates for years, but I only recently discovered this superb compilation. Outstanding work, Luke.

I’m not sure if I have (m)any more additions, but I’ll submit them pronto if/when they occur to me.

Note: If I were more bold, I suggest that you add a column with the title of each, but that seems like too much work. Plus, I’m not that bold. :~)

Thanks again for maintaining such a terrific list, Luke.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm

Jim,

Some debates don’t really have titles, and I’m having a hard enough time having space for as many columns as I do, anyway. :)

  (Quote)

Jim February 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm

I just learned about this — webcast on Friday, 2/26 from 7:00 to 9:30 pm (PT) with James Corbett v. Sean McDowell debating “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” http://www.conversantlife.com/debate

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Nice. Thanks for the link, Jim.

  (Quote)

Jim February 25, 2010 at 4:51 pm

“Controversies in Science: In the Beginning – Explanations from Science and Religion” from late 2009 with Francisco Ayala & Eugenie Scott vs. Denis Lamoureux (an evolutionary creationist).

Video at: http://www.wosu.org/collaborative/?date=11/04/2009

Not much of a debate, more of a tame PBS panel discussion. Don’t watch this while operating heavy equipment….

  (Quote)

Cafeeine February 25, 2010 at 8:56 pm

  (Quote)

Jim February 26, 2010 at 8:21 am

Same audio posted for both Shermer v. Lennox debates.

I’m aware of only one Shermer-Lennox debate — Australia in 8/2008. Or did I miss one?

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 26, 2010 at 9:59 am

matt: I just listened to the loftus-dsouza debate and as a consequence left the “william lane craig should debate john loftus” group at facebook. I don´t know what others here think, but I have never heard such terrible debating (loftus). dinesh d’souza is the most overrated and small-minded debater in the english speaking universe, as far as i´m concerned. his arguments are like cardboard cutout versions of anything william craig has to say, for one thing because he makes no effort to hide his cultural and ideological bigotry. (he actually claims with a straight face that christians invented empathy as a moral good. what an asshole.) loftus comes across as a well-meaning college student trying to argue with his professor. i don´t understand why there´s a “movement” to see him embarrass himself and atheism generally by publically confronting the Terminator of christian apologetics himself. soooo disappointing!  

As entirely disappointing as it is to say this, I am in complete agreement with Matt. I am unwilling, after listening to this, to cast my name in the vote for Loftus to debate Mr. Craig. Naively, I was hoping, especially after becoming aware of the fervent almost zealous nature of Loftus’ pursuit of Craig, that this would not only be the introduction of a worthy gun-slinging atheist debate protagonist but that if this epic showdown took place, it would have the added poetry of it being the student who is finally able to best the theistic Samurai. Like I said; Naive.

Typically, I don’t criticize without visiting some of the reasons for my criticism.

1) There are several “themes” Loftus runs with in this debate, they continually come up ineffectively and provide nothing of real substance. He opens up with one; essentially telling everyone that Dinesh is just brainwashed. Which, although true, isn’t something that couldn’t be slung right back at him as we all know theists to do as they believe we don’t believe because we don’t want culpability moral or otherwise, so therefore, we’ve brainwashed ourselves into disbelief. Fortunately, Dinesh doesn’t pick up this thread and engage Loftus in playing a sort of merry-go-round styled “No, you’re the brainwashed one..” “No, you are..” “No, YOU are..”.

2) Another theme is his constant return to “Well all the sect’s of these religions critique each other and they’re all right, effectively eliminating religion in front of our very eyes.” This is repeated quite frequently in this debate and I’m sure I’ll have more to say about it later.

3) I was inconceivably shocked with his statement “History is all in the mind”. He quickly tried to cover his tracks by following that up with something like “…well, that’s what some philosophers of history say, anyway.” His reasoning, as it could be inferred from what he said just prior to this utterance, was basically that history writers can only write from their perspective so given what may be of that perspective, they may have rationale for remaining skeptical of something that actually happened. Yikes.

4)Generally, about his opening remarks, he is just all over the place. There is no introduction of his arguments he just shifts left and talks about Quantum fluctuation rendering the singularity at the inception of our universe not likely therefore removing the “beginning of the universe” theory out of the Christian’s favor then all of a sudden he shifts right and now we’re talking about Jesus not delivering his scriptural message well and thereby is responsible for all the religious wars in his name then if there is God, he’s to blame for the tsunami’s. Loftus, the opening statement is the only time you have to not scramble about trying to address all of your antagonist’s remarks. You should have complete lucidity at this point in the game. Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e.g.

“Ok, our first batter up on the atheist lineup is going to be the evidential argument from evil, it goes like this:
1) If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God..”

“Our next argument is a quick rejoinder to the First Cause argument, which is something like this:
1) Everything that begins to exist..”

Instead of touching briefly on all of them, narrow your selection down to a few and expound on them in greater detail leaving Dinesh to either spend a huge chunk of his time rebutting you or, should he chose not to, being able in your first rebuttal to say “Hey, remember that huge argument of the problem of evil… looks like Dinesh agrees with me as he apparently has no reply.”

5) Loftus, at a few points in the debate calls Dinesh something which must have been new to his huge ears: Charming. Dinesh D’souza is not charming. He is an arrogant, unsophisticated, misleading to the point of purposefully deceiving bucket of fuck. He is good at appearing to have a legit reply to atheistic arguments which are so transparently fraught with specious reasoning and argumentative fallacies that they render him ineligible to be charming.

6) I’ve actually taken the trouble to transcribe the next part because I didn’t think people would believe me when I said “I bet I could find the worst conceivable argument for the atheistic creation-scenario.” This was in response to, and was in fact introduced as such by Loftus himself as, “Now, Dinesh has asked me to give an account of the creation of the universe.”

“…even though I’m not a scientist, what I do know, is that scientist’s all agree that there was no cosmic singularity. Now I can’t do the math. Uhh, I can not do Victor Stenger’s math. He has done the math. Uhh, ::clears throat:: But, he says, given the laws of nature, it’s a 60% chance that something should have happened, something should be there, something should exist. 60%. Given the laws of nature.”

Yep. Word for word. You can hear this enlightening account of our origins at the 41:28 point. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

7) Loftus closing, opens with this gem: “I guess things got heated a little bit.. but, uh, it’s you know, it doesn’t have to be but it does.” Illuminating. Loftus then spends more then his first minute of his five minute closing telling everyone that the real way to learn is from the books. I must say, I would feel a bit slapped in the face as someone who I’ve paid to listen to tell me I should pay, instead, to read him. I’m not saying he’s wrong. You can certainly learn more from a 300 page dissection of theism then what collectively amounts to 35 or 40 minutes worth of lectures, but to use that time so inefficiently is irritating. How about using that time to effectively rebut one of Dinesh’s arguments? Or constructing one of your own against Christianity? A task you’ve been flown in and paid to do. He then spends the rest of his closing telling everyone they should just be agnostic because they’re agnostic/atheistic towards every other religion so basically, just be consistent. Have you read any other religions? No? Then you should just discard yours too. “…we deny scientology, we deny mormons, we deny muslims…” I’m sorry, maybe I’m being unfairly critical but who the hell has ever been converted after being told that line? Who, after being made to realize that they haven’t given fair intellectual treatment to greek mythology, has right then and there renounced Christ for good?

Loftus and D’souza were very generous and permitted almost another hour of questioning following there closings.

Before I submit this rather harsh review of Loftus’ debating skills, I have to say, as I believe I’ve stated before, “Why I Became An Atheist” was one of the best, most helpful books I read in the atheistic/agnostic/naturalist cannon of probably 20-30 books I’ve read in the past 2 or 3 years. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Notes for future thoughts and arguments poured out of me while reading that book and I recommend and cite it in my own writing quite often. So maybe my resentment is as a result of placing so much FAITH in Mr Loftus as an author that I unfairly expected too much of him as a neophyte debater.

I do, with the utmost sincerity hope, that if you are reading this Mr Loftus (as I know you frequent this site) you take some note of how this looks to your fellow nonbeliever’s. We’re relying on you, as one of the few out there headlining debates on our behalf. You know the crowd of people at your back are of an intellectual breed and as such, we demand the highest caliber arguments be offered in our defense. You clearly display a great deal of passion for these topics and I’m hoping I can count on that to have you take better care to prepare your thoughts in the future. As well as to focus your arguments and speak with more clarity and precision. Look at your former mentor. He doesn’t race through his speeches. He has a calm, very collected vibe and hardly repeats the same thing in a single debate whereas, a lot of what you said, you said in almost the same wording in multiple places (i.e. the religion cancels each other out argument).

Best,
J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 26, 2010 at 10:29 am

Jim,

Oops, you’re right, thanks.

  (Quote)

Jim February 26, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Three more evolution vs. ID debates.

Niall Shanks vs. Paul Nelson
Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? 9/5/05
http://www.justicetalking.org/ShowPage.aspx?ShowID=506 (streaming audio & MP3)

Eugenie Scott vs. David DeWolf
Creationism v. Evolution: Will Religion or Science Prevail? 3/28/01
http://www.justicetalking.org/ShowPage.aspx?ShowID=135 (streaming audio only)

Eugenie Scott vs. William Dembski
Darwin Under the Microscope: Questioning Darwinism 12/7/01
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/3004521.html (transcript only)

  (Quote)

lukeprog February 26, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Jim,

You are muchawesomeo.

  (Quote)

Jim February 27, 2010 at 6:18 am

MP3 of webcast debate with James Corbett v. Sean McDowell “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” now at: http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/02/sean-mcdowell-vs-james-corbett-debate.html

I suspect that a video of the debate may be added at: http://vimeo.com/user1640990/videos

Note: I didn’t watch the debate (but I may listen to it next week), so I can’t comment on it.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer February 27, 2010 at 9:50 am

Suggestion for Jim’s new monikor:

DebateFindingWizard

J.

  (Quote)

matt March 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Postscript on Loftus/Dsouza: I absolutely agree about Dsouza being anything–anything!–but charming. I just listened to one of the Hitchens debates and it made me yearn for the good old days before Hitchens became a warmongering liar. He completely liquifies Dsouza´s many half-assed fallacies and historical falsifications. (I guess it takes one to know one…) Dsouza´s insistence on calling all the Stalinist regimes throughout the 20th Century “atheist” is really the rhetorical equivalent of a witch hunt. It´s like calling all homosexuals Godless perverts or for that matter all liberal Democrats egalitarian Deists. One of the thing I find most interesting about these debates is the way politics keeps popping up in unpredictable ways. Harris for instance is an Islamophobe of the first order, as far as I can tell. I think Hedges is right to call the New Atheists reductionist fundamentalists of a kind; and so on. I don´t know where John Loftus stands politically, but I suspect he´s quite a bit to the right of, say, me, or of the person formally known as Christopher Hitchens. Metaphysics makes strange bedfellows, I guess…

As for Loftus and public debating, I´m a performer myself (a musician) and I think he´d be well advised to focus on what he does well, which is writing, and leave the public spectacle to people who have a talent for it. Becoming the Rocky Balboa of anti-apologetics is just not worth that much energy. I look forward to reading his book some time, though.

  (Quote)

Jim March 2, 2010 at 7:54 am

The UK Premier Christian Radio program “Unbelievable?” has posted > 140 MP3s, and most are atheism/theism and evolution/ID debates: http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx

A number of “Unbelievable?” debates are currently listed above, but there are many others, and new programs are posted each week. Here’s a new one that looks promising: on 2/20/10 Michael Shermer and David Robertson debated “Is Christianity good for us?”

On the plus side, the host generally does an admirable job selecting the debaters and facilitating the debates.

On the minus side, each episode of “Unbelievable?” is 2 hours, yet the debate typically comprises only about 1/2 of the program due to announcements, etc. E.g., a 67-minute edited version of the Peter Hearty vs. Peter S. Williams debate “Darwinism vs. Design” from 2006 is available at: http://www.damaris.org/cm/rss/podcasts/peterswilliams.xml

[Note: The above feed also includes edited versions of Williams' "Unbelievable?" debates with Nick Pandolfi (starts at 16:58), Peter Cave, and David Vernon.]

Listening to all the “Unbelievable?” debates, selecting the best ones, then editing out the announcements seems like so much work. Any suggestions?

  (Quote)

Jim March 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Video of the recent of debate with James Corbett v. Sean McDowell “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” has been posted in 2 parts:
http://vimeo.com/9858218
http://vimeo.com/9859446

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Thanks, Jim. I do try to put all the Unbelievable debates on there as they come (with some delay, of course), and remember that many of these episodes either do not feature a debate, or else the debate is between two religious people.

  (Quote)

Jim March 4, 2010 at 5:27 am

Updates for Ayala vs. Craig debate “Intelligent Design: Is It Viable?”
– debate was held 11/5/2009
– video in 4 parts at: http://vimeo.com/7984460 http://vimeo.com/7973106 http://vimeo.com/7973014 http://vimeo.com/8066919

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 4, 2010 at 5:48 am

Jim is da man!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer March 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm

I have a few random thoughts/questions directed towards anyone interested in reading or replying.

We’ve spent a lot of time over the past few months lamenting the absence of a skilled atheist debater. While I certainly agree with that sentiment, I’m wondering who, in the opinions of those reading, do you think are the best atheist live (performance) debaters out there?

I’ve listened to nearly all of the audio debates, and most of the video debates on this site and, in my opinion, I would nominate:

1) Eddie Tabash
2) Austin Dacey
3) Arif Ahmed

I’ve only heard the men listed below debate once, but based on that performance I think they deserve mention:

Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Jeffrey Shallit, Keith Parsons, Paul Draper, Ray Bradley, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Who, in the opinion of those reading this, am I missing? Or, conversely, who should not be listed as a moderately skilled debater?

I was rather disappointed with the performance of Jim Corbitt in his debate with Sean McDowell especially because I thought he did quite well in his performance with Phil Fernandes. Who, incidentally, has a voice that makes you want to bake your head in an oven just to melt your ears off and never hear anything again. Jim was clearly not engaged in the conversation. He surrendered his time twice, he refused to rebut the answers McDowell gave to some questions, he used up far less of his speaking time than he had during his opening and first rebuttal speeches and ironically, used the first half of his cross examination period to argue his own point rather than drill McDowell on anything. McDowell and even the moderator reminded him that this was the cross period, but Jim just blazed through there interruptions unphased, finished his tirade and concluded with “…so, yea, why don’t you just respond to that.” Yikes. I think McDowell did incredibly well in that debate and would like to find more of his material. Which brings me to my last debate-related thought.

Atheist’s need to stop debating theist’s on objective morality. Argue about whether evolution can provide a feasible morality, sure. Argue about whether or not we can extract a moral life from the Bible, absolutely. But not whether or not objective morality exists. It’s just embarrassing. Do objective moral values exist? Maybe. Can atheist’s articulate a naturalistic objective moral value system as well or even nearly as well as theist’s can in a 5 minute period convincingly and to a lay audience? No. Fucking. Way. Choose another topic, boys.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Jake,

Yeah, I roughly agree with your assessment.

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 5, 2010 at 7:49 pm

Craig explaining why the God hypothesis offers no predictions and is therefore untestable, from his second debate with Dacey: “How can we predict with any confidence what God would do if he existed? If we find that our expectations aren’t met, then isn’t it the better part of discretion and humility to re-examine and perhaps revise those expectations?”

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer March 6, 2010 at 1:57 am

Craig has a unique talent and it’s one which I’m almost envious of. That is his crafty ability to hermetically seal himself inside a Jesus bubble where he remains impervious to the criticisms of honest, consistent, impartial observation (e.g. Dacey in this case). He has an almost reptilian capacity for evading the firm grasp of reason. His atheist opponents helplessly bare witness while he slithers between their fingers with smugly delivered quotes like the one in mention. It’s devastatingly effective to the audience and his paternal, half-smirk delivery makes it appear as though that were such a self-evident truth, like “Of course, we should just revise our expectations. I mean, Hello? What are we going to just conclude there is no God because he has in no way matched up with what a just, caring, involved God should be? That’s clearly ridiculous.” That is, in my opinion, one of the less mentioned but very significant distinctions between Craig and his opponents: his delivery. He has a way of taking the most backward and bizarre claims about reality (“God doesn’t send people to hell, people send themselves to hell”, “Yes, God commanded genocide, but you have to understand, those sodomites weren’t just bad, they were really bad meanie heads with doodoo breath”)and making them seem as though you’d have to be daft to see it differently. We need combatants who are more deftly prepared to expose the man being the curtain.

On a semi-related note; The paragraph below was authored by a frequent commenter on this site. I liked this little passage so much when I read it that I copied it into my facebook “info” page. I thought I copied the author’s name, but I didn’t (I want to say it was “justfinethanks” but I may be mistaken). Anyway, I think it is a brilliant summary of what it is like to deal with that slippery nature of the theists reply to biblical literalism. There’s such an obvious deception, even self-deception about answers like this that it’s almost painful to witness.

“It was a smart move on God’s part to make all the parts of the Bible that could render Christianity incoherent and/or demonstrably false mere “metaphor” (like Genesis, “burning” in hell, some of the more insane images in Revelation.) Otherwise, Christianity might appear to objective observers like a jumbled mass of absurdities kept aloft by a tangled network of ad hoc rationalizations.”

J.

  (Quote)

matt March 6, 2010 at 10:54 am

to my mind the problem with most of these debates (esp. the craig ones) is their overly large scope in a too-short time period. what makes craig brilliant is not just his delivery, but his use of debate time. it´s almost clairvoyant how he seems to magically reach the end of his ALL his arguments just as the little bell tingles. he never, ever wastes time or runs out before he´s said what he wants to say. he always addresses almost all his opponents points, even if his arguments are usually stupid or fallacious or just plain wrong, and i actually think he comes across as a pretty decent fellow. try being a professional debate wrestler and not resorting to tricks and sophistry once in a while…

eddie tabash didn’t impress me very much. i wish jeffrey jay lowder would debate craig, or else pz meyers vs. stephen meyer on ID. maybe we should start placing bets?

  (Quote)

Quaunta March 8, 2010 at 5:48 pm

You know I just don’t get why Atheist get so @%^&& satirical using foul and four letters to say less and less about their ability to speak without putting off all who read their remarks without bias but not without profanity.
Good show wow are you ever getting your point across.

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 8, 2010 at 8:43 pm

Lol, chill.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer March 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Quaunta: You know I just don’t get why Atheist get so @%^&& satirical using foul and four letters to say less and less about their ability to speak without putting off all who read their remarks without bias but not without profanity.
Good show wow are you ever getting your point across.  

What the fuck are you on about?

  (Quote)

Zeb March 12, 2010 at 7:52 am

I am really happy to have found this site and was excited about this list of debates in particular, but since most of the comments here are critiquing performance rather than content, and since most of the commenters seem to be athiests who acknowledge that (at least some of the) theists usually win their debates and yet the listeners remain confidently atheist, I have to ask is there any reason other than entertainment to spend time on with these debates?

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 12, 2010 at 8:18 am

Zeb,

They opening presentations are often a succinct summary of major arguments and approaches, but then the rest is mostly entertainment. :)

  (Quote)

matt March 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Zeb,

here’s my take.

…because when the give and take is of a high quality, it’s still interesting as hell to listen to, even if the theist “wins” rhetorically (or for that matter on logic). it’s no different in that sense than reading writers who critique each other’s work. besides that, i keep hoping somebody will finally knock craig et al out of the ring, so to speak. i find it especially fascinating that people i disagree with so fundamentally can present their case so convincingly (and i find it fascinating to think about what makes a convincing case in the first place, that is, to locate the fault lines between “performance” and “content”. to my mind, this is no obvious question. for instance, i’d glady watch somebody debate david irving about the gas chambers at auschwitz, even though his ideas are even crazier than william lane craig’s….)

having said all that, it’s a sport, too, and it’s addictive.

  (Quote)

BJ Marshall March 16, 2010 at 12:09 pm

I have a suggestion for your consideration. I think it would be awesome if you could create an RSS feed for new audio debates you post. Is this this something you’d consider doing?

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 16, 2010 at 12:17 pm

Hmmmm… that’s kind of a good idea. Let me think about how much work that would be.

  (Quote)

Zak March 20, 2010 at 10:27 am

Here are 4 of the 5 parts of the Ehrman vs D’souza debate on suffering (I am missing D’souza’s opening statement).

They are just mp3 files… enjoy!

http://rapidshare.com/files/365941720/Ehrman_VS_D_souza.zip.html

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 20, 2010 at 12:35 pm

Thanks, Zak, but I don’t want to post partial debates.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer March 22, 2010 at 8:02 pm

I generally try to download all of the video debates from youtube and google video but several (of the new ones) are from CSPAN or other sources. Does anyone know how to download those as well? I appreciate any help.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 22, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Try some combination of URL Snooper and Orbit Downloader.

  (Quote)

Fred March 24, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Jake: “Who, in the opinion of those reading this, am I missing?”
You are missing Bart Ehrman.

The problem I see with the atheists who have debated Craig is that they tend to have (at most) one area of expertise: philosophy or science or biblical scholarship. Craig is not a polymath, but he is expert in the portions of each of these disciplines that pertain to the existence of God and defense of the resurrection. Ehrman beat him by restricting the debate to his own particular forte: which is his expertise in Bible scholarship and textual criticism.

  (Quote)

Majesty March 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm

Haha Sherman already got smashed in the debate with that biblical historian (I forgot his name). This “mini” debate was held on the show “Faith Under Fire” hosted by Lee Strobel. Ever since I seen it, I know longer hold Sherman as a credibile candidate in ANY debate, let alone with WLC.

  (Quote)

Marky April 3, 2010 at 4:36 am

Fantastic compilation.These will keep me busy for quite awhile. It would be awesome if some kind of rating system was implemented.

  (Quote)

Dan April 5, 2010 at 6:17 am

C-SPAN has released their video archive online, so I have a video update to an already existing debate you’ve listed with only an audio link.

It’s Alan Dershowitz vs Alan Keyes from Sep 27th 2000.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/159474-1

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 5, 2010 at 10:50 am

Thanks, Dan!

  (Quote)

Michelle April 5, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Hey Luke,
I greatly appreciate this list of debates and your comments/reviews on the Craig debates are very useful when I am considering watching/reading/listening them. Thank you so much for putting this together. However, I would really like it if there was a section of the site dedicated to debates where atheists win, I mean actually win. I know these may not exist in the case of William Lane Craig, but there must be some otherwise. Is there any way you could mark them or compile a list of debates where we win? It’s frankly disheartening to watch so many debates where atheists just get virtually annihilated. I don’t know how to find the good ones! Also, are there any debates with women or minorities? This is also disheartening.
Thanks,
Michelle

PS- I apologize if this is a ridiculous request.

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 5, 2010 at 7:45 pm

Michelle,

Ha! Those are interesting suggestions.

The atheists usually win the debates about creationism or intelligent design. They win lots of the other debates, too, I just haven’t hard most of these. Perhaps others can chime in. As for women and minorities… yeah, slim pickings, there.

  (Quote)

RA April 7, 2010 at 10:56 am

Michelle,

I was interested to see how a woman would debate and listened to Louise Antony just yesterday and thought she was very good against WLC. I’d definitely recommend you listen to that one. She was really good.

The only minority I’ve heard is Arif Ahmed who has a good approach and performs pretty well. He’s worth listening to.

For a clear winner, you can listen to Dan Barker against Todd Friel or Kyle Butt. But those are pretty painful because they are evangelicals and have a crowd cheering every stupid argument. The dumber the argument, the louder they cheer.

Shelly Kagan also gave WLC a real run for his money. Lots of people thought he had a better argument than WLC.

Those are some to get you started.

  (Quote)

RA April 7, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Another minority is Hector Avalos. He gets a little carried away in his debate with WLC and makes a jerk of himself, but I learned some things I didn’t know.

As an added note, I see Luke rated Antony as ugly in his scoring of her debate. I didn’t listen to WLC so he might have slaughtered her for all I know. But I thought she made a nice argument for atheistic morals. You can judge for yourself who had the better argument if not the better debating skills.

  (Quote)

Michelle April 7, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Thanks so much RA! I will definitely look at those. I just want to see something that goes as well for us as the intelligence squared debate on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world…not that that was really a fair match, but one place where I think Hitchens actually does a good job.
PS- does anyone think Craig’s comment in the Dacey-Craig debate about having a hotter wife was totally inappropriate, tasteless and sexist, or am I being oversensitive?

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Just a heads up for a possible addition to this list, I will be attending this one tonight:

http://www.thegreatdebate.me/

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Crap, I missed the event. Did here anyone record the audio?

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 15, 2010 at 7:23 pm

I just got back from the event. I got to meet Dr. Ehrman. He is a pretty nice guy. He signed my book and posed for a picture. He even offered to stand up for the picture

The crowd was about 60/40 theist; most of which were Christian and the remaining Messianic Jews.

The question:

Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to the Problem of Suffering?

Dr. Ehrman started off “whining” about God. He touched on Job, and some other Biblical stories. I thought this debate was going to be rough for the atheist side. However, Dr. Ehrman finally got around to his point.

He highlighted some of the inconsistencies in the Bible w.r.t. the message of suffering. On one point, the Bible promotes that suffering is caused by God and that it has a purpose. On another, suffering isn’t caused by God, it is by man. In one section, only the wicked shall suffer, and the righteous and innocent will be saved by God, but this isn’t the case in all of the Bible nor is it today. God intervenes in the OT, but why not today? There is no clear answer to suffering in the Bible because it was written by many different authors with different POVs.

I am going off of memory, but I think that’s the gist of it.

Dr. Brown made the usual theistic arguments: we can’t possibly know what God has planned, we have no place to tell God what’s correct, with God and an afterlife, all suffering has a purpose, and under atheism, there is no reason to care about suffering. I’ll have to give the nod to the Dr. Brown for the opening section. He got to the point and kept it there, Dr. Ehrman took his time and rubbed us the wrong way from the start; that is to say, it took awhile for me to NOT see a whining atheist.

However, Dr. Ehrman did say one thing in closing that made the atheist crowd w00t. He told Dr. Brown that as an agnostic, he cherishes this life more than he ever had during his Christian years because this is the only life he has got.

I think Dr. Ehrman cleaned up during the cross examination and the question session. Dr. Ehrman pressed him on the contradictions of suffering in the Bible. Dr. Brown didn’t provide a direct answer. Dr. Ehrman asked him about the doctrine of hell, in particular, does he believe it is a place of brimstone and that one should be punished eternally for a finite crime. Dr. Brown, having confirmed the veracity of the Bible earlier, says that he can’t fully accept revelation because it is a apocalyptic writing. (LOL, get out your cherry pickers) However, w/e punishment God gives is just. I’m sorry, but I think he should stick to his guns and say yes, it is brimstone and I am ok with it. Interestingly enough, the Christians in the audience didn’t seem to pleased with the brimstone passage, but the heads started shaking once he said “but God is just in his choice”

Dr. Brown essentially appealed to our emotions and consequences. He asked Dr. Ehrman, what would you say to a man that (insert horrible experience here). Dr. Ehrman told him that he would grieve with said person because that’s all he can do. He rejects a “cheap” and “unhelpful” answer. As an example, he says that during his father’s illness, I think he died, he was made more miserable by prayer. Most notably because God wasn’t going to heal him and he could not accept that his suffering had a purpose. Dr. Brown countered with: “well your mother did not lose her faith. You see Dr. Ehrman, this is a not “cheap” that sent the Christian crowd in an uproar. Dr. Ehrman shook his head and the session ended.

The most interesting exchange was an oldie by Christopher Hitchens. Someone asked Dr. Brown: “Name one moral action…” you know the rest.

Dr. Brown: Well that’s a popular question used by Christopher Hitchens. When I first heard it, I made a long list of sacrifices a Christian could make and….

Dr. Ehrman: *straightens up and looks at Dr. Brown* Name one.

Dr. Brown: “hmm?”

Dr. Ehrman: Name one action.

Dr. Brown: We can have a dialogue about this all night.

Dr. Ehrman: name on action.

Dr. Brown: *couldn’t hear*

Dr. Ehrman: Name one.

At this point the atheist crowd laughs and claps really hard, louder than any other time during the debate.

Dr. Brown: Well…*something something something* You couldn’t get down on your knees and pray to God for me…

The theist thought they had won, but you could hear many atheist say “that isn’t a moral action” However, Dr. Ehrman didn’t respond like I wish he had. He just said: “I hope one day you can see the truth”

The closings were decent. Dr. Ehrman’s was good and rehashed his arguments. It was good better than the opening. Dr. Brown continued to press the emotional keys. He drove it home by quoting Dr. Ehrman’s book. He read something to the tune of: “And I [Dr. Ehrman] have no one to thank for my success. It’s an emptiness inside of me. Sometimes I wake up in cold sweats…”

All in all, was fun to be a part of.

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 15, 2010 at 7:36 pm

Oh and the Objective Morals bit came up 4 times in the question session.

“How can you [Dr. Ehrman] tell us what’s good and bad without God”

This was asked 4 different ways.

Ehrman responded with:

I have a concept of good and evil as do many others. Mine, in a short summarized version is based on the intent of harm and helpfulness to society.

Even with God as the solution, the evidence shows that our moral facilities do not improve. He gave examples of the history of the Western world.

Well which objective source? Please demonstrate which source is the right one.

Many Christians overlook the other moral stories, including Dr. Brown. What about stoning your misbehaving children etc.

—-

Anyway, I hope I didn’t slaughter any of their arguments ;)

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 15, 2010 at 7:54 pm

Haha,

Thanks for the report.

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 16, 2010 at 4:22 am

Also found another debate between Hitchens and Dsouza at Notre Dame.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/09/christopher-hitchens-turns-down-the-heat-at-notre-dame/

The video:

http://streaming.nd.edu/philrel/debate.wmv

Apparently they have been debating together at other schools. Notice they were at University of Florida:

http://wisb.blogspot.com/2010/04/hitchens-vs-dsouza-interesting-debate.html

  (Quote)

lukeprog April 16, 2010 at 5:38 am

Thanks.

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 17, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Hitchens wiped the floor with D’souza lol.

I would say that Hitchens just needed to show up, D’souza just makes himself look silly.

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 18, 2010 at 4:04 pm

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 18, 2010 at 4:21 pm

haha looking back I see some of my summary was off :)

  (Quote)

Peter Griffin April 30, 2010 at 12:47 pm

There was a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox tonight which I’ve been told will be available on John Lennox’s website tomorrow.

  (Quote)

Dan May 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm

I see two comments linking to specific debates on the site… but the site is FILLED with debate audio!

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/

Just look at the menu on there, there’s TONS of debates. I found this link which lits all posts tagged with the word “debate”

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/search/label/debate

Kind of a gold mine of debate media!

  (Quote)

Stig May 12, 2010 at 4:20 am

You might want to include the Dawkins vs Poole written exchange from 1994-96 on the list. It is interesting because Poole brings up the point that the God Dawkins had been arguing against (in The Blind Watchmaker, for example) is placed within a naturalistic framework, as coming into being, and therefore irrelevant to most theists. As far as I can see this is the same point Erik Wielenberg makes against Dawkins’ “ultimate” argument, but a decade BEFORE The God Delusion!

Dawkins’ response didn’t impress me; he seemed incapable of even contemplating a worldview where theism, not scientific naturalism, is foundational.

Links:
http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/dawkins [scroll to bottom]
http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion/poole_dawkins.html [plain text]

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer May 19, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Luke

What happened to all the updates you added a few days before the crash? Are they making a reappearance soon?

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 20, 2010 at 12:34 am

Jake,

There you go.

  (Quote)

Gregory McElvy May 24, 2010 at 11:01 am

Will there be an audio of the Price/White debate that just took place in Florida? I read a review that narrowly awarded the debate to Price. This was a Catholic website that had apparently not heard of the Bible Geek. One of their posters referred to him as a “lightweight” but was appropriately admonished by another poster who listed some of Price’s writings and background. But its like no one recorded it.

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Gregory McElvy,

It wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t recorded. Very, very few of these debates are recorded, let alone released to the web.

  (Quote)

GeneralTHC May 28, 2010 at 5:34 am

I still say Ehrman destroyed WLC. And as far as the Brown and Evans debates… forget about it. Hell, Ehrman puts on such ass kickings I’d order ‘em on PPV.

  (Quote)

Tommy Bolero May 28, 2010 at 6:14 am

Great FUCKING site! Keep up the good work my man! LOVE THIS STUFF!!

  (Quote)

Muto June 2, 2010 at 8:11 am

Dan Barker/Paul Manata link is not working for me.

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Will fix in the net update. Here’s the link for now:

http://www.archive.org/details/atheism_theism_debate

  (Quote)

Muto June 3, 2010 at 5:05 am

Thanks,
Whoa Paul Manata’s presuppositionalism makes me aggressive. These arguments about logical absolutes are so badly convoluted…

  (Quote)

Majesty June 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm

As far as the Craig/Erhman debate goes, is there a Q/A or cross examination period during the debate? I could be mistaken but i didn’t see it.

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 3, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Majesty,

It’s in the PDF, anyway.

  (Quote)

doubtingchristian June 6, 2010 at 7:57 am

I also think Ehrman soundly defeated Craig. I think this fact might be lost on people who don’t know much about New Testament studies, Christian origins or the methods of Biblical scholarship. However as someone who has a decent grasp of that field, albeit not professionally, I still find Ehrman put Craig on the spot a number of times. Craig just didn’t know how to respond to Ehrman keeping the debate soundly within the realm of the historical method. I’ve listened to the debate twice now because I find Craig to be quite arrogant and I just love hearing him put into a place where he wasn’t as confident as he usually is.

  (Quote)

DoAtheistsExist? June 8, 2010 at 4:57 am

I just listened to the Barker-Wilson debate and I absolutely loved it, it was really action packed and fun to listen to. Man, doug wilson is so witty he had me laughing most of the way through the debate!!
But on a serious note I thought that Wilson clearly won this one and this is the first debate I’d heard using a presuppositionalist method so it was really interesting. Barker just absolutely did NOT give an account for logic, truth, beauty and morality on atheism which is basically all he had to in order to make Wilson’s whole argument defunct. Obviously, though, easier said than done. However, his strategy seemed to be to just through out as many objections to theism/Christianity out in his opening statement and hope that Wilson wouldn’t have time to respond.

What did you guys think of that debate? Also what do you think of the Stein-Bahsen debate? I haven’t seen that but apparently it was a crushign victory for Bahnsen.

  (Quote)

KT45 June 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Richard Carrier’s second debate with Licona is now avaliable here

http://bit.ly/Apologetics315-Debate2LiconaCarrier

  (Quote)

GeneralTHC June 13, 2010 at 3:10 am

I can’t stand to hear that presuppositional nonsense. There is no way I can take it seriously. I think Horner is about the only one that’s ever got the best of Barker. Plus, those are some old debates. Actually I think Barker is about the best we have. It’s a shame he is such a nice guy though. IMO, he needs to take a page out of Hitchens book and add invective to his repertoire. I mean just be brutal.

  (Quote)

Andrew Ray Gorman June 13, 2010 at 12:55 pm

The Hitchens vs Craig debate dvd link needs to be fixed, due to its site’s update.

http://www.doesgodexistdebate.com/craig-hitchens-does-god-exist-debate.php

Loving this amazing collection!

  (Quote)

lukeprog June 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm

Thanks, Andrew Ray Gorman.

  (Quote)

Runa June 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

There’s a great one at debate.livingdeadman.org

  (Quote)

Timo June 25, 2010 at 10:59 am

“But on a serious note I thought that Wilson clearly won this one and this is the first debate I’d heard using a presuppositionalist method so it was really interesting. Barker just absolutely did NOT give an account for logic, truth, beauty and morality on atheism which is basically all he had to in order to make Wilson’s whole argument defunct.”

I disagree. Wilson never even attempted to demonstrate that logic, truth, morality etc can only be properly grounded on God. He was arguing by assertion. And it’s not as if his assertion is at all obvious, even on theism (for more on that, you might want to check Luke’s conversation with David McNaughton, which mostly deals with why grounding morality specifically in God is problematic). Furthermore, Barker did attempt to make an argument for why the laws of logic and moral truths cannot be grounded in God.

Still, while some of those crosses got kind of silly, I thought Barker did a decent job here. But what I’d love to see is someone like Arif Ahmed or Stephen Law take down this presuppositional nonsense. I’d like to see them do more debates in general.

  (Quote)

jesus July 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm

This is great thank you for an amazing site. Does anyone know how to be informed or to attend a debate?

  (Quote)

kamana kapu July 4, 2010 at 7:36 pm

I can’t understand what there is to debate about. Religion is a product of language and cannot exist without language. Language is an invention and, therefore, artificial, unnatural and unreal. Everything created by or through the use of language must. likewise, be artificial, unnatural and unreal. Language (speech) cannot produce anything real, substantial, organic or natural.

According to the ancient Sherpa-Tibetian female folklore the human female developed language hundreds of millions of years ago but never created such things as gods, devils, angels or miracles because such things were false and the women would not allow anyone in their tribe to lie. When the human male finally learned to talk the women found that males have a propensity to lie so they were banished from the camp whenever they were caught lying. Notice that whereas the human females are not liars the human male has no compunction about lying. Thus it was the human male who created religion and he created religion for the same reason he creates all of his other crimes: male insignificance! The human male was never needed by, or important to, any other living thing on this planet beginning with the human female and their children. And the human male could not think of any way they could make themselves important except by creating gods, with such gods saying what the human male wanted them to say: Every woman had to have a husband and every child had to have a father because the human male is IMPORTANT! That is the gist of all religious messages: the human male is important! when in fact DNA evidence now suggests that the mito (female) DNA goes back into infinity whereas the male DNA dose not. In fact, it once was so cold on this planet that only the female molecules could survive, the male molecules could not.

  (Quote)

Timo July 6, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Even supposing you’re accurately representing what we know about language, DNA, and folk wisdom, shouldn’t I still dismiss your whole post given that folk legends, scientific papers explaining the workings of DNA, and comment posts that tie them together are also products of language?

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer July 18, 2010 at 11:10 pm

This is the first of a multi-part debate between an atheist named Jonny Lomond and a christian named Adam Dorsey. I haven’t watched it, so I can’t vouch for it’s quality but if anyone’s interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkZqC1s6Lxw&feature=related

J.

  (Quote)

Tomasz July 20, 2010 at 8:37 am

Ok here is my objection to kalam argument.

1. Time can only began to exist if there is state of affiars in actual world in which is no time.
2. Time must come to existence either caused or cannot came into existence.
3. Time is existing, and cannot came uncaused.
4. State in which is no time cannot be state of inexistence of cause. – 2&3
5. Only cause capable of creating the time is God.
6. Timeless state in actual world must be a state of existence of God. – 4&5
7. Time can only began to exist if there is state of affairs involving existence of God in actual world. 1 & 6

here is definition by Craig

e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

What is more plausible?

e comes in to being at t there is such S in the actual world in which is no e, and such S is not successor or simultaneous to any S in which e exists, and t is such S in which e exists that every other S in which e exists is successor to t, and number of all S in actual world is finite.

  (Quote)

Dan August 1, 2010 at 10:08 am

I LOVE that you keep this active. I sincerely hope you find a way to make the table sort-able. I know you’ve tried dozens of WordPress plugins. Perhaps you can host the list on some other site which does allow it. I just think this is an invaluable and timeless page to have, and I would love to see it remain updated.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 1, 2010 at 10:51 am

Dan,

It shall remain updated, and I’m working with a developer to make the list more dynamic.

  (Quote)

Hermes August 3, 2010 at 6:03 am

Luke, how about using Google Docs for now? It’s not as simple or elegant, but you don’t have to do any programming. Baring that, if you add a column noting when you added and/or updated the item it would make it simple to see what the changes are.

  (Quote)

RA August 7, 2010 at 8:50 am
Sagar Gorijala August 8, 2010 at 3:36 am

I too want to participate in the debate and I’ve proof of absence of GOD and here it is…
http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
If GOD exists then GOD=LIFE… otherwise there is no GOD.
Our PARENTS are GODS… WE are GODS.

  (Quote)

TaiChi August 12, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Another debate to add: Raymond Bradley vs. Matthew Flannagan.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm

TaiChi,

Yeah, it’ll be added in the next update.

  (Quote)

İslami Paylaşım Platformu August 20, 2010 at 8:43 am

wooow.. not atheism ? what ? what?

  (Quote)

Warn me Please August 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm

I wish you’d identify programs from the Brit’s Unbelievable radio show. I don’t like them, and would rather not download them.

  (Quote)

Hermes August 20, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Some of the Unbelievable shows are good, though they miss the mark frequently and unnecessarily.

  (Quote)

Gary August 23, 2010 at 5:22 am

Hey mate, appreciate all your work have used your site multiple times for reference. Just wondering if you have this debate with Christopher Hitchens and I believe Kent Hovind is the other man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8XcchN8Ic&feature=search

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 23, 2010 at 6:55 am

Gary,

That looks familiar, so I think it’s on the list. Hitchens’ opponent is not Kent Hovind, but I can’t remember his name right now.

  (Quote)

Muto August 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Gary,
I think it is Turek.

  (Quote)

Gary August 24, 2010 at 12:53 am

Hey Muto, thanks for that it is Turek. Get a little confused between creationists =). Thanks again for your work lukeprog.

  (Quote)

David Hume August 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Ray Bradley vs. Matt Flannagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPon3YxZpA

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm

David Hume,

Oops, I forgot to add the links! Thanks.

  (Quote)

Muto August 27, 2010 at 7:19 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-P3GuzVQ_I
First video of the live debate between theoreticalbullshit vs Matt Slick. Audio is bad but it I think it contains one of the most effective refutations of the trancedental argument I have heard so far.

  (Quote)

Haecceitas August 28, 2010 at 12:18 am

Robert Price vs. James White (mp3 costs $4.10) http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=994

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 28, 2010 at 1:43 am

Thanks, Haecceitas.

  (Quote)

Klara Orlsson September 2, 2010 at 4:46 am

Thanks.

I think you don’t have this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnqo4_X7PE

Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett vs Dinesh D’Souza, Shmuley Boteach, Nassim Taleb. Neutral: Robert Wright

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 2, 2010 at 8:51 am

I do, actually. It’s the “Christopher Hitchens and other vs. Boteach and others” one. But thanks anyway!

  (Quote)

Madeleine September 4, 2010 at 2:00 am

The text of Raymond Bradley and Matthew Flannagan’s debate is on MandM – links to all of it are here: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/08/joint-communique-bradley-v-flannagan-debate.html

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 4, 2010 at 5:19 am

Madeleine,

Thanks!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 6, 2010 at 11:47 pm

Madeleine,

I’m assuming you’re the Madeleine married to Matt, are you also the one endorsing the death sentence for abortion? If you are, would I be safe in assuming your husband believes the same thing? I may need to pose a question at his next debate…

J.

  (Quote)

Ripan Chowdhury September 7, 2010 at 12:41 am

I’m from Bangladesh.

Your site is just AWESOME.

Keep posting those nice links specially of Richard Dawkins, J Lennox etc

-Ripan, Humanist

  (Quote)

Yewtree September 8, 2010 at 8:10 am

Hi, you seem to have missed Christopher Hitchens’ conversation with Marilyn Sewell from your list. Marilyn Sewell is a Unitarian Universalist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, and espouses older theology of the non-existence of God (Eriugena, Tillich, etc.) than the fundamentalist literalism about which Christopher Hitchens is rightly incensed. It’s quite illuminating to read the comments by fundamentalist Christians denying that Rev Sewell is a Christian.

  (Quote)

Yewtree September 8, 2010 at 8:22 am

PS – of course God doesn’t exist. He/She/It is an abstract reification of the ultimate concerns of humanity.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 8, 2010 at 9:58 am

Yewtree,

Thanks. My criteria for what counts as a ‘debate’ is pretty vague, but I’ll count that one as a ‘conversation’ instead.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 16, 2010 at 2:22 am

If any of you were considering listening to or reading any of the Derek Sansone debates, don’t. He debates as bad as Phil Fernandes sounds. Paul Manata, one of his audio opponents was a pretty decent antagonist.

And since it’s been a while since my previous reminder, you’ll all be forgiven for forgetting that Jason Gastrich is an over-enunciating, tool bag bucket of fuck.

J.

  (Quote)

aklym September 18, 2010 at 8:45 am

Thank you Luke for this great list.

I agree with your calling the Ray Bradley/William Lane Craig debate “great.” WLC is a very skilled debater who is supremely confident. He always presents his points powerfully and well. I have a grudging admiration for him. As good as WLC is, Ray Bradley simply takes apart the famed WLC in this debate. I almost felt embarrassed for WLC.

  (Quote)

onlyhuman September 19, 2010 at 4:45 am

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232872

Adebate on atheism with Christopher Hitchens, author of “God Is Not Great,” and David Berlinski, author of “The Devil’s Delusion.” This event was hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation(fixed-point.org)in Birmingham, Alabama. Held 7th of September 2010

  (Quote)

Thomas September 20, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Keep an eye on this, Luke: three debates on the resurrection, Russell DiSilvestro vs. Matt McCormick.

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/three-debates-resurrection-and.html

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 27, 2010 at 12:59 am

Audio links for following files are defunct:

Brian Lynch & James White

Jared Hoag & Kent Hovind

Christopher Hitchens & Mark Roberts

David Coss & Gene Cook

John Loftus & Gene Cook

Keegan J. Kjeldsen & Gene Cook

Ray Waller & Gene Cook

Sam Harris & Rick Warren

Steve Scianni & Gene Cook (Both)

Steven Carr & Canon Michael Cole – First debate downloads at about 1Kb and will not play. I tried 3 times. Second debate is fine.

You have one Robert Stovold on top of the Robert Price debates and another below them.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 27, 2010 at 3:11 am

Thanks Jake!

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 27, 2010 at 1:19 pm

The Christopher Hitchens & Paul Edwards debate is 2 hours of Paul Edwards interviewing several authors on their work, none of whom are Christopher Hitchens.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 27, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Thanks again, Jake!

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 28, 2010 at 8:18 pm

Jake

I just fixed all those, removed the Paul Edwards one, and added 5 new ones.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm

Then you’re forgiven.

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 29, 2010 at 12:18 am

The Jared Hoag & Kent Hovind redirects me to a “404 Page Not Found” page.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 29, 2010 at 6:49 am

Jake,

How ’bout now?

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm

My computer tried to open it with jZip and after it’s lengthy download, it said it did not support that file type so I don’t know what to try to open it with. I try to remind myself that with every fallacious argument deployed by Hovind , he’s getting butt pwned in prison.

J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog September 30, 2010 at 7:27 am

Jake,

Huh. It worked just fine when I downloaded it just now and extracted it. Maybe try once more? Sometimes if the internet hiccups during download, the resulting file will be broken.

Luke

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer September 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm

I wonder if I’m being unfair in my dismissal of the argument employed heavily in Habermas’ and Craig’s debates, i.e. “The bulk of New Testament scholars believe…”.

I can’t help but consider there authority different and less impartial than say, a physicists preference of Quantum Theory’s interpretations. No physicist grows up inculcated that the Copenhagen Model is the best and subsequently offers the most intellectually rewarding experience. Therefore, they are free to endorse whatever view they feel most accurately represents reality divested of any preceding psychological or childhood-related baggage or bias. When Craig delineates on New Testament scholarship and claims that the majority are believers, I doubt that very many are say, 30 year old Indian men who moved here for the university experience. Perhaps there are some but I can’t help but imagine that most, if not damn near all hail from Christian homes and grow up attending church or youth groups and enroll in college with an agenda to validate their own childhood convictions. Am I being unfair in this assumption? I just can’t see the average Hindu or Muslim being exposed to all the same material and class courses a man from a conservative, right wing, red state family would be equally convinced at graduation.

I suppose another point is that scholars in the sciences have nothing really to gain from the views they endorse. DSW and Dawkins disputing over group selection is not like Bishop Spong and Craig disputing the literalism of scripture with regard to the resurrection. It just isn’t. There’s more than just their academic ego involved in that dialectic and here’s why; If it turned out that Dawkins is wrong about group selection, how will this impact his life? If it was demonstrated beyond dispute that he was incorrect, he would probably acknowledge his error and move on. Conversely, how would Craig respond to the discovery of Christs body? His world would be shattered. He would be, as Paul says, “Of all men, most miserable”, would he not? Therefore, in my opinion, his objectivity is far from in tact when approaching these matters. As is the majority of “critical New Testament scholars”.

I’m certainly open to discourse on this and I’m not fixed to this opinion, in fact, I just came upon it about an hour ago listening to Craig and Pigliucci’s debate. If I’m in error, please let me have it. Thanks.

J.

  (Quote)

Muto September 30, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Jake,
I think one can draw simularities between them:
a,People egos are an important factor in not changing their religious opinion if not the most important.

b, Many scientists would not change their opinion until they are absolutely and completely disproven. They will behave like new testament scholars.

However there is an important difference:
Biblical scholars start studying the bible because they are allready religious. Hence they study under the assumption that the text is true.
Physicist on the other hand start their study of quantum mechanics pretty much open minded regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer October 1, 2010 at 1:06 am

Muto

Reading what I wrote now, I don’t think I communicated my thoughts well. At least, not as well as I could have. And with an eye toward brevity, I’ll not continue on further than necessary.

My “epiphany” was more to do with the psychological approach NT scholars take from the presuppositions they are imbued with in their youth. So that, antithetical to the motive for those in the physical sciences, these scholars come into their courses already with a colored perspective of what they’re about to “study”. If physicists, as children, sat around their dinner tables with their families and offered the food on their tables to the Many-Worlds interpretation of QT or to the continued success of Einstein’s General Relativity, I would level the same charge at them as well. But it seems to me, that those who take up the physical sciences have a completely barren landscape which is to be filled purely on evidential grounds alone save for the space they use to propose their own hypotheses on unresolved matters in the field they’re endeavoring to become a part.

I simply can’t take that argument or point seriously. It’s like saying “Over 90% of astrologers agree that the position of stars has a direct if not obvious effect in our day to day affairs.”

J.

P.S. If anyone else has any opinion on this, I’d love to hear your take. Thanks.

  (Quote)

Pikemann Urge October 4, 2010 at 2:59 am

There are transcripts available for two of the D’Souza-Hitchens debates.

Direct link for FreedomFest 2008 debate which doesn’t seem to be listed here:
http://www.thegodshow.co.uk/debate_FF08_Hitchens_DSouza.pdf

Direct link for University of Colorado & Aquinas Center for Catholic Thought 2009 debate:
http://www.thegodshow.co.uk/debate_UCB09_Hitchens_DSouza.pdf

  (Quote)

lukeprog October 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

Thanks, Pikemann Urge.

  (Quote)

maraden October 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Luke, thanks for a comprehensive list of debates on the god subject. I think this site must be a wonderful resource for debate fans. I wonder if you, or any viewer knows of a similar site about moving the argument forward as opposed to formal debating. I remember a conversation between Bertrand Russell and a minister that did spiral in on the topic by mutual agreement. I suppose that a website today could allow all sides of the question to be fully argued to see where it leads as one argument after another is laid to rest.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer October 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm

Maraden

I think the Christians inclusion of the Ontological Argument in their argumentative canon shows, if nothing else, the unwillingness or inability to let dead arguments lay to rest. They’ll stand over the graves of those arguments, demand of them “Raise!” and marshal them into the forefront of contemporary debates as if they’re novel and informative when all they actually serve is a reminder that Christian theology in some ways, hasn’t changed all that much in the past 10 centuries. So far, as I’ve come to understand it, the pinnacle of Christian thought today stems from a Notre Dame professor who has availed himself of the inconvenience of evidence running contrary to his presuppositions by concocting a method of dispensing with it entirely. It takes brilliance no doubt, but of a casuistic borderline disingenuous nature.

J.

  (Quote)

maraden October 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm

Jake, I’ve only watched only a few of these debates by Craig, Desouza and Boteach. As a sport it seems worthwhile and for some of these guys it pays well, but the argument is not advanced. I applaud Dawkins for refusing to share a stage with these gifted windbags.

  (Quote)

knight October 15, 2010 at 2:42 am

Why are there no good secular humanist debaters? I just listened to Hamza and Philip Nathan and it was the worst possible arguments from a secular humanist. If you listen to Hamza he is nothing but WLC with an islamic garb, only much less impressive. Is it just that sitting here and watching this debates that you are able to see the fallacies in theistic arguments? Or it is that these secular humanist debaters are seriously bad?

Lukeprog, do you think that there are decent debaters who can point at the fallacious arguments of these theists? It’s frustrating to hear them justify the most unreasonable belief by means of devious reasoning.

  (Quote)

knight October 15, 2010 at 2:48 am

Also, I think Bana Bashour put decent arguments against Hamza aka WLC copycat. Audio quality is not that well however.

  (Quote)

Jenny October 19, 2010 at 9:41 pm

It’s frustrating to hear them justify the most unreasonable belief by means of devious reasoning.

It is frustrating because it is true my friend.

  (Quote)

Leomar October 22, 2010 at 5:48 am

Is Christianity Rational ?
Jeremy Beahan vs. Cliff Knechtle

http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/10/rd-extra-is-christianity-rational.html

  (Quote)

Michael October 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Hey Luke, do you have any ‘Unbelievable’ debates, from Premier Christian Radio?
They have quite a few good ones but I’m not sure if you’ve already heard of them or not.
Take care!

  (Quote)

lukeprog October 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Michael,

Yup. If you search the source code for this page, you’ll see that dozens of these are Unbelieveable debates. :)

  (Quote)

Michael October 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Michael,Yup. If you search the source code for this page, you’ll see that dozens of these are Unbelieveable debates. :)  

Good stuff! I just listened to the debate between Ahmed and Peoples and was a really interesting debate. Yesterday I also listened to the Price debate on slavery, where he came across as very sensible, rational and persuasive indeed. I think it’s a great platform for thoughtful dialogue without getting too personal.

By the way, I was hearing the other day some things abotu hector avalos, and then i find out that in wlc’s debate with him, craig confronted him on his conduct etc. It’s all giving me quite a rush (:P), what’s your take on it all? Do you think craig was justified in doing it and/or avalos was wrong to conduct himself in debate as he did beforehand?
I’d appreciate your thoughts! :)
Take care.

  (Quote)

Michael October 26, 2010 at 4:05 pm

I just sent a message to your fb btw, just heads up in case you don’t check your fb messages.
God Bless.

  (Quote)

Michael October 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Good stuff! I just listened to the debate between Ahmed and Peoples and was a really interesting debate. Yesterday I also listened to the Price debate on slavery, where he came across as very sensible, rational and persuasive indeed. I think it’s a great platform for thoughtful dialogue without getting too personal.By the way, I was hearing the other day some things abotu hector avalos, and then i find out that in wlc’s debate with him, craig confronted him on his conduct etc. It’s all giving me quite a rush (:P), what’s your take on it all? Do you think craig was justified in doing it and/or avalos was wrong to conduct himself in debate as he did beforehand?
I’d appreciate your thoughts! :)
Take care.  

Michael,Yup. If you search the source code for this page, you’ll see that dozens of these are Unbelieveable debates. :)  

Really sorry to be cramping the comments section!!
But I just realized that you don’t have the following unbelievable debates.
Here is the debate for Robert Price on slavery in the Bible:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/f9f53a87-806e-46e0-b824-2325f96a761c.mp3

And here is the debate for Arif Ahmed (the guy who debated Habermas and Craig) on the moral argument:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/30ab174a-de7f-4a6f-8796-e95630e0b6aa.mp3

Hope that helps!
Take care.

  (Quote)

Preston November 4, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Francisco Ayala is a christian, just worth noting, but you’d get that from the debate

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer November 14, 2010 at 7:29 pm

I come about a mission from the Lord: Everyone needs to listen to one of the new debates, Jeremy Beahan Vs. Cliff Knechtle. First, to listen to the newest apologetic tool, Cliff Knechtle, who, with the same over-enunciated method of communicating incoherent, emotion-based, senseless collection of “arguments”, reminds me of the biggest douchehog this side of the Andromeda, Jason Gastrich. So congrats, Knechtle. And second, to listen to one of the most promising new atheist antagonist’s I’ve come across. The only other person to impress me this much in one performance from our side has been Arif Ahmed in his unequivocal slaughter of Habermas, and I’ve listened to literally every single audio file on this site as well as burned to DVD and watched all the videoed youtube debates. Honestly, with every other debate on this page, decent enough though the atheist may be, there are usually a dozen points where I’ll think, “Fuck, man, respond with this…”, or “Stop wasting time on this point, you’ve hammered this hard enough..” but Jeremy was insightful, concise, and erudite and left me applauding to my steering wheel on the way home this afternoon. Congrats, to you, sir.

Here’s to Knechtle & Gastrich being eaten by atheist sharks,
J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer November 15, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Lucas

You ever find anyone to translate that German Craig debate?

J.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser November 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Alas, no. :(

  (Quote)

Dan November 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Luke,

For the ability to sort your table, did you try “WP Table Reloaded”? There’s this video on YouTube on how to work with it, and I saw in the setup the option for how to sort the list according to whichever column you choose. (like a date column)

It says nothing about a blog visitors ability to sort the column though, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen that on a site before unless it was Flash.

I then read here: http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/sortable-tables

In that discussion, someone points to this table creator, though I’m guessing it won’t work either – but I’m not an expert in Wordpress. Maybe it’s possible now.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser November 24, 2010 at 6:20 am

Dan,

Yeah, didn’t work. Another solution is in the works, though.

  (Quote)

Dan November 27, 2010 at 9:44 am

Full transcript of Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair debate on 11/26/2010:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair

Now I’ll wait eagerly for the video! (though a CLIP can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586 )

  (Quote)

JoeD November 28, 2010 at 7:27 am

Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair, Is Christianity a force for good?

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpMPFu3mMPA

a LONG introduction. Skip to 4:55 of part 2 for the beginning of the debate

  (Quote)

Leomar December 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm

Luke, I think Jeffrey Jay Lowder vs Phil Fernandes would be a “best!”.

  (Quote)

mopey December 3, 2010 at 1:42 pm

JoeD’s YouTube link for the Blair/Hitchens Debate is no longer working. Currently, it may be found on YouTube, in 8 parts, by searching for ‘TB v. CH’.

Also, there’s a good quality copy (sans the extraneous opening by Mr. Monk) on hotfile in a single mp4 file here (384mb h264/aac mp4):

http://bit.ly/fDpvZ8

Say what you will about Blair, but I detected a fair amount of intellectual honesty in his both his many repeated concessions and his overall tone. Hitch actually looks better at 30lbs lighter and without the bangs. An admirable effort regardless of his condition.

  (Quote)

andy December 5, 2010 at 9:23 am

I found an MP3 of the hitchens / blair thing on this page: http://www.jeffcrouse.info/jeffish/tony-blair-vs-christopher-hitchens/

Haven’t listened to it yet though..

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo December 9, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Mr. Craig is a typical opportunistic who can and does play upon the ignorance of the audience. No-one to my knowledge has challenged him on the assumptions of beginnings, endings, free will, objectivity and a definitive answer to what time actually is. Even C. Hitchens, whom I greatly admire, does not challenge him in these areas. Craig “obviously” wins his debates because the audience listens with a cultural bias and not the necessity of referential determinants.

Dr. Willian Craig seems to be unbeatable. What do you think of him?  

  (Quote)

anonymoose December 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm

There is a typo on the list. Hemant Mehta’s name is spelled incorrectly. There is no r in his name.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser December 9, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Thanks, I’ll fix it in the next update.

  (Quote)

maraden December 11, 2010 at 5:02 pm

I wonder if a better format than debates would be a Socratic style dialogue with the experts on both sides. At least this would begin to define the interesting questions and move the debate onto fertile ground. Anyone know of a modern Socrates out there on the web?

  (Quote)

Dan December 12, 2010 at 8:08 am

While we’re on the topic of spelling names… in The Hemant vs Howard debate, the name is Howard STORM not “Howard Stern”.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm

Sam Harris Vs. Robert Wright

Motion:
Where Should Secular’s Stand Today & Tomorrow On Questions Of Religion & Belief?

Part 1/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ9aMthqOig

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 17, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Patricia Churchland, Simon Blackburn, Peter Singer, & Roger Bingham

Having posted before viewing, I can’t clarify who the sides are.

Motion:
If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong?

Part 1/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScMJEVoj-s

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 17, 2010 at 11:21 pm

Michael Shermer Vs Jonathan Morris

Motion: Does God Exist?

(Short)

Part 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz4R0GHfM-Y

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 17, 2010 at 11:33 pm

Kenneth Miller Vs. Henry Morris

Motion – Evolution & Creationism: Is Henry Morris Retarded?

Part 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfqBlR8qv4&feature=channel

J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 17, 2010 at 11:37 pm

Kenneth Miller & Robert Pennock Vs. William Dembski

Motion: Blind Evolution Or Intelligent Design: Is Dembski Slightly Less Retarded Than Morris?

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ&feature=channel

J.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser December 18, 2010 at 6:54 am

Jake,

Thanks. Some of these are debates among atheists, though.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 20, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Luke,

Your mom.

J.

  (Quote)

vee January 1, 2011 at 11:50 am

the univeral question is “how did we get here?” the universal debate is, were we created, did we evolve, and now are a product of aliens’ DNA and primates, a combination of creation and evolution.
Why are we the only species that are curious about how we got here? And why is it so important to know where we came from? Moreover, what if we never question our existence. Would there be a belief system or would science exist? Without the ability to reason, we would exist in the same state of our so-called primative ancestors. At least in the state would not be a threat to creation.
Because the Bible says that mankind came from the earth, it is possible to prove through forensic that life evolved. It only proves that all life forms came from the earth. There are over 5000 things made from oil. These things did evolve from oil. They were made from our knowledge of creation. Science is nothing more than the knoweldge of creation. We use the knowledge to make things out of creation and take care of the animals. Ge 1:18
Because God is invisible we cannot physical prove that He exist, and since we were not a witness to our existence, neither can we prove how we got here. But there is evidence. Logical and rational reason supported by physical evidence is proof. The bible gave us a clue that we came from the earth, science have proved it. Darwin observed the bird, The bibles says to asked the bird Job 12:7-9, we asked the birds through science, the knowledge of creation. The bible say that the earth was once a supercontinent, and it is round, and hangs on nothing.

  (Quote)

Markus January 7, 2011 at 9:42 am

Looks like the video link changed for the Richard Carrier vs Mike Licona debate:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589994385
Thanks for this resource. It’s awesome.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser January 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Markus,

Thanks.

  (Quote)

reticularimus January 10, 2011 at 9:13 pm

PCA discontinued the flash stream of the Nov. 18, 2010 Dembski-Hitchens event.
A HQ copy of the stream file is available at the link below (on hotfile). File size is 1.16GB.

http://bit.ly/eRUdKs

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer January 12, 2011 at 12:46 am

Lucas

I’m going to be careful not to phrase my comment in the form of a suggestion as my colossal –and by now, clearly displayed– ignorance concerning web-anything precludes me from the necessary comfort level to do so. Rather, I’m going to sort of put this concept out there and you can scale it on a level of unreasonableness: 1-Unitarian through 10-Jehovah’s Witness/Pentecostal/Mormon.

Something like an option to create a personal account for all of your guests whereby they can bookmark their favorite posts, podcasts, debates; have any and all the comments they’ve posted made readily available; create a sort of profile where they can identify their beliefs, i.e. epistemology, religious affiliations (if any), moral theory, etc. I think you can see where this is going.

Something about this seems like it would be great for your users but a logistical nightmare for you. What do you think?

J.

P.S. Why does my spyware software keep labeling your site as “bad”?

  (Quote)

Michael January 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm

LucasYou ever find anyone to translate that German Craig debate?J.  

There is a PDF-transcript. You can translate it with your favorite tool.
http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/Archiv/existgott.html

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser January 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm

I’d prefer a human translation, especially for this.

  (Quote)

Derrida January 15, 2011 at 10:03 am

“Michael Shermer vs. Jonathan Miller (short)”

It’s Jonathan Morris.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser January 15, 2011 at 10:26 am

Derrida,

Oops, thanks.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo January 17, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Craig wins many of his debates because his audience i9s mainly religious and/or nonscientific. The relationship between debates regarding the supernatural and the world that is observable is defined in language which is an evolved process from earlier religious, metaphysical, and non-referential times and cultures. An understanding of physical references in language is something that the craig enthusiasts do not have and cannot have until they are able to set aside their history which is almost not possible. But his arguments stem from his own and consequently his audience’s lack of connectivity to the world of measure.

  (Quote)

Caligula January 18, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Great site!
Although not a debate, I recommend seeing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo – Universe form nothing.
I can accept the notion of a black hole even if it defies physical laws (no time, no light coming out of it etc.). I know it exists. It’s not hard at all to accept: “nothing can not exist”. So if a theist would ask me if I believe “things came out from nothing” I’ll just point that there is no such thing as nothing :). I’ll even ask him to give me an example of nothing and state that his God is so weak he couldn’t even create “nothing”, not to say everything :).

  (Quote)

Dar February 8, 2011 at 10:04 pm

I don’t think WLC has ever lost a debate. I rarely hear any debater address WLC arguments directly.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo February 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm

WLC has never debated before a science audience. The venue is almost entirely religious. WLC is an obvious idiot if you understand what he has said and can define the terms that he uses. Those definitions must be in accord with the measurable world or he has no clue whatsoever of what he is saying.

I don’t think WLC has ever lost a debate. I rarely hear any debater address WLC arguments directly.  

  (Quote)

Dar February 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Please help me understand what you have said.

You said, “WLC is an obvious idiot if you understand what he has said and can define the terms that he uses. ” Can you provide an example or will you simply follow the same line of argument of many of his debaters? I have understood what he has said and I am able to define many of the terms he uses yet somehow the obviousness of his idiocy has eluded me. I have yet to hear a single argument from any of his debaters providing a more reasonable or plausible explanation for the subjects debated. I would appreciate it if you could point me to one.

You said, “Those definitions must be in accord with the measurable world or he has no clue whatsoever of what he is saying.” Do you think there are things in our world that we define yet have no way to measure? You might want to ask a scientist this question.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo February 10, 2011 at 7:57 am

WLC assumes 1. Objective Morality and has no understanding what objectivity is outside of his assumption of the “reality” of free will. 2. Intelligent Design in a universe of Obviously unintelligent “design”. 3. The measure of his fine tuning argument. It is way beyond his ability to understanding the numbers used or the technique used in achieving this measure. WLC has very little understanding of math is in a complete fog ( as are many atheists) over the concept of the assumption of beginnings and endings. 4. his own “faith”. You can be sure that WLC like all of the other apologists from the lowly local evangelist to the Pope himself depend on god for nothing except that which is expected to happen after he kicks the bucket. 5. a world of black and white, good and bad, right and wrong, etc. etc. By that, I mean to revert back to the original question of objectivity. This concept assume the ability of placing your values, language and ability to uninfluenced on a shelf “over there” and looking at the question without prejudice or any cultural bias.

I am sorry that the obviousness of his idiocy eludes you. Everything that you enjoy in this life is due to the quality of the sciences. Everything in science is assumed before the measure and then development of whatever it is. The discovery by accident of scientific measure is always in pursuit of that which is assumed to be 3 dimensional with mass, density, and velocity here on earth or on some other body of mass. I do not assume that everything in existence cannot be measured. There are many millions of things that can be assumed to have the impossibility of being measured and these reside in the areas of imagination, wishful thinking, fiction, art, etc. etc. In fact I would go so far as to say there is an Infinity of immeasurable assumptions beginning with the idea of ghosts, gods and demons and on to little green men, tooth fairies and Superman.
WLC assumes the reality of gods and devils before the measure.

WLC is a fraud and makes his living as do the thousands of others who take advantage of human ignorance. His audience is almost always religiously oriented because this nation is oriented metaphysically….which is why he wins debates.

Another way of seeing the measure idea is if you can determine that something in this world exists without having the ability to measure it, then you have already measured it’s existence by that determination. Use this to determine whether or not nothingness is possible. If you can determine that nothing is possible then you have measured nothingness. If you have done that then you cannot be an observer for if you are then then nothingness cannot happen because you are assumed to be something.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo February 10, 2011 at 8:03 am

In my explanation above regarding 5. I meant to say influenced…..not UNinfluenced. Sorry.

  (Quote)

maraden February 10, 2011 at 9:38 am

I don’t think WLC has ever lost a debate. I rarely hear any debater address WLC arguments directly.  

Nor should you Dar. The apologists who use science in their arguments do not use scientific methods. Their aim is to confuse, rather than advance the argument. Their strategy is to find a gap, or hole in a scientific theory that hasn’t been proven (yet) and make the claim that god may be found there. This is not an argument. It is a good trick to pull on the audience, especially if the opponent tries to follow into the gap. The point is that the apologists are not able to show any credible evidence for their beliefs so they resort to smoke and mirrors. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” C. Hitchens.

  (Quote)

bobo February 13, 2011 at 12:44 pm

interesting ! thank you for that list . i observed that many are impressed because x or y win .i want to ask “who win” i the meanning for “who telling the truth” ? :)

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser February 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm

bobo,

No, I mean “win” in the sense of “Presented the more compelling case based solely on the claims made and arguments given in the course of the debate.”

  (Quote)

DAR February 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm

I guess, the way I seem to observe these discussions is, which argument seems to have the better rational or logical conclusion to the evidence. I hear scientist after scientist simply say “I don’t know” which is a perfectly rational and logical answer. Since the subject matter cannot be proven or disproven all that can be done is consider “what might be the best possible explanation”. Now that explanation may not neccesarily be the right one but it is the best one at the moment. I simply do not understand why an atheist cannot conceed to that. I think it is because the answer has many other implications which are feared. So it would seem to me that the so called quest for proof or truth by others is simply erroneous from the start if one of those possibilities will never be considered a viable option regardless of the mountain of signs/evidence (not same as proof) that point to HIM. If you could point me to a debate where somebody has demonstrated a viable and sustainable alternative I would be more than glad to listen and learn.

  (Quote)

bobo February 13, 2011 at 2:47 pm

using logic 100% corectlly not deliever necessary the truth . if one premise is wrong(and we dont observe that) ,even you use logic perfectly as apparatus->conclusion is wrong so… we can be impressed by logical demonstration and may lose the importance of truth . or not?

  (Quote)

maraden February 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm

I guess, the way I seem to observe these discussions is, which argument seems to have the better rational or logical conclusion to the evidence. I hear scientist after scientist simply say “I don’t know” which is a perfectly rational and logical answer. Since the subject matter cannot be proven or dis-proven all that can be done is consider “what might be the best possible explanation”.

Well, I think you have other, better options as well. For example, ignore the question entirely, or remain skeptical of all supernatural claims. The absence of proof against is not proof for a claim. I agree with you that we cannot know god. That’s what makes atheism natural for me.

  (Quote)

dar February 16, 2011 at 2:20 pm

You said ” better options as well. For example, ignore the question entirely, or remain skeptical of all supernatural claims. ” I agree this is an option, however to say it is a better option I think would irresponsible, cowerdly and lazy. That hardly makes it better.

You said “The absence of proof against is not proof for a claim. I agree with you that we cannot know god.” I agree that the sort of proof sought after by science or athiests is lacking. But if that were the only gage then someone claiming to speak of love would be speaking of something an atheist or scientist could argue does not exist. I do believe we can know God. I think our knowledge of God will be a limited one but I think the bible presents a very compelling case for the existence of a God who wants us to know there is nobody like him and he desires to be with us. These are but a few simple things he shares which would seem to be in line with a God who created things with a meaning and purpose. I really believe that if a person is willing to consider the best possible explanation to some seemingly unknoweable questions then the conclusion is not that hard to postulate ( A thing suggested as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief).

  (Quote)

Joe February 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm

It sounds as though you are a person of “faith” which only means that you can be persuaded of anything at all as long as the evidence is in a book. All you seem to need is others to back you up in that faith. Your book has no evidence whatsoever but still the persistence you display says far more about the values you cherish than it does about reality. I personally have never met a christian or any other person that actually buys that story or any other story about ghosts, demons, or others things that go bump in the night.

You said ” better options as well. For example, ignore the question entirely, or remain skeptical of all supernatural claims. ” I agree this is an option, however to say it is a better option I think would irresponsible, cowerdly and lazy. That hardly makes it better.You said “The absence of proof against is not proof for a claim. I agree with you that we cannot know god.” I agree that the sort of proof sought after by science or athiests is lacking. But if that were the only gage then someone claiming to speak of love would be speaking of something an atheist or scientist could argue does not exist. I do believe we can know God. I think our knowledge of God will be a limited one but I think the bible presents a very compelling case for the existence of a God who wants us to know there is nobody like him and he desires to be with us. These are but a few simple things he shares which would seem to be in line with a God who created things with a meaning and purpose. I really believe that if a person is willing to consider the best possible explanation to some seemingly unknoweable questions then the conclusion is not that hard to postulate ( A thing suggested as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief).  

  (Quote)

dar February 16, 2011 at 7:48 pm

I would say, examine all the evidence yourself of the remarkable composition of this “book”. There is no other “book” on the planet that even comes close to its claims which demand any sincere truth seeker to at very least read it for themselves and ask all the questions that a skeptic should ask without eliminating the possibility of a supernaturalistic explanation, which in most cases seems to be the best possible explanation. I don’t know if you’ve read it yourself but if not I would suggest you start with the Gospels and then maybe the book of James or Colossians. I think it has held up very well to criticizm and scrutiny from those who have studied it long and hard. Those willing to follow its trial with objectivity seem to find a different conclusion than those who have already concluded that they will not consider anything but a naturalist explanation. I personally believe in a naturalistic world view framed with a supernaturalist possibility. I believe my “book” provides very strong and rationally tenable explanations on the issues of origin, purpose, morality and destiny. All these areas are unknowable by science yet somewhere within our being at one or many points in our lives we ask the questions that transcend scientific or naturalistic understanding.

  (Quote)

maraden February 16, 2011 at 10:14 pm

Dar, I respect your personal belief. I think that is where we must leave it since one’s personal belief is never convincing, as every religion shows with their many schisms, or sects. If god wants us to know him, he must expect a very select and silent following.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo February 17, 2011 at 5:13 am

Dar, Well………You’re wrong. Sorry ! You have, like most people on this planet, been wrong about almost everything for most of your life. Ghosts, magic, “super”naturalism has never been shown to be anything other than the workings of human imagination and child like wishful thinking. this book of your is neither historical nor is it even measurable. Aside from other books almost exactly like it, it is the most ignorant bunch of lies, fairy tales and utterly dangerous nonsense ever taught to children. Lying to children should be a socially unacceptable and considered a completely deplorable practice but it is not. In fact it is encouraged and perpetrated all in the name of ignorance. In fact it is child abuse blatantly and openly encouraged. It is the ruination of the intellect and is appropriate only for the most primitive in the animal species. IOWs no other animal species teaches it young to be ignorant of it’s surrounding…….only human beings.

BTW your last sentence is utterly and completely ridiculous and silly.

I would say, examine all the evidence yourself of the remarkable composition of this “book”. There is no other “book” on the planet that even comes close to its claims which demand any sincere truth seeker to at very least read it for themselves and ask all the questions that a skeptic should ask without eliminating the possibility of a supernaturalistic explanation, which in most cases seems to be the best possible explanation. I don’t know if you’ve read it yourself but if not I would suggest you start with the Gospels and then maybe the book of James or Colossians. I think it has held up very well to criticizm and scrutiny from those who have studied it long and hard. Those willing to follow its trial with objectivity seem to find a different conclusion than those who have already concluded that they will not consider anything but a naturalist explanation. I personally believe in a naturalistic world view framed with a supernaturalist possibility. I believe my “book” provides very strong and rationally tenable explanations on the issues of origin, purpose, morality and destiny. All these areas are unknowable by science yet somewhere within our being at one or many points in our lives we ask the questions that transcend scientific or naturalistic understanding.  

  (Quote)

dar February 17, 2011 at 5:20 am

You said “If god wants us to know him, he must expect a very select and silent following.” Sadly you are right about the select part and unfortunatly this is in line with scripture and it is a very clear teaching all throughout. The silent part I would disagree with and I am clear evidence of that. In case you are no familiar with the book I reference, here are a few quotes that come to my immediate memory.

“..but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”Matthew
“…he sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.” Matthew
“God did this so that men would seek him and PERHAPS reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”Acts
“If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” 1 John
“He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him.Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in Him, he gave the right to become children of God” John

  (Quote)

Dar February 17, 2011 at 6:02 am

Joe, I am presuming you to think that you are on the side of reason and I am on the side of blind faith. Yet your responses confirm the very things I am suggesting about the presuppositionial mindset which eliminate the “possibility” I am suggesting.
You said ” Dar, Well………You’re wrong. Sorry ! You have, like most people on this planet, been wrong about almost everything for most of your life.” -Very presumptuous, irrational and highly emotional response.
You said ” Ghosts, magic, “super”naturalism has never been shown to be anything other than the workings of human imagination and child like wishful thinking.” – Very presumptuous, broad, definitive and highly emotional response. Can you suggest any reading material for me on this matter?
You said “-this book of your is neither historical nor is it even measurable.” Have you read it? I might suggest taking an archeology 101 course and you’ll discover that this book of fairy tales seems to have some merit in a science field.
You said ” Aside from other books almost exactly like it” I suggest you read it. Can you name one other? I can think of no other book that as I said even comes close when put under the scrutiny and criticism that this text has.
The rest of what you said could blow up a small city because it is so charged with emotion( hyperbole on my part). Joe, you’ve made your position quite clear and unfortunetly it appears that your view of rational, logical and reasonable thoughts are confined to your personal science lab and your predetermined conclusions. Joe, there is a whole world out there that you may never truely appreciate because it will never fit into your parameters.

  (Quote)

Joe Fasulo February 17, 2011 at 7:02 am

Dar, It’s OK with me if you must buy the package. There are billions of human beings who are still dancing around the same fire honestly thinking and predicting the same rainstorm. However when push comes to shove they will because they must locate the nearest stream, river, or lake in order to drink or water their crops. You may honestly think that this ghost of yours did speak to this fictitious Moses and may still be able to talk to you through a burning bush or perhaps come to you in a dream or perhaps even govern your life via this book but remember this book has been plagiarized many times as well as forged and rewritten, added to and subtracted from. Wishful thinking comes in an infinite number of ways.

This book of yours is in the end a collection of stories. Very convincing stories to the very primitive mindset but still stories.

  (Quote)

maraden February 17, 2011 at 4:49 pm

You said“If god wants us to know him, he must expect a very select and silent following.” Sadly you are right about the select part and unfortunatly this is in line with scripture and it is a very clear teaching all throughout. The silent part I would disagree with …

If god wants us to know him, only a very select group evidently does and silent because they don’t and can’t add anything to expand his following. Trying to evangelize would show they aren’t worthy of being chosen, which is impossible for an all knowing god. The xian bible is a good example. (For details, Bart Ehrman’s excellent treatment of Craig on resurrection in 2006 above, or his latest book, or http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html)

  (Quote)

Dar February 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Thank You Maraden for the reference . I’ll be sure to listen to Mr Ehrman. I think you’re the first person to point me to some reference material.

I did not understand your statement about evangelization or at least the way you framed your statement. I understand evangilization to stem from the desire of a grateful person who has received a unwarranted gift or choosing if you will. The calling is for all humanity and the choosing is cooperative.

  (Quote)

maraden February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Dar, “Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism

  (Quote)

Dar February 20, 2011 at 6:30 am

Maradan, The definition I gave you is from a bibical context as well as from a personal context since I do practice evangelism. Your definition does not address the point YOU raised earlier. Reading the bible makes this point quite clear and since it’s the origin of the evangelism message for these particular evangelisers then this is the context in which it must be understood and defined. As I did with my friend Joe I encourage you to read it and study it yourself so that at the very least you can better grasp the other sides position.

  (Quote)

Joe February 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Yes Maraden, by all means do read this book and to be fair and balanced do read also C. Hitchens book to see if what he says about this book is or is not accurate. Unfortunately for Dar he is unable to understand the significance or the many obvious contradiction in his “sacred” text and in unable also measure and compare the reality of these contradictions with the horror that this book has produced. There is also a wealth of information concerning this book and others like it in other religions to shed light on the impossibility of sanity and/or coherence in understanding ghosts, goblins and demons.

  (Quote)

maraden February 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Maradan, The definition I gave you is from a bibical context as well as from a personal context since I do practice evangelism. Your definition does not address the point YOU raised earlier.Reading the bible makes this point quite clear and since it’s the origin of the evangelism message for these particular evangelisers then this is the context in which it must be understood and defined. As I did with my friend Joe I encourage you to read it and study it yourself so that at the very least you can better grasp the other sides position.  

Dar, have you seen the 2006 craig debate, or read your former colleague Ehrman yet? “Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.” http://www.bartdehrman.com/ I’m quite content with my understanding of the historical value of the bible and its literary refs. As I said, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ll leave you to Bart if you still think you can find god in the bible, never mind try to convince another.

  (Quote)

maraden February 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm

Yes Maraden, by all means do read this book and to be fair and balanced do read also C. Hitchens book to see if what he says about this book is or is not accurate. Unfortunately for Dar he is unable to understand the significance or the many obvious contradiction in his “sacred” text and in unable also measure and compare the reality of these contradictions with the horror that this book has produced. There is also a wealth of information concerning this book and others like it in other religions to shed light on the impossibility of sanity and/or coherence in understanding ghosts, goblins and demons.  

Thanks Joe, but i’ve read the bible many times as part of english lit and out of historical curiosity. Some parts are horrific, but a few parts are quite beautiful. My favorites are not in the bible, but should have been imo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

Hitchens book is quite good, but I prefer Sam Harris’s and Dan Dennett’s more inclusive views. The doctrinal/political aspects of religion are archaic and harmful. The social aspects are useful and worthwhile. Take out the moot god parts and the rest seems palatable and even good.

  (Quote)

Joe February 22, 2011 at 5:53 am

Maraden, While it is true that many an academic has lauded and praised this book a beautiful literature I personally find it utterly offensive to praise a book that contradicts itself so many times and remains inconsistent throughout. After all if this book was not inspired by a deity then it had to be written by human beings. If it was, indeed, written by human beings and they were alive and either speaking or writing this book 1500 years ago, give or take two or three hundred years, then it is understandable how they could be so wrong and preposterous so many times. But deities are not supposed to contradict themselves and treat their kids like so much capricious chattel and planned obsolescence.
There is nothing in this book that your parents could not have taught you.

Thanks Joe, but i’ve read the bible many times as part of english lit and out of historical curiosity. Some parts are horrific, but a few parts are quite beautiful. My favorites are not in the bible, but should have been imo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ThomasHitchens book is quite good, but I prefer Sam Harris’s and Dan Dennett’s more inclusive views. The doctrinal/political aspects of religion are archaic and harmful. The social aspects are useful and worthwhile. Take out the moot god parts and the rest seems palatable and even good.  

  (Quote)

Joe February 22, 2011 at 5:55 am

I refer you to The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank Zindler.

  (Quote)

maraden February 22, 2011 at 9:20 am

Maraden, I personally find it utterly offensive to praise a book that contradicts itself so many times and remains inconsistent throughout.

Joe you are preaching to the choir. The only nitpick I have is if you think of this as a book rather than a compilation of different authors emphasizing different viewpoints on a theme. This anthology is losing its power according to conversion rates/population growth (as are all major religions) and will begin shrinking in actual numbers at some point in the near future. I suggest we develop a welcoming attitude into the mainstream of Humanism for these well meaning but mislead folks. I think many people need a community structure in their lives that religion provides. Given a good alternative, religions will quickly fade into history. Maybe we’ll have a new renaissance!

  (Quote)

Joe February 22, 2011 at 10:13 am

Maraden, Three things. 1. I should have realized you as being the choir. 2. I did not mean to preach although I know I sound that way even verbally. It’s unfortunate for me because it has left me with fewer friends. No-one likes to be preached to. And 3. I could not have been in more agreement with your “compilation of different authors” description. I have always been in favor of the acceptance of changed points of view regarding any religion and I would give kudos and congratulations to anyone who is able to come to this understanding.

  (Quote)

maraden February 22, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Maraden, Three things. 1.I should have realized you as being the choir. 2. I did not mean to preach although I know I sound that way even verbally. It’s unfortunate for me because it has left me with fewer friends. No-one likes to be preached to. And 3. I could not have been in more agreement with your“compilation of different authors” description. I have always been in favor of the acceptance of changed points of view regardingany religion and I would give kudos and congratulations to anyone who is able to come to this understanding.  

Joe, :))

  (Quote)

maraden February 28, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Regarding my post asking if anyone knew of a website that moves the debate forward, I found this promising Wiki: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

I’m sure many of the posters here could add toward critical mass!

  (Quote)

Eddie March 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Just to let the designer of this page know, the Christopher Hitchens/William Dembski debate no longer exists. I seen part of it on YouTube, but those have been deleted as well.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 2, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Eddie,

Thanks. I’ll fix that in the next update. For now, you can get the audio here:

http://f6y.ath.cx/Hitchens-Dembski%20Debate.mp3

  (Quote)

knight March 10, 2011 at 3:03 am

Two more debates I just came across

Hamza Tzortzis and Brendan Larvor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeaYeogomo8&feature=player_embedded

Adam Deen vs Brendan Larvor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im8l9BAsEQE

For some reason most of the Muslim debaters like to challenge lesser known atheist debaters whom they can easily defeat because of their lack of knowledge about Islam. I have not listened to this fully as yet so cannot pass a judgement as of now. Shabir Ally probably is one of the most articulate Muslim apologist.

Luke, I believe you live in/around Santa Monica area, are there any web sites where you can find these kind of debates happening in greater LA? By the way this web site and your podcasts both provide plenty of food for thought!

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 10, 2011 at 8:58 am

Thanks, knight!

I don’t know of any such website.

  (Quote)

knight March 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Another one, have not listed to this one yet as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaL60AAgKSA&feature=related

As I pointed in my last email Brendan Larvor failed miserably in his debate against Hamza. This has to happen if you are unaware of your opponents main arguments. Sad thing is that this guy Hamza often would make similar arguments somehow deriding his opponent while posing his Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. He somehow has become a copycat WLC for islamic apologetics. I hope someone shows flaws in his arguments soon.

  (Quote)

DAMION March 15, 2011 at 8:52 pm

How about Tabash vs. Martin?

http://vimeo.com/10102561

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 15, 2011 at 9:09 pm

DAMION,

Thanks!

  (Quote)

Paul Baird March 22, 2011 at 12:57 am

Second Debate on Presuppositional Apologetics – Paul Baird v Sye Tenbruggencate – ready for download

The show has now been posted and is available for download. The last show reached 14,000 downloads and got into Premier Christian Radios top 10 mainly thanks to Dr James White over at Alpha and Omega Ministries so I’ll be interested to see how this one does.

Shownotes and audiofeed available too.

Having just listened to it all the way through I’m extremely pleased with it. I was able to correct a number of issues from the first debate and also to press Sye on a number of issues and particularly revelational epistemology and to show the problems with that.

I’d be well pleased if this made it into your list. :-)

  (Quote)

Bradm March 26, 2011 at 9:21 am

Why do you have Wolterstorff in the atheist column? Both Wolterstorff and Audi are Christians.

  (Quote)

Old George March 26, 2011 at 11:39 am

Anyone Who Believes in god should watch The Atheist Experience And Especially
Matt Dillahunty he’s mah Fav

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm

Weird, I don’t know how that one got on there. I’ll remove it in the next update, thanks.

  (Quote)

maraden March 29, 2011 at 7:26 pm

Anyone Who Believes in god should watch The Atheist Experience And Especially
Matt Dillahuntyhe’s mah Fav

I agree. Matt was studying for the evangelical christian ministry when he learned that he couldn’t defend his faith and eventually came to the opposite conclusion. He understands what a doubting christian is going through and shows empathy. http://www.atheist-experience.com/

Another is Bart Ehrman. Here’s the latest piece I’ve read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

  (Quote)

Cafeeine March 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm

Speaking of Dillahunty, I don’t know if it fits the criteria of the list, as its not a formal debate. but the AE show had Ray Comfort on on Sunday. Video is up on YT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU ( audio is here http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2011-03-27.mp3 )

  (Quote)

brandon March 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Just finished watching the William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate streaming live…and as a biased Krauss fan, I was excited by his performance. Early on, it looked like Craig would win on being focused and polished as usual, while Krauss didn’t seem as prepared (the usual Craig debate, in that sense)…but as time went on, Krauss really got to hammer home actual science, while Craig wasn’t able to carry the load. I’ve long waited for a real physicist (other than Stenger) to get to address Craig’s cosmological arguments (and fine-tuning, etc.). It was nice to his misrepresentations, and general misuse of science corrected in detail. By the time the question-and-answer period finished, I felt that Krauss had taken control. Will have to watch again when it’s available, but I think it might be another of the few instances where Craig actually lost.

  (Quote)

MauricXe March 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm
LilRobbie March 31, 2011 at 9:22 am

I was at the debate last night and it pretty much went as I expected.

I too, am a big fan of Dr. Krauss. While I think he is a great scientist, lecturer and teacher, he is not as adept in this type of formal debate format (as he himself admitted). Dr. Krauss was certainly more scattered and frenetic in his approach, and he failed to address several of Dr. Craig’s points – either due to time constraints, or more specifically on the topic of Biblical / historical reliability, because he was not qualified to do so.

Dr. Craig employed his usual, rigid, canned arguments regarding objective morality, fine-tuning and the kalam; however, he did seem to use some newer arguments that I’m not sure Dr. Krauss was prepared for (i.e. God as best explanation for existence of universe and Bayesian probability of God’s existence given background info). Dr. Craig also took several jabs at Dr. Krauss’ definition / use of the word “nothing” from his popular “A Universe from Nothing” lecture.

Dr. Krauss basically attempted to avoid engaging in any philosophical / moral arguments with Dr. Craig (he essentially admitted he disliked philosophy), and tried to focus instead on his own area of expertise – physics and cosmology; however, I was really disappointed that he did not devote more time or effort into countering Dr. Craig’s fine-tuning argument. Towards the end of the debate, Dr. Krauss seemed more steady and comfortable

As Luke has pointed out before, Dr. Craig’s honed, precise debating style almost demands that his opponent spend a lot of time preparing their own clear and ready response in order to effectively rebut his arguments. While I agree with most of Dr. Krauss’ arguments and conclusions – I’m not sure that he effectively conveyed his side or countered Dr. Craig’s… I’ll be watching the debate again later today to see if there was something I might have missed.

Just finished watching the William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate streaming live…and as a biased Krauss fan, I was excited by his performance.Early on, it looked like Craig would win on being focused and polished as usual, while Krauss didn’t seem as prepared (the usual Craig debate, in that sense)…but as time went on, Krauss really got to hammer home actual science, while Craig wasn’t able to carry the load.I’ve long waited for a real physicist (other than Stenger) to get to address Craig’s cosmological arguments (and fine-tuning, etc.).It was nice to his misrepresentations, and general misuse of science corrected in detail.By the time the question-and-answer period finished, I felt that Krauss had taken control.Will have to watch again when it’s available, but I think it might be another of the few instances where Craig actually lost.

  (Quote)

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil March 31, 2011 at 10:26 am

I really see no point in these debates other than amusement value. You cannot reason someone away from a position that they assumed without reasoning. When the position is one that rejects rational thought, truth, and observable facts, it is a total waste of time unless you do it for entertainment value.

It is possible that someone already entertaining doubts might be swayed by rational arguments but those people would likely have arrived at the same conclusions by themselves. Isn’t that how most atheists became that way?

  (Quote)

Franklin Nin March 31, 2011 at 10:53 pm

I saw in Sam Harris’ blog this: Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens vs David Wolpe and Bradley Artson. The question is “Is There an Afterlife”

The video link:
http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001

  (Quote)

ipka April 1, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Sye TenBruggencate is not an atheist.

Please correct that, or note that it’s not an “atheism vs theism” debate.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser April 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm

ipka,

Thanks. Will fix in next update.

  (Quote)

MauricXe April 7, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Michael April 8, 2011 at 12:19 am

Luke, at some point will you be reviewing the craig-krauss and craig-harris debates?

  (Quote)

LilRobbie April 8, 2011 at 10:20 am

Video from the Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig debate held at Notre Dame titled, “Does Good Come from God?”, has been uploaded to YouTube.

  (Quote)

knight April 9, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Listened to Harris vs Craig debate, it was better than some others but still Sam could not decisively refute WLC’s arguments. Some of Sam’s arguments were definitely good but somehow I felt that it was lacking. WLC is one of the best theist debaters , given that, I think Sam did comparatively well.

Did anyone else notice that Sam had no clue about the miracle of the Sun? He kept referring to 2 millennium old miracles. Had he known about it he would have certainly repudiated it as a mass hallucination cited the scientific criticism of it and I would say rightly so.

  (Quote)

maraden April 10, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Listened to Harris vs Craig debate, it was better than some others but still Sam could not decisively refute WLC’s arguments. Some of Sam’s arguments were definitely good but somehow I felt that it was lacking. WLC is one of the best theist debaters , given that, I think Sam did comparatively well.

Did anyone else notice that Sam had no clue about the miracle of the Sun? He kept referring to2 millennium old miracles. Had he known about it he would have certainly repudiated it as a mass hallucination cited the scientific criticism of it and I would say rightly so.

Did Craig actually stoop to reputed miracles? Why were the only witnesses in a small area? Why didn’t half the world see it? These “miracles” beg the question of why are they only revealed to small audiences if they are meant to reinforce faith. Why not show a miracle to everyone if the maker is serious and not having fun with the gullible humans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun I may have to watch this for entertainment.

Most of these debates are for entertainment value, rather than truth value. Their goal is to run out the clock before your opponent can find a reasonable answer to all of your claims.

  (Quote)

camy April 13, 2011 at 10:03 pm

I really see no point in these debates other than amusement value. You cannot reason someone away from a position that they assumed without reasoning.When the position is one that rejects rational thought, truth, and observable facts, it is a total waste of time unless you do it for entertainment value.

It is possible that someone already entertaining doubts might be swayed by rational arguments but those people would likely have arrived at the same conclusions by themselves.Isn’t that how most atheists became that way?

I agree, it isn’t possible to reason with Atheists. Without any epistemic ground for logical deduction, truth, reliability of their senses, induction, or morals. Any argument becomes self defeating. ^_^

  (Quote)

Joe April 14, 2011 at 6:41 am

Apparently there are many fully grown human beings who feel it is not necessary to argue with ignorance and are content with allowing this culture and many others to lie to their children and fill their heads with the necessary garbage for them to be “normal”. IOWs just let it be and ignore all of those arrogant atheists who insist on evidence. Just pay your taxes and help support this ghost story for them to pass on to their children. Don’t rock the boat. After all wasn’t “Jesus ” a real person????????????

  (Quote)

Rosita April 16, 2011 at 11:40 pm

Luke,
Thanks for a great resource. I don’t know where or how you find the time but I am not complaining.

  (Quote)

Rosemary April 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Keith wrote

This is just a clever attempt to undermind how well i did in the debate. I challenge Hermes to name one place where I missed a point that my opponent made. His arguments were not that technical. Now if you mean “missed” by overlooking them, I did miss some. But if you mean “missed” by being ignorant of the point that he made, I challenge you to name one time that I did such a thing. I feel like you people do a great deal of injustice by spitefully downplaying people that you disagree with. It is very immature.

After reading this lengthy debate my conclusion is that Keith got very thoroughly spanked. Unfortunately he seems to have no comprehension of this.

Keith/Majesty’s response is ungracious and underlines the problem he quite obviously had with comprehending the points made by his opponent.

He began well enough, presumably because he copied Craig’s argument, but his postings degenerated into increasingly embarassing silliness as the debate continued. He misunderstood point after point after point.

I think this was a very good illustration of the notion that Craig wins his debates because of his excellent debating skills, careful preparation, good use of the time clock, ability to play on the audience’s emotions and his control of the format and venue – - not because his arguments are actually good ones.

Every time I have seen others try out Craig’s arguments on the Web they have failed miserably. The only difference here is that RCrady provided a truly superlative performance. I enjoyed it immensely.

  (Quote)

Majesty April 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Keith wrote

After reading this lengthy debate my conclusion is that Keith got very thoroughly spanked. Unfortunately he seems to have no comprehension of this.

Keith/Majesty’s response is ungracious and underlines the problem he quite obviously had with comprehending the points made by his opponent.

He began well enough, presumably because he copied Craig’s argument, but his postings degenerated into increasingly embarassing silliness as the debate continued. He misunderstood point after point after point.

I think this was a very good illustration of the notion that Craig wins his debatesbecause of his excellent debating skills, careful preparation, good use of the time clock,ability to play on the audience’s emotions and his control of the format and venue – – notbecause his arguments are actually good ones.

Every time I have seen others try out Craig’s argumentson the Web they have failed miserably. The only difference here is that RCrady provided a truly superlative performance.I enjoyed it immensely.

I did very well in that debate. Let me guess, you are an atheist right? My point is it is VERY rare that an atheist well admit that a theist won a debate. I watched WLC spank his opponents again and again in his debates and there will be a hundred atheist watching the same debate that will claim otherwise. As far as the debate me and Kcgrady had, that was an absolutely EASY debate for me to win. I defended my position well and my opponent had a lot of weak responses. I remember it quite well. But whatever, say what you want.

  (Quote)

Pikemann Urge April 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm

“My point is it is VERY rare that an atheist well admit that a theist won a debate.”

Now, I cannot comment on your debate as I haven’t seen it. However, it’s quite common for atheists and non-Christians to admit when a Christian wins a debate.

Not just WLC (most people acknowledge that he wins most of his debates) but others. Even where intelligent design is being argued, the naturalist can lose. I heard a podcast featuring William Dembski, and although ID is very bad science (so far) he dominated that debate.

  (Quote)

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil April 26, 2011 at 5:35 pm

Personally, I have never known a theist to admit an atheist won a debate. But when the basis of their beliefs are founded upon lies, it is perhaps too much to expect them to recognize truths. When a person has to reject facts and rational thinking to accept a belief system as ridiculous as theism, how can anyone expect them to be swayed by reason and obvious truths?

That’s why the debates are pointless. No matter what facts are presented with indisputable evidence, a theist will reject all of that and fall back on circular reasoning, babble quotes, and things like “The tide goes in, the tide goes out, you can’t explain that.” No, you can’t explain the obvious to anyone why has previously decided not to accept it.

  (Quote)

maraden April 26, 2011 at 5:42 pm

I did very well in that debate.Let me guess, you are an atheist right? My point is it is VERY rare that an atheist well admit that a theist won a debate. I watched WLC spank his opponents again and again in his debates and there will be a hundred atheist watching the same debate that will claim otherwise. As far as the debate me and Kcgrady had, that was an absolutely EASY debate for me to win. I defended my position well and my opponent had a lot of weak responses. I remember it quite well. But whatever, say what you want.

Congrats on your win. Isn’t it a shame there is never enough time to follow the arguments to conclusion. I wonder what would happen if a top atheist and apologist had a respectful conversation about the evidence for god? (For example, the Coppleston/Russell debate above if it had continued long enough.) I suspect the conversation would become more and more complex and difficult to follow. However, if both are honest about the process, I think that the apologist will always fail to convince the atheist. What really matters is the best relationship we can fashion to each other and the world, not make our relationships fit some suppositional religious story.

  (Quote)

Majesty April 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm

“My point is it is VERY rare that an atheist well admit that a theist won a debate.”

Now, I cannot comment on your debate as I haven’t seen it. However, it’s quite common for atheists and non-Christians to admit when a Christian wins a debate.

Not just WLC (most people acknowledge that he wins most of his debates) but others. Even where intelligent design is being argued, the naturalist can lose. I heard a podcast featuring William Dembski, and although ID is very bad science (so far) he dominated that debate.

True enough, but look at youtube comments while watching a debate (particularly of WLC), and you will find the majority of comments are geared towards people stating that WLC is getting demolished when the exact opposite is occurring. I really don’t think it is a matter of them voicing their opinions, but rather them being sore losers. And I am more than willing to admit when WLC isn’t doing well/or hasn’t done well in a debate. The only one i can think of is the debate he had with Shelly Kagan, and I admit, he lost. But every other debate he has won decisively and no matter how well he presents his case, or how HORRIBLE his opponents presents theirs, people will still say he lost the debate. I think it is dishonest and ridiculous.

  (Quote)

bob May 8, 2011 at 5:46 am

True enough, but look at youtube comments while watching a debate (particularly of WLC), and you will find the majority of comments are geared towards people stating that WLC is getting demolished when the exact opposite is occurring

If winning means having the crowd on your side, then wlc easily wins most of his debates. He’s a skilled debater.
If winning means defeating your opponents’ arguments, wlc loses significantly more times. He defeats his opponents’ arguments by twisting their words and taking them out of context so that they have to spend the whole time undoing the strawmen that he creates.

  (Quote)

B May 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm

New debate, took place May 6th 2011 between Dan Barker and John-Mark Miravalle.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmTkSaFDqc
MP3″ http://www.mediafire.com/?q235o2hesza7oog

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser May 13, 2011 at 1:30 am

B,

Thanks! Will add in the next update.

  (Quote)

Cory May 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm

The link in the comments above to the god debate at nortre dame between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig no longer works. Here is an updated link.
http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser May 13, 2011 at 5:55 pm

Cory,

Thanks!

  (Quote)

Jesse May 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm

I met Eddie Tabash at the convention in Iowa this year. He said that he has tried to debate Craig since 99 but Craig has refused to debate him again………….owned! Tabash is the top debater there is atheist or theist.

  (Quote)

Joseph Lorimer May 16, 2011 at 2:24 am

Hi Luke,
A recent Robert Price debate is here: http://www.tabletalkradio.org/content/node/228

Joseph

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser May 16, 2011 at 11:08 am

Joseph,

Thanks! I’ll add it in the next update.

  (Quote)

Rich R May 19, 2011 at 9:08 am

What does it even mean to “win” a debate? I’ve seen some that try a polling system that depends on the audience being willing and capable of judging their own opinions both pre and post debate. Hardly an art or a science. For my 2 cents, I don’t think WLC has ever “won” a debate, because I can’t think of a time I’ve agreed with him on anything more than a minor or merely semantic point. He’s a very competent speaker within his limited scope. By design or not, he seems to enter into and address the same well worn points. I do admit that he often does better with his own assertions than his opponents do with their evidence. If that’s winning, I suppose I agree.

For something slightly different, listen to the May Dan Barker debate with JM Miravalle. I was there and Miravalle’s winging tone was difficult to listen to, but he was saying something that, on a superficial level, I had not heard in a debate. Or not exactly, anyway. I don’t think it was really a good argument, but different at least. Barker was mostly by his script. He filled in the next for a missing speaker and it was nice to see him get away from his usual talking points.

  (Quote)

illegalbrain May 19, 2011 at 10:15 am

Are any of these debates between an atheist and a theist who is not part of a particular religious tradition?

  (Quote)

illegalbrain May 19, 2011 at 10:23 am

Failing this, could someone point out ones in which the theists are liberals of one kind or another?

  (Quote)

Conor May 26, 2011 at 4:18 am

all this talk about W. Craig is fine, he is an excellently skilled debater but Hitchens destroyed him on every point.

Craig was stumbling the entire time and dodged every time on direct points and tried to twist the debate to suit a theists arguing stance.

Again greatly skilled debater but his points are awful and what he says has no substance, tongue tying your opponent does not validate your view point only defeating their arguments does. End of.

You can win a debate and still be so so wrong and false.

  (Quote)

Conor May 26, 2011 at 4:42 am

I really see no point in these debates other than amusement value. You cannot reason someone away from a position that they assumed without reasoning.When the position is one that rejects rational thought, truth, and observable facts, it is a total waste of time unless you do it for entertainment value.

It is possible that someone already entertaining doubts might be swayed by rational arguments but those people would likely have arrived at the same conclusions by themselves.Isn’t that how most atheists became that way?

The point of a debate is not to sway the opposing speaker it is to sway the house. (audience).

  (Quote)

Jim May 27, 2011 at 5:04 am

Thanks so much for these- endlessly entertaining and thought provoking.
I love the vintage debate with Madeline Murray OHare, one of America’s great characters.
And my guilty pleasure is Phil Fernandes’ torturous Danny DeVitoesque voice.

  (Quote)

Mat May 30, 2011 at 10:30 am

Hey,

Thanks for compiling these debates. Can anyone tell me who provides the most logically/empirically compelling rebuttal to WLC’s arguments with respect to the origins of the universe and the fine-tuning of it?

Mat

  (Quote)

mac May 30, 2011 at 2:00 pm

for anyone interested in seeing w.l.c. lose a debate and look foolish doing it, i would recommend his debate with shelly kagan on morality without god. hands down the best performance by an atheist against craig. i think a big part of kagans victory and craig’s noticable uneasiness is due to the informal q&a portion of the debate. craig doesn’t sound so good when he is not reciting his prepared statements.

  (Quote)

maraden May 31, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Hey,

Thanks for compiling these debates. Can anyone tell me who provides the most logically/empirically compelling rebuttal to WLC’s arguments with respect to the origins of the universe and the fine-tuning of it?

Mat

Here’s a start: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

You might enjoy this “A universe from nothing”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  (Quote)

Brandon May 31, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Just wanted to state that I finally got around to watching the Kagan/Craig debate. I admit that I kinda skimmed the main debate, and was more interested in the Q&A, which was very refreshing.

With WLC out of his set-speech format, that was enough by itself to pique my interest…but wow, Kagan was incredibly lucid, confident and dare I say…dominant.

Not to demean WLC during that phase, because I thought it was one of the more thought-provoking, REAL discussions I’ve seen in the course of a theological/philosophical debate. A cut above the rest.

I have no problem saying that Kagan was much more articulate and devastating than WLC, and even though I’m biased, I don’t say that often.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer June 5, 2011 at 9:50 am

Lucas,

Are we not updating this page anymore?

J.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser June 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

Yes I am updating it, and my name is Luke.

  (Quote)

Dan June 6, 2011 at 6:47 am

AUDIO: Michael Licona vs Stephen Patterson Debate: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/05/michael-licona-vs-stephen-patterson.html

or

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/debate-licona-patterson.mp3

———————

TEXT: “The Case Against ‘The Case for Christ’” – A review and analysis of The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, by Scott Bidstrup:

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

  (Quote)

Carl Fink June 8, 2011 at 6:23 am

Thank you very much for this invaluable resource!

I notice that you have both audio and text formats linked for the Pigliucci-Craig debate, but they appear to be of two different debates, the text from 1995 and the audio from 2001.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser June 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Carl Fink,

Thanks for the correction! I’ll fix it in the next update.

  (Quote)

Torgo June 9, 2011 at 6:46 am

Hey Luke,
I came here looking for this second debate between Pigliucci and Craig, but couldn’t find it. If you don’t have it, here’s the link:
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-lane-craig-vs-massimo-pigliucci.html

  (Quote)

Mick June 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Thanks for the new updates, Lucas!

  (Quote)

Mike June 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm

A new debating website: http://www.TheJesusDebate.com. Post and ask questions.

  (Quote)

Franklin Nin June 15, 2011 at 11:51 pm

I don’t knwo if this is the right place….

Sorry for my English

What I see in those debates is that William Lane Craig takes the same arguments in his favor, he use debate skills to win but I think is easy to beat him, use the same argument in your favor looking his weak point.

I’ll make some points

William Lane Craig argue that he have arguments for the existence of God but the problem is that those arguments are no really arguments for the existence of God at least not directly, those arguments are for any kind of being or any kind of thing or whatever out there out of our knowledge, maybe a material being in another way that we can’t imagine, like our universe were a sub-atomic particle in other kind of space-time or something like that. So if he calls God to that, then I think is a better answer. But I don’t think than he thinks like that because he is a Christian and what he is trying to defend is the Christian God so he must connect his arguments with the god that he believes. Those arguments are just a probability that exist someone or something out there and one of them is the Christian God.

William Lane Craig says that he has the hypothesis of the resurrection of Jesus by God. But here are some problems. First, there’s no directly fact that Jesus has resurrected from the dead by God (if God exist), he just think that it was like that. There’s a hypothesis with four or five facts but I cannot imagine how he can advance from “hypothesis” to “a fact” someday if this event is supernatural I don’t know how could be measure someday by us. So maybe will be a hypothesis forever which means that we cannot know if Christ really rose from the death or not.

Now given what we live and what we have lived through the years, no one has seen a miracle that could not be explain, there’s no reason to think a miracle have occurred and it’s rare that the son of God born in that era and made miracle, etc. when we can’t measure or access also there’s no technology in that time. Thing like miracle, magical power, etc. is now reduced because of science, and suddenly god disappears, no talks, no signals, nothing, now is just personal relationship, revelation. With this I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist but are dubious things to think about it.

So what we have is a probability of God with a probability of Jesus resurrection with not enough evidence to say that the resurrection is a fact and no directly proof of God, no arguments to establish that God exist without a doubt and miracles happens in a myth-era. On the other hand, we have the argument against the Christian God that is “The Problem of Evil” that even if it doesn’t show that God doesn’t exist, show that is probable that Christian God doesn’t exist and no theologian has successfully defeated this argument.

So here comes my point:

If this Christian God really want to save us like Craig claims, then he will make something that everybody start to believe instead of have doubt because he made us with doubt so is a quality of us and there’s enough reason no to believe. At least, God should help theologians such as Craig to show us something to make us believe in order to save us, at least solving the problem of evil will be a great step But it seems that God does not help him because he has the same arguments year after year and there is no direct evidence of God, nothing, not even a proof of the Jesus’s resurrection that shows without a doubt that Jesus was resurrected, all this things are doubtful. It’s just debate after debate after debate and while this happen, good non-believers people dies, and because they are not convince, they will going to hell, like we were worthless toys. So it’s like a game, “Believe me with indirect doubtful evidence and generic arguments or you will be in Hell”, hey I’m a good person or at least there’s a lot of good person who doesn’t not believe and just want a strong reason to believe and this arguments are not so powerful after all.

If God shows himself or helps in some way to the people that are trying to show us that He exist, he is no violating our free will, I can choose not to believe even with a lot of proof of God or strong argument, which is not the case.

If in order to believe in God to defend God, to save us,we need to study a lot, spending my life in this field, make two PHD like Craig and still exist doubts, I think we are doomed.

Another thing is that me as an atheist which means I don’t believe in God but I don’t deny that something, someone out there exist it’s just that I don’t find nothing that makes me believe that there’s a God for sure. But Craig believe in God, this doesn’t mean that he know or has the proof of God because like we, is just a belief, but the problem is that he claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus and my question is, what’s the meaning of this? Having a personal relationship with Jesus means that you know Jesus is real (revelation, you feel Jesus in you) or is just that you believe that you have a personal relationship? Because, if is the second option then could be schizophrenia or something like that, but if is the one option then, how can we know, measure this claim is true? He is the one that is claiming that he knows but can’t show us how to prove it. I’m claiming doubts; he is claiming to know but can’t show and cannot be measure, which is the most reasonable position after all?

  (Quote)

Maraden June 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Franklin, I agree with your point that there is no evidence for god belief. No philosophical argument can prove god exists either. So belief rests solely on faith. Fortunately for religions, children are indoctrinated when they still believe what they are told. Too bad our societies are not mature enough to protect the innocent until they can think for themselves!

  (Quote)

Hermes June 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm

Franklin, I like your ideas. Very insightful.

For me, while Craig gains my respect by his diligence, attention to the arguments and ideas of others who he will debate, and his other debating skills, he loses all of that respect and more when he brings up the ‘self-authenticating holy spirit’ argument.

Here is Craig making that argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ

Theo Warner has a great post on Craig’s position: http://blog.leagueofreason.co.uk/reason/william-lane-craig-is-not-self-authenticating

An excerpt of Theo’s excellent post;

““A self-authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true, wholly apart from the evidence;” it is Craig at his highest but also at his lowest because it precisely disables the value of reason to the apologist who preaches a reason-justified Christianity, which is precisely the guiding assumption of apologetics. C.S.Lewis, the usurped grandfather of fundamentalist apologetics, famously said: “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity 123) — and here, in stark opposition, is Craig saying that even if his best reasoning told him that the weight of the evidence was against Christianity, he would still be a Christian.”

  (Quote)

Maraden June 19, 2011 at 11:46 pm

For me, while Craig gains my respect by his diligence, attention to the arguments and ideas of others who he will debate, and his other debating skills, he loses all of that respect and more when he brings up the ‘self-authenticating holy spirit’ argument.

Hermes, I take it that you are complimenting Craig on his prep work and not his debate performance. Craig is admirably well prepared on his opponents. I think Craig is perhaps more honest than Lewis. I think the point for C.S. Lewis was that the strength of the arguments could vary as long as they are persuasive for some (all but the most discriminating I suppose) so falling back on faith looks bad for a professional apologist. Falling back on faith would lose the debate and the gravy train would end. Craig upholds this tradition in debates. However, Craig’s self-authenticating statement reveals a personal dilemma.

Craig has a personal experience of god, yet no ultimately persuasive proof. Craig also wants to believe in the texts and that’s the dilemma. Either one can only know god through personal experience, or there is demonstrable evidence in the world that he exists. Either way I don’t see how the texts survive intact with all their contradictions and confusion?

  (Quote)

matt June 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm

I haven’t been around here for a while, so I was excited to see there are some new WL Craig debates. Although I’m an atheist, I admire Craig as a real debater, I almost want to say a debater with integrity. At least listening to him debate Harris, Craig now seems to me not to be really not so bad after all. Harris prooves he’s an even more brilliant rhetorician than Craig, but on an argumentative level I think he’s just a charlatan with a cheap veneer of reasonableness. He hardly even bothers to deal with any of Craig’s *philosophical* arguments on a philosophical level; instead he resorts to cheap long-winded red-herring theatrics, homely analogies and commercial sound-bite imagery (so many dead children a minute etc. etc.). At bottom, the breathtaking circularity of his “theory” of human wellbeing as a “foundation” of morality just makes me, well, kind of …. nauseous.

  (Quote)

Kasey July 2, 2011 at 8:19 pm

I haven’t been around here for a while, so I was excited to see there are some new WL Craig debates. Although I’m an atheist, I admire Craig as a real debater, I almost want to say a debater with integrity. At least listening to him debate Harris, Craig now seems to me not to be really not so bad after all. Harris prooves he’s an even more brilliant rhetorician than Craig,but on an argumentative level I think he’s just a charlatan with a cheap veneer of reasonableness.He hardly even bothers to deal with any of Craig’s *philosophical* arguments on a philosophical level; instead he resorts to cheap long-winded red-herring theatrics, homely analogies and commercial sound-bite imagery (so many dead children a minute etc. etc.). At bottom, the breathtaking circularity of his “theory” of human wellbeing as a “foundation” of morality just makes me, well, kind of …. nauseous.

I haven’t been around here for a while, so I was excited to see there are some new WL Craig debates. Although I’m an atheist, I admire Craig as a real debater, I almost want to say a debater with integrity. At least listening to him debate Harris, Craig now seems to me not to be really not so bad after all. Harris prooves he’s an even more brilliant rhetorician than Craig,but on an argumentative level I think he’s just a charlatan with a cheap veneer of reasonableness.He hardly even bothers to deal with any of Craig’s *philosophical* arguments on a philosophical level; instead he resorts to cheap long-winded red-herring theatrics, homely analogies and commercial sound-bite imagery (so many dead children a minute etc. etc.). At bottom, the breathtaking circularity of his “theory” of human wellbeing as a “foundation” of morality just makes me, well, kind of …. nauseous.

He ignore stupid arguments that have no bearing on his point of view. He doesn’t care to repeat the same debate that Craig has had a hundred times. He is there to show why his ideas are superior, not to debunk Craig’s rinse and repeat ideas. Red Herring? Really? He stays completely on topic to the debate. If Craig wants to bring up irrelevant challenges, Harris does not have the burden of responding. Just as Craig will point out if someone goes off topic, except Harris doesn’t care enough to; he just stays on topic and pushes his points home. I’d love to see you explain what’s circular about Sam’s moral landscape concept. It’s pretty sound, and a lot of philosophers have the same point of view. (Dennett, Kagan, Dawkins, etc.)

I’m tempted to believe you’re actually a theist masquerading as an atheist to upsell Craig’s retardation.

  (Quote)

Leo July 16, 2011 at 9:23 pm

Debate- Islam or Atheism- Hamza Andreas Tzortzis vs President of American Atheists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma18YgEV1wM

  (Quote)

Premo July 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Hi,

really nice list of debates.

Two things:

1. there is no link for the 2010 (historical Jesus) debate between Robert Price and James White.

2. There is new video available of a debate between Richard Carrier and JP Holding on the NT textual reliability. Here’s the address for the first video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOz8CpfR_lw&feature=feedf

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser July 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Premo,

Thanks!

  (Quote)

matt August 24, 2011 at 7:36 am

@kasey: “upsell craig’s retardation”! now there’s a reasoned critique for you. As for the circularity of harris’ idea of “well-being” — not the moral landscape metaphor, which depends for its coherence on the former: it’s pretty obvious to me that it’s a tautology to say that maximizing “well”-anything is somehow a precise definition of the “good”. He might as well say that maximizing goodness is good, and that this is “scientifically measurable”. For one of many critiques of Harris’ position, which takes it a lot more seriously than i think it really deserves, see: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/10/sam-harris-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-the-slipperiness-of-well-being/

And yes, i really am an atheist. I just find the naive scientism — shades of BF Skinner — and the bigotry of the New Atheists–in particular toward Muslims — to be as obnoxious as the fundamentalism of people like Craig.

  (Quote)

Joemailman August 25, 2011 at 10:24 am

I’m afraid that if one cannot embrace science as the only method with which to measure reality then one cannot call themselves an atheist. IMHO BF Skinner has yet to be acknowledged as one of the foremost and important scientists of the last century. Unfortunately the scientific community of “accredited” scientists includes those who feel there is more than physicality. These people are actually technicians as they cannot embrace the idea that the physical world is all that there is.

  (Quote)

Kasey August 26, 2011 at 4:22 am

@kasey: “upsell craig’s retardation”! now there’s a reasoned critique for you. As for the circularity of harris’ idea of “well-being” — not the moral landscape metaphor, which depends for its coherence on the former: it’s pretty obvious to me that it’s a tautology to say that maximizing “well”-anything is somehow a precise definition of the “good”. He might as well say that maximizing goodness is good, and that this is “scientifically measurable”. For one of many critiques of Harris’ position, which takes it a lot more seriously than i think it really deserves, see: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/10/sam-harris-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-the-slipperiness-of-well-being/

And yes,i really am an atheist. I just find the naive scientism — shades of BF Skinner — and the bigotry of the New Atheists–in particular toward Muslims — to be as obnoxious as the fundamentalism of people like Craig.

Are you trying to say that because you can’t objectively define ‘good’ then there’s no point in trying to reach a ‘good(er)’ state of existence? You can absolutely scientifically measure general well-being just as people do with medicine. If your leg doesn’t hurt but I can see that it is infected should you then be considered ‘well?’

Your line of thought is pointless and doesn’t benefit anyone. That link you gave me is also pretty stupid. Of course we can’t directly measure someone’s conscious feelings. This is like saying a parent should just throw their baby away because they can’t directly measure what their baby wants when it cries.

“(e.g. Suppose that over their whole lifetimes, Blue would have a well-being of 10, and Red a well-being of 5, all other things are equal, and you could either give an additional 6 units of well-being to Blue or 5 to Red. Which would be right? ”

I can’t believe you linked this as if it’s some sort of gotcha deal-breaker to everything Harris is talking about. Did you honestly read this and go “Oh damn Harris didn’t even know about this!” Again, of course we can’t directly find out which one would be ‘right.’ But you can scientifically weigh the pros and cons of each decision and make the *best choice.* If you’re looking for some objective factual perfect way to define what is right and make moral decisions you won’t find it; it doesn’t exist. Saying that it doesn’t exist doesn’t make you smart and it doesn’t do anything to damage Harris’ idea about striving for a better moral landscape.

People have *reasons* for liking things, wanting things, disliking things, being happy, being sad etc. Just because people are different and there is no objective truth to feelings and morals does not mean that ‘morality is arbitrary’ or ‘all opinions are equal.’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

  (Quote)

Madeleine September 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm

The transcript for the Sam Harris v William Lane Craig Debate “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” is here: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%e2%80%9cis-good-from-god%e2%80%9d.html

  (Quote)

Mike September 29, 2011 at 12:46 am

I think William Craig is a great debater, however I do think he lost to Shelly Kagan. He seems to be good at speaking to a crowd, however when it comes to a Q&A with his opponents he does not do well. Also he seems to just say stuff like “thats not true” or he always says things such as “We havent heard any evidence” meaning he speaks for everyone. I Also feel that Avalos, wiped the floor with him, I do wish there was a fact check in that debate. Craig’s tone when debating Avalos sounded very insecure. Avalos did a good job of criticizing Craig and how he does not want to speak on the bible, but tends to use the bible as his source, also he points out that Craig picks and chooses which religion CAN have super natural miracles. I think, Craig does so well, because he continues to ramble on as if he is right regardless of what is being said.

  (Quote)

Collin October 5, 2011 at 12:54 am

I saw the Spencer/Margolis debate listed, and I thought why is a Jew arguing for resurrection? After reading it, I say he doesn’t sound Jewish at all. He sounds just like any Christian apologist. Very disappointing.

Most of the debate points are way above my pay grade, but I caught one glaring omission in David’s original premises: what if JC disappeared in some way while still inside the tomb? For example, what if the oil he was anointed with spontaneously ignited?

Ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the NT itself.

  (Quote)

Cafeeine October 8, 2011 at 8:48 am

This was just posted on Youtube, haven’t watched it yet, but here’s the link anyways.

Does God Exist?
Scott Wilkinson vs Christopher DiCarlo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGY3kmEpwIg

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser October 9, 2011 at 3:15 pm

Thanks Cafeeine.

  (Quote)

Ivan October 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm

I’m psyched. I hope you are as well. I’m very fond of Arif Ahmed, I’m looking forward to payback.

Thursday 20th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate at the Cambridge Union: “This House Believes that God is not a Delusion” (Not open to the public)
Proposing the motion: William Lane Craig and Peter S. Williams
Opposing the motion: Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson
The Cambridge Union, Cambridge

  (Quote)

Brian October 15, 2011 at 8:55 am

Dave Silverman recently debated Dinesh D’souza. No video or audio yet. http://atheists.org/blog/2011/10/13/david-silverman-debates-dinesh-dsouza

  (Quote)

Moridin October 19, 2011 at 10:05 am
Brandon November 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm

In re-visiting the debate between William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens, I’m struck by Craig’s use of the phrase that, ‘He hasn’t given us any reason to believe atheism is true.”

I would assume that someone as well-versed in philosophy and the meaning of words, such as Craig, would resort to such an argument, and can find no reason for it other than his desire to frame the word, and the argument, in his favor…even if it’s fallacious.

How can atheism be ‘true’? He seems to operate on the definition of atheism that it means, ‘there is no God’. And that’s completely bogus, although there might be a tiny minority of atheists that would make such a claim. But it simply means, ‘disbelief in deities’. How can disbelief be ‘true’? I do actually have some respect for the man, but this is an example of where I think he subscribes to ‘the end justifies the means’…if he can frame atheism as something related to certainty, instead of doubt, then he can accuse his opponent of not having ‘proved their position’.

I don’t believe that alien beings exist (and are visiting Earth), simply because I don’t see enough evidence yet to conclude such a thing. But I cannot prove it, and that is not a fault of mine…it’s a fault of those who would make the claim in the first place, for not providing sufficient evidence. I remain in doubt, and do not need to prove they don’t exist in order to have sufficient reason to doubt them.

  (Quote)

Brandon November 1, 2011 at 4:36 pm

To summarize my point above, Craig has attempted to reverse the burden of proof…that instead of the one making the claim being required to prove it, the one who doubts the initial claim must ‘disprove’ it, or the initial claim is true.

Not one of his finer moments, to be sure.

  (Quote)

Brian November 2, 2011 at 4:50 am

Here is the October 12th debate between David Silverman (American Atheists) and Dinesh D’Souza. Topic: Is Christianity Good for the World?

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhvIiFf6J9U

MP3: http://www.mediafire.com/?9ezvpfxsve8skz6

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser November 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Thanks Brian.

  (Quote)

Stig November 2, 2011 at 10:47 pm

I finally listened to the Craig-Draper debate, and I really don’t see why it’s not in the “Good” or “Best” categories.

Draper approached Craig’s level of organization (though he wasted too much time overexplaining his “jellybeans” metaphor). He used most of the arguments I would have used myself, including his own biological argument from pain and pleasure. Simply conceding Kalam and Fine-Tuning as favoring theism was an interesting move that allowed him to focus in on the “beans” that really count strongly against theism, rather than the drawish ones. Though most atheist could not honestly do that, I guess.

Jeffery Jay Lowder awarded Draper the win, and I agree: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/10/summary-and-assessment-of-craig-draper.html

As for Draper’s case for naturalism being “semi-weak”, it was modest enough to be defensible within the stressful debate format, it focused on the hypothesis of indifference and the evidential problem of evil, which are two of the strongest arguemnts against theism as well as emotionally unsettling for many christians, while leaving time to attack Craig on morality and the ressurection. What more can you ask of an agnostic?!

I wonder if the same debate today would have been more explicitly Bayesian.

  (Quote)

Thomas N. Thrasher November 3, 2011 at 1:11 pm

I didn’t find these debates in your listing”

Ron Patterson (Atheist)-Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; February 14, 1994; 1 session. Proposition: “The theory of evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the origin and development of all living things.” (Patterson affirmed, Thrasher denied).

Ron Patterson (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; March 14-15, 1994; 2 sessions. Proposition: “The Bible is the inspired word of God.” (Thrasher affirmed, Patterson denied).

Ron Patterson (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; June 4, 1994; 1 session. Proposition: “Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins.”

Ron Patterson (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; August 27, 1994; 1 session. Topic: Creation or evolution?

Ron Patterson (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; January 27, 1995; 1 session. Proposition: “Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins.” (Thrasher affirmed, Patterson denied).

Ron Patterson (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; February 10, 1995; 1 session. Proposition: “The Christian has a superior basis for morality (the New Testament) than the Atheist.” (Thrasher affirmed, Patterson denied).

Farrell Till (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); Huntsville, AL; June 24-25, 1996; 2 sessions; 60. Proposition 1: “Prophecy fulfillments prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God.” (Thrasher affirmed, Till denied). Proposition 2: “New Testament claims of prophecy fulfillment were fabrications or misrepresentations of Old Testament scriptures.” (Till affirmed, Thrasher denied).

Scott Clifton (Atheist) -Thomas N. Thrasher (Theist); written; 2002; existence of the God of the Bible.

  (Quote)

Cafeeine November 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Thomas, assuming by your name that you took part in these debates, do you think you could find links to audio/video or transcripts?

  (Quote)

Thomas N. Thrasher November 4, 2011 at 5:32 am

I should have audio tapes for all but one of these debates; however, they are on cassettes, so I will need to convert them to audio files. I may have a video tape of one debate. I will work on providing links to them.

The Encyclopedia of Religious Debates (available online at http://www.bibledebates.info) provides information on thousands of debates and hundreds of debaters. I welcome data submissions/additions for these volumes.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser November 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Thomas,

Thanks!

Do you have links to audio, video, or text for any of those debates? I look forward to the links you provide for the cassette rips!

  (Quote)

Brian November 6, 2011 at 3:34 am

I uploaded the Arif Ahmed vs William Lane Craig debate here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NF-LlVFHM

It’s audio only but plays as a Youtube video. I guess it’s good for people who don’t want to download the audio file for whatever reason. :)

  (Quote)

Mike November 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm

In this debate Craig and 2 other theists debate Dawkins and 2 other skeptics. Craig’s side clearly loses by providing no arguments at all. The debate takes place in front of educated people, and at the end the audience clearly expresses that they have not seen any proof of god in this debate. William Craig, then wines and complains about the format of the debate, and tells people not to listen to the science reasoning of why there is no proof of god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

  (Quote)

B Pastoral November 14, 2011 at 11:15 am

Hi Luke,

Great site, good resources. My thanks for all the debates you’ve colelcted and which I’ve added to my collection.

But, a comment.

If the atheists are correct then it’s all just predetermined and meaningless noise. There can be no signal without meaning, and strictly speaking there is no meaning to be found in a universe of naturalistic origin and evolution. If the theists are correct, that from beginning to end there is nothing else other than we few in a theologically-saturated universe as described in the Judeo-Christian texts.

Given the atheistic premise which draws us here, that these debates spark our interest because they are purposed with content meaningful to us and are beyond being just naturally-recorded spectra attractive to evolved human senses and brain processes, then… “why” are you reading something into this missive in particular, and this website in general?

“Why” are these things so “meaningful” and “fascinating” in a mechanistic universe devoid of observable as opposed to derivative semiotics, and how could we as a sapient species have evolved such delusions, or discovere lying has a value outside competitive strategies?

  (Quote)

John Doe November 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm

I have never seen Craig win a debate.
He just asserts that he is the winner and that his questions have not been answered.
Even though he clearly loses and is too stupid to understand the other party’s rebuttals.
This kind of arrogant assertion regardless of the counter arguments and evidence has been enough to keep the religious mind in shackles for centuries. Nothing has changed. I would say one thing to his credit though. He has the ability of spewing garbage at such a rapid pace that it is near impossible to refute all of his stupid claims in the allotted time.

Craig is a very skilled debater. He has won nearly all his debates, with the exception of his debate with Eddie Tabash. Atheists do not properly prepare for his approach, I guess.

  (Quote)

Dan November 19, 2011 at 7:56 am

Bart Ehrman vs Dinesh D’Souza “Theodicy, God and Suffering” at Gordon College November 11th, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isg6Kx-3xdI

Full 1hr42min debate in single video.

  (Quote)

Dan November 19, 2011 at 8:00 am

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig debates atheist Stephen Law on the topic: Does God Exist? The debate was sponsored by Premier Christian Radio at Westminster Hall on October 17, 2011 for the WLC tour. Audio provided by Premier’s Unbelievable podcast.

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/debate-craig-law.mp3

DOZENS MORE DEBATES HERE: http://www.apologetics315.com/search/label/debate

  (Quote)

Spinoza November 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Here’s the video link for Singer vs. Lennox (the one you link to is one to purchase): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXwhRvIfRj8

Peter Singer is starting to look like Schopenhauer.

  (Quote)

Brian November 24, 2011 at 7:27 am

Here’s a radio debate between PZ Myers and Geoff Simmons (a clown from the Discovery Institute) The topic is evolution vs intelligent design. PZ absolutely clobbers him! :)

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZc4fg-L_4
MP3: http://www.mediafire.com/?enz73xnhb55xxrm

  (Quote)

R47 November 28, 2011 at 5:45 am

It has been 1 Month; is there any Plan at all to place the Audio (or Video) Recordings of the Cambridge Union Debate:
“This house believes God is/is not a Delusion.”
Or, should it be already up, could someone please post a Link?

  (Quote)

RevAaron December 9, 2011 at 8:18 am

Dan said:

I have never seen Craig win a debate.
He just asserts that he is the winner and that his questions have not been answered.

But that’s how you win a debate- you make assertions, provide evidence, and build arguments. When premises aren’t challenged, they’re counted as accepted by the opposition. It may seem silly for folks used to arguing in another format, but they are the rules. You don’t need to be the smartest or most correct to win a debate- you just need to be a good debater.

  (Quote)

RevAaron December 9, 2011 at 9:50 am

B Pastoral said:

If the atheists are correct then it’s all just predetermined and meaningless noise. There can be no signal without meaning, and strictly speaking there is no meaning to be found in a universe of naturalistic origin and evolution. If the theists are correct, that from beginning to end there is nothing else other than we few in a theologically-saturated universe as described in the Judeo-Christian texts.

Quite the opposite- if the theists are correct, it’s all just predetermined. At least for theists believing in an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent god. What in the world would give you the idea that atheists preach predeterminism? Or did you just get “atheist” confused with “Calvinist?”

If everything has a meaning in the theistic worldview, then your god has a lot to answer for. For starters, what is the meaning of the 50 billion embryos and fetuses he’s aborted since the dawn of humanity? What is the meaning of the 50 billion children who have died before the age of 5 since he (presumably) created humans? It seems to me that there are three ways a theist might try to explain this away:

1. God has a plan for the universe that we cannot comprehend. If so, God’s meaning in this context is just as irrelevant to us as it would be to an ant, making it effectively nonexistent. Furthermore, it implies that God is either shackled by natural laws or is indifferent to the suffering experienced by the denizens of his creation.
2. God has a moral plan for the universe, but is not powerful enough to effect it. If so, God is weak and his meaning is partial and subjective.
3. God takes pleasure in the death of living things, and demands the death of 100 billion innocent children to sate his lust for blood. If so, God is immoral and his meaning is subjective, irrelevant, and immoral. Exodus 13:2?

What leads you to believe that atheists can’t find meaning in life? Even if you accept the theistic worldview that a God implies meaning, you’d still have to settle for that meaning being purely subjective. How is that any better than the meaning the rest of us find in life?

Given the atheistic premise which draws us here, that these debates spark our interest because they are purposed with content meaningful to us and are beyond being just naturally-recorded spectra attractive to evolved human senses and brain processes, then… “why” are you reading something into this missive in particular, and this website in general?

As far as I can tell, your argument is:

P1. There is no overriding meaning to the existence or goings-on of the cosmos.
P2. The goings-on of the universe are explainable with natural laws.
C1. Therefore, an individual cannot find meaning in anything.
C2. Therefore, there is no reason to study and debate religion and philosophy, or any topic.

This is a complete non sequitur. C1 does not follow from P1, and C2 has no relation to P1, P2, or C1. There seems to be some unstated assumption that “naturally-recorded spectra attractive to evolved human senses and brain processes” could never never ask “why.” This is an unfounded assertion, and a nonsensical one at that.

“Why” are these things so “meaningful” and “fascinating” in a mechanistic universe devoid of observable as opposed to derivative semiotics, and how could we as a sapient species have evolved such delusions, or discovere lying has a value outside competitive strategies?

What is it about evolution that precludes having an interest in things?

I’d suggest you spend some time thinking about this a little more. I know what it’s like to assume that without your god life could have no meaning. People have also felt this way about their wife, their boyfriend, their political ideology, their cult leader, and their Fuehrer. You may have even known someone like this and been frustrated by their lack of rationality. You may have even tried to get them to think about it all a bit, and help them realize that life would go on without their abusive and controlling boyfriend telling them who they can see, what they can do, and what they can eat. It’s safe to say that even the most religious of us find meaning in life that does not derive from an imaginary sky daddy.

  (Quote)

mike December 11, 2011 at 4:42 pm

William Craig is full of hot air , and the only thing he as ever proven is that he believes unconditionally in fantasy and delusion , , as an atheist i am still waiting for one of you crack pots to prove the existence of god , not with faith and or bull shit images on toast but with concrete proof.

  (Quote)

dale December 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm

dear luke,
I just want to thank you for this list and your site. IMHO this is the most reasonable and accepting atheist run site on the net. Thanks!

  (Quote)

Stan December 16, 2011 at 10:55 am

Great list, thanks!!

  (Quote)

Brian December 23, 2011 at 11:02 pm

I’m looking to get opinions on this reformulation of the problem of evil (I call it the Problem of Evil 2.0) :) I believe this sidesteps all of the “free will” defenses and other excuses commonly used by theists. It forces them to sacrifice one of the “omni” attributes of their god if they want to reconcile it with the conclusions of the argument.

Premise: If a being causes suffering (directly or indirectly) by doing something that it does not need to do then it has caused unnecessary suffering.
God is a wholly non-contingent being.
From 2. God doesn’t need anything that is not himself.
From 3. By creating, God has created something that is not himself.
From 3 & 4. By creating, God has created something that he doesn’t need.
From 5. By creating something he doesn’t need, God has done something that he doesn’t need to do.
God’s act of creating has caused suffering.
Therefore, God has caused suffering (directly or indirectly) by doing something that he doesn’t need to do.
From 1 and 8. God has caused unnecessary suffering.

Given that causing unnecessary suffering is incompatible with omnibenevolence, the omnibenevolent god of Christianity has been disproved successfully.

The only way out for the theist it seems to me is to abolish omniscience from god’s definition and claim he didn’t know his creation would lead to these evils, but this implies that he is a bumbling god who made a mistake which ultimately increased the amount of evil/suffering in existence (from a pre-creation rate of 0.00% to whatever it is today). And this again would disprove the traditional “omnimax” god concept.

  (Quote)

BluMoon December 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Full Blair/Hitchens debate video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA

  (Quote)

Ian Hugh Clary January 7, 2012 at 12:13 pm

This is outstanding, thank you for putting all the work into this.
Just a quick note on a typo, Joe Boot is not “Joel.”

  (Quote)

Seamus Riley January 19, 2012 at 4:47 pm

You solve a problem; you answer a question.

  (Quote)

Brian January 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans, Jan 19 2012
Topic: “Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the Historical Jesus?”

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oh1S8g1gaQ&
MP3: http://www.mediafire.com/?o0svqiwqdnv1jou

William Lane Craig and Peter Williams vs Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson.
The motion for this debate was “This House Believes that God is not a Delusion”.

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXB0o53FdVM
MP3: http://www.mediafire.com/?bfbdscakdiz2fp3

  (Quote)

C January 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Its kind of funny how atheists spend so much time trying to disprove something they seem so sure doesn’t exist. I have yet to hear compelling reasons from these “so certain” critics to think that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing…

  (Quote)

maraden January 23, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Its kind of funny how atheists spend so much time trying to disprove something they seem so sure doesn’t exist. I have yet to hear compelling reasons from these “so certain” critics to think that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing…

If you are sincerely interested in knowledge start with the definition of atheist. If you are interested in science check out the Quantum, String and M theories on how the universe may have formed.

  (Quote)

D January 24, 2012 at 9:04 am

Its kind of funny how atheists spend so much time trying to disprove something they seem so sure doesn’t exist. I have yet to hear compelling reasons from these “so certain” critics to think that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing…

How is it funny? And if it was funny, how does that somehow show that a specific God does exist? I guess you accept all the claims of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc- since there have been debates between various types of believers and non-believers and adherents of those religions. Call me crazy, but I your type of “everything is true” post-modernism is what’s funny! :)

BTW, I think you may have made a small mix up- it’s the theists claiming to be “so sure” and “so certain,” not atheists. No worries- we all make mistakes! An atheist is just looking for the best answer- unlike Christianity, Islam, etc there’s no required dogma or feigned certainty.

  (Quote)

Tarn January 27, 2012 at 11:33 am

BTW, I love the image at the top. I especially love that you’ve taken the two people who (I think) are the best debaters on each side of the argument.

  (Quote)

B Pastoral January 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm

From 3 & 4. By creating, God has created something that he doesn’t need.

The implicit premise here is that God’s needs can be unilaterally determined by you or someone else. Corollary to this is that you or someone else knows God well enough to know what God doesn’t need, or needs. In the Judeo-Christian canonical texts, there are no revelations of such personal atttributes. Instead, what are repeated over and over again are divine desires.

  (Quote)

B Pastoral January 29, 2012 at 1:28 am

Quite the opposite- if the theists are correct, it’s all just predetermined. At least for theists believing in an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent god. What in the world would give you the idea that atheists preach predeterminism? Or did you just get “atheist” confused with “Calvinist?”

Perhaps I should have used the less theological descriptive “deterministic” to avoid confusion. A deterministic universe could not give rise to differentiated expectations except as some type of evolved sociobiological delusion of “freeness”, and I’m not interested in non-God delusions. Yes, Atheists do preach as would any sapient espousing known held views. I would not confuse atheism with Calvinist-origin theism anymore than you would.

If everything has a meaning in the theistic worldview, then your god has a lot to answer for. For starters, what is the meaning of the 50 billion embryos and fetuses he’s aborted since the dawn of humanity? What is the meaning of the 50 billion children who have died before the age of 5 since he (presumably) created humans? It seems to me that there are three ways a theist might try to explain this away:

1. God has a plan for the universe that we cannot comprehend. If so, God’s meaning in this context is just as irrelevant to us as it would be to an ant, making it effectively nonexistent. Furthermore, it implies that God is either shackled by natural laws or is indifferent to the suffering experienced by the denizens of his creation.
2. God has a moral plan for the universe, but is not powerful enough to effect it. If so, God is weak and his meaning is partial and subjective.
3. God takes pleasure in the death of living things, and demands the death of 100 billion innocent children to sate his lust for blood. If so, God is immoral and his meaning is subjective, irrelevant, and immoral. Exodus 13:2?

If your speculations derived from direct knowledge of the mind of God and his purposes, and were also consistent with the main narrative of descriptions and prescriptions in the Judeo-Christian texts, then you might have grounds for a strong opinion. Humans and their artifacts have been described in the texts as mere clay molded by its creator for whatever purposes he sees fit. Within that context, our fitness for divine purposes can and has involved our elimination both as individuals and as entire civilizations.

The incapacity of humanity to fully comprehend divine purposes is predictable, was predicted, and continues to hold epistemologically to this very moment, as predictably brought up by you. The full meaning of humanity’s situation within a schema of supernatural origin is fascinating, and is always legitimately open to question. But the debate is far from being settled or dismissed given that our mindful incomprehension of that schema is, apparently, supernaturally-prescribed.

What leads you to believe that atheists can’t find meaning in life? Even if you accept the theistic worldview that a God implies meaning, you’d still have to settle for that meaning being purely subjective. How is that any better than the meaning the rest of us find in life?

What discoveries lead the brightest and most spiritual among us to believe that the “meaning of life” is to be found outside of its operation? Or that its operative properties cannot be merely derivative of evolved naturalistic processes but are subject to phenomenal information structures which origin no one has yet come up with testable emergent scenarios for?

If there is a supranatural personal origin for all meanings accessible to humanity, then the full sum of meanings with relation to “all things” would be subjective to that supranatural person and be objective to us. How that is better I cannot definitively answer. But I do note that in the case of a semiotic superschema with origins predicated on a supranaturally- powerful, knowleadgeable, dispositional yet loving deity, the whole thing is far more likely to be intellible and maintainable given that it would have a guarantor not circumscribed within its own system bounds, i.e. a sovereign entity.

  (Quote)

B Pastoral January 29, 2012 at 4:03 am

There seems to be some unstated assumption that “naturally-recorded spectra attractive to evolved human senses and brain processes” could never never ask “why.” This is an unfounded assertion, and a nonsensical one at that….

…What is it about evolution that precludes having an interest in things?

That does sound awful but I did say “these debates spark our interest because they are purposed with content meaningful to us”. About whether and why human cognition is solely naturally evolved or *additionally* supernaturally informed, in our discernment of origins, purposes, and goals, is the real bone of contention and not mere naturalistic processes of evolution.

Ninety-nine per cent of all species that we know of propagate without exhibiting metaphysical curiosity or even awareness of these issues we humans uniquely discuss with philosophical ease in our consumnate languages. No other species has ever emerged and survived naturally over the aons with the capacity to inquire about such metaphysical whys, so why would a solely natural-origin Sapiens?

I’d suggest you spend some time thinking about this a little more. I know what it’s like to assume that without your god life could have no meaning. People have also felt this way about their wife, their boyfriend, their political ideology, their cult leader, and their Fuehrer. You may have even known someone like this and been frustrated by their lack of rationality. You may have even tried to get them to think about it all a bit, and help them realize that life would go on without their abusive and controlling boyfriend telling them who they can see, what they can do, and what they can eat. It’s safe to say that even the most religious of us find meaning in life that does not derive from an imaginary sky daddy.

All good suggestions if one is interested in fantastical or noisy constructions. But I’m far, far more interested in the trend that permeates our moral consciousness and tolls for history. Believing in the fanciful gods and myths of modern humanity has its benefits and can be a fast ride in the safe harbor that is Judeo-Christian civilization. But in my experience it never truly satisfies and is somewhat helped only by likeminded acclaim.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment

{ 21 trackbacks }