500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates
For those who enjoy atheism vs. theism debates, here’s the most complete list you’ll find on the web (550 of them and counting). Please comment with additions or corrections; this page is updated often. (Last update: August 25, 2010.)
Apparently, there is a blog devoted to reviewing all the debates in this list: Agnostic Popular Front. You may want to start with those rated 5 stars and 4.5 stars.
See the recent updates.
Also see my reviews of all William Lane Craig debates, and the William Lane Craig debate feed (RSS, iTunes). My personal favorites are labeled as best! Debates are about the existence of God unless otherwise noted.
Press Ctrl+F to search this page.
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.
| Atheist | Theist | Video | Audio | Text | Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Kinney | Gene Cook | link | 2005 | |||
| Adam Rutherford | Peter Hitchens | link | 2010 | |||
| Aigbusted | Justin Martyr | link | ||||
| Alan Conradi | Mike Paget | link | link | 2010 | ||
| Alan Dershowitz | Alan Keyes | link | link | link | 2000 | |
| Alan Hale | anonymous | link | 1997 | |||
| Alister McBay | David Robertson | link | link | 2008 | ||
| American Atheists | J.P. Holding | link | 2008 | historical Jesus | ||
| American Atheists | Rabbit Jeret | link | 2008 | |||
| Andrew Copson | Adam Deen | link | link | link | moral argument | |
| Andrew Copson | David Robertson | link | 2010 | |||
| Andrew Pyle | William Lane Craig | dvd | 2007 | |||
| Ann McKinney | James White | link | ||||
| Anton Batey | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| Antony Flew | William Lane Craig | link | link | book | 1998 | |
| Antony Flew | Terry L. Miethe | book | 1991 | |||
| Antony Flew | Thomas Warren | link | link | 1976 | 8 hours! | |
| Antony Flew | Gary Habermas | link | link | book | 2003 | resurrection |
| Arif Ahmed | Gary Habermas | link | link | 2008 | resurrection | |
| Arif Ahmed | William Lane Craig | link | best! | |||
| Arnold Guminski | Jim Cook | link | the moral argument | |||
| AtheistArchon | PhilAl | link1 | 2003 | |||
| Austin Dacey | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2004 | best! | |
| Austin Dacey | William Lane Craig | link | 2005 | best! | ||
| Australian Skeptics | Answers in Genesis | link | 2005 | creationism | ||
| Ayaan Hirsi Ali | Ed Husain | link | Islam and the future of the West | |||
| B Strong | John Tancock | link | 2010 | |||
| Barry Duke | Tom Price | link | 2009 | Does religion make people unhappy? | ||
| Bart Brewer | Karl Keating | link | ||||
| Bart Ehrman | Daniel Wallace | link | textual reliability | |||
| Bart Ehrman | N.T. Wright | link | link | problem of evil | ||
| Bart Ehrman | Richard Hays | link | issues raised by The Da Vinci Code | |||
| Bart Ehrman | Craig Evans | link | link | 2010 | ||
| Bart Ehrman | Michael Brown | link | 2010 | |||
| Bart Ehrman | Peter Williams | link | textual reliability | |||
| Bart Ehrman | Richard Swinburne | link | problem of evil | |||
| Bart Ehrman | James White | link | link | textual reliability; best! | ||
| Bart Ehrman | Mike Licona | link | link | 2008 | resurrection | |
| Bart Ehrman | Mike Licona | link | link | 2009 | resurrection | |
| Bart Ehrman | William Lane Craig | link | link | link pdf | 2006 | resurrection |
| Bart Ehrman | Dinesh D’Souza | link | 2009 | suffering | ||
| Bashar Haydar | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | islam | |||
| Bertrand Russell | Frederick Copleston | link | 1948 | |||
| Bill Cooke | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Bill Cooke | Imran Aijaz | link | 2002 | |||
| Bill Jackson | Karl Keating | link | ||||
| Ben Waggoner | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Boshko | Cybershy | link | 2001 | |||
| Brandeis University Humanists | Brandeis University Jews | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Brandeis University Humanists | Brandeis University Jews | link | 2009 | |||
| Brian Edwards | William Lane Craig | link | ||||
| Brian Edwards | William Lane Craig | link | (2nd debate) | |||
| Brian Holtz | Robert Koons | link | ||||
| Brian Layfield & Robert Tee | Hamza Tzortzis & Adam Deen | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Brian Lynch | James White | link | ||||
| George Will | Cal Thomas | link | link | |||
| CD Ward | Apologist4Him | link2 | 2003 | |||
| ChadE | Matt Slick | link | scroll down to “Atheism and Morality Second Debate” | |||
| Chaoslord2004 | Philosophickle | link3 | 2006 | |||
| Chris Hallquist | Tim Leisz | link | ||||
| Chris Stassen | Bob Bales | link | 1992 | creationism | ||
| Christer Sturmark | Siewert Oholm | link | 2008 | morality | ||
| Christopher DiCarlo | Dave Hunt | dvd | 2008 | |||
| Christopher DiCarlo | Scott Wilkinson | 1 2 3 4 | ||||
| Christopher DiCarlo | Joel Boot | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher DiCarlo | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher DiCarlo | Shabir Ally | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | William Lane Craig & others | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | William Lane Craig | dvd | 2009 | |||
| Christopher Hitchens | Douglas Wilson | book | 2009 | |||
| Christopher Hitchens | John Haldane | link | link | 2010 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Al Sharpton | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Paul Edwards | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | Timothy Jackson | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dinesh D’Souza | link | 2009 | (second 2009 debate) | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2010 | (Notre Dame) | |
| Christopher Hitchens | Marvin Olasky | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Douglas Wilson | link | link | link | 2008 | |
| Christopher Hitchens | Kenneth Miller | link | 2008 | science and religion | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Lorenzo Albacete | link | link | 2008 | science and religion | |
| Christopher Hitchens | Alister McGrath | link | link | link | 2007 | |
| Christopher Hitchens | Ed Doerr | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | David Wolpe | link | 2010 | |||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dennis Prager | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | Mark Roberts | 1 2 3 | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | Chris Hedges | link | ||||
| Christopher Hitchens | David Allen White | link | 2007 | impact of Christianity | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Peter Hitchens | link | link | 2007 | only partly about religion | |
| Christopher Hitchens | Frank Turek | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Frank Turek | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Shmuley Boteach | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | David Wolpe | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dinesh D’Souza | link dvd | link | 2007 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | John Lennox | dvd | link | 2008 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | John Lennox | dvd | link | 2009 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Jay Richards | dvd | link | 2008 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens | Dinesh D’Souza & Dennis Prager | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Christopher Hitchens & Stephen Fry | John Onaiyekan & Anne Widdencombe | link | link | 2009 | Catholic Church good? | |
| Christopher Hitchens & others | Shmuley Boteach & others | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Clancy Martin | J.P. Moreland | link | link | 2005 | resurrection | |
| Colin Howson | Nicholas Beale | link | 1998 | |||
| Constant Mews | afdave | link | 2007 | Bible | ||
| Conway Morris & David Perks | Steve Fuller & Alex Hochuli | link | link | |||
| Corey Washington | William Lane Craig | link | 1995 | |||
| Dan Barker | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Dan Barker | George Pell | link | link | 2010 | ||
| Dan Barker | Mike Licona | link | link | 2003 | resurrection | |
| Dan Barker | Hassanain Rajabali | 1 2 3 | link | 2003 | ||
| Dan Barker | Michael Horner | link | 1996 | |||
| Dan Barker | Greg Clarke | link | ||||
| Dan Barker | Peter Payne | 1 2 | 2005 | |||
| Dan Barker | Todd Friel | link | 2006 | |||
| Dan Barker | Phil Fernandes | 1 2 3 4 | 2000 | |||
| Dan Barker | Jason Gastrich | link | ||||
| Dan Barker | Paul Manata | link | ||||
| Dan Barker | James White | link | link | 1986 | ||
| Dan Barker | John Rankin | link | 2006 | |||
| Dan Barker | Douglas Wilson | link | ||||
| Dan Barker | Gene Cook | link | 2005 | |||
| Dan Barker | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Dan Barker | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Dan Barker | Peter Youngren | link dvd | link | 2003 | ||
| Dan Barker | Kyle Butt | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Dan Barker | Adam Deen | link | 2009 | |||
| Dan Barker & Richard Carrier | Hassanain Rajabali & Michael Corey | link dvd | link | 2009 | ||
| Bana Bashour | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | islam | |||
| Daniel Adams | Shandon Guthrie | link | 1997 | |||
| Daniel Dennett | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2007 | my review | |
| Daniel Dennett | Alister McGrath | link | book | 2008 | ||
| Daniel Dennett | Alvin Plantinga | link | 2009 | discussion | ||
| Dante Alighieri | punkforchrist | link | 2007 | |||
| David Coss | Gene Cook | link | 2005 | |||
| David Keller | Mark Hausam | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Adrian Hayter | David Robertson | link | 2009 | |||
| Adrian Hayter | David Robertson | link | 2009 | (2nd debate) | ||
| Denis Giron | Nadir Ahmed | 1 2 | ||||
| Derek Sansone | Paul Manata | link | ||||
| Derek Sansone | Vincent Cheung | link | ||||
| Derek Sansone | Matt Slick | link | ||||
| Dlx2 | rhutchin | link | 2006 | |||
| Don Exodus | Kris Wold vs. Christian Apologetics of Carolina | link | ||||
| Donald Prothero & Michael Shermer | Stephen Meyer & Richard Sternberg | link | 2009 | |||
| DoubtingJohn | ApologiaNick | link4 |
2003 | |||
| Doug Krueger | Shandon Guthrie | link | 2005 | |||
| Doug Krueger | Chris McHugh | link | 2003 | |||
| Doug Krueger | Jason Gastrich | link | ||||
| Doug Krueger | Jason Gastrich | link | (2nd debate) | |||
| Doug Krueger | Jason Gastrich | link | 2005 | (3rd debate) | ||
| Douglas Jesseph | William Lane Craig | link | 1996 | |||
| E. Haldeman-Julius | Burris Jenkins | link | 1930 | |||
| Earl Doherty | Brian Trafford | link | 2001 | historical Jesus | ||
| Ed Buckner | Pete Bocchino | link | 2009 | |||
| Ed Buckner | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | 2010 | |||
| Eddie Tabash | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1999 | ||
| Eddie Tabash | Jason Gastrich | link | ||||
| Eddie Tabash | Jason Gastrich | dvd | link | 2007 | (2nd debate) | |
| Eddie Tabash | Douglas Geivett | dvd | 2007 | |||
| Eddie Tabash | Phil Fernandes | link | ||||
| Eddie Tabash | Todd Friel | 1 2 | link | 2007 | ||
| Eddie Tabash | Matt Slick | link | link | |||
| Eddie Tabash | Joel Reif | 1 2 | link | 2007 | ||
| Edwin Kagin | Don Johnson | link | ||||
| Edwin Kagin | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| Edwin Kagin | Matt Slick | link | link | 2008 | ||
| Ed Turner | Meic Pearse | link | Is Christianity good? | |||
| Ed Turner | Andy Bannister | 1 2 | ||||
| Ed Turner | David Robertson & Richard Morgan | link | 2009 | |||
| Edwin Curley | William Lane Craig | link | 1998 | |||
| Elaine Pagels | Mike Licona | link | link | 2005 | short, gnostic gospels | |
| Elaine Pagels | Mike Licona | link | historical Jesus | |||
| Elliot Ratzman | Phil Fernandes | link | link | |||
| Emery | Norton & others | podcast | ||||
| ENDH8 | Kabane52 | link5 |
2005 | resurrection | ||
| ENeGMA | Philosophickus Rex | link6 |
2006 | |||
| epepke | seebs | link | 2006 | |||
| Eric Dayton | William Lane Craig | link | problem of evil | |||
| Eugenie Scott | William Dembski | link | link | creationism | ||
| Eugenie Scott | Ken Ham | link | ||||
| Eugenie Scott | David Dewolf | link | 2001 | creationism | ||
| Farrell Till | Kent Hovind | 1 2 | ||||
| Farrell Till | Norman Geisler | link | 1994 | resurrection | ||
| Farrell Till | Douglas Wilson | link | ||||
| Farrell Till | Michael Horner | link | 1995 | resurrection | ||
| Farrell Till | Jason Gastrich | link | 2003 | |||
| Francisco Ayala | William Lane Craig | 1 2 3 4 | link | 2009 | intelligent design | |
| Frank Zindler | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1993 | ||
| Frank Zindler | Duane Gish | link | 1990 | creationism | ||
| Frank Zindler | John Koster | link | 1990 | |||
| Frank Zindler | John Morris | link | 1989 | Noah’s flood | ||
| Fedmahn Kassad | Jerry Don Bauer | link | 2003 | creationism | ||
| Francois Tremblay | Jason Gastrich | link | 2004 | morality | ||
| Garrett Hardin | William Lane Craig | link | ||||
| George Hathaway | ~M~ | link | 2008 | |||
| George Hathaway | Tisthammerw | link | 2009 | reverse-role debate | ||
| George Kane | Arthur Hippler | link | ||||
| George Smith | Greg Bahnsen | link | 1991 | |||
| Gerd Ludermann | William Lane Craig | link | 1997 | resurrection | ||
| Gerd Ludermann | William Lane Craig | link | 2002 | resurrection | ||
| George Williamson | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | resurrection | |
| George Williamson | William Lane Craig | link | radio debate | |||
| Greg Cavin | William Lane Craig | link | 1995 | resurrection | ||
| Gordon Livesey | Derek Tidball | link | ||||
| Gordon Livesey | Roger Forster | link | ||||
| Gordon Livesey | Richard Morgan & Todd Pitner | link | 2010 | |||
| Gordon Stein | Greg Bahnsen | link dvd | link | link | ||
| Gurder | Metacrock | link | 2001 | |||
| hamandcheese | Kabane52 | link7 | 2008 | |||
| Heather MacDonald | Michael Novak | link | link | link | ||
| Hector Avalos | William Lane Craig | link | 2004 | resurrection | ||
| Hector Avalos | Richard Weikart | link | Darwinism and Nazism | |||
| Henry Morgentaler | William Lane Craig | link | ||||
| Herman Philipse | Cees Dekker | link | 2008 | |||
| Hermant Metha | Howard Stern | link | 2006 | |||
| Hugh Ross | Kent Hovind | link | creationism8 | |||
| Hugh Ross | Kent Hovind | link | creationism9 (2nd debate) | |||
| Hugh Schonfield | Walter Martin | link | historical Jesus | |||
| Ingmar Persson | William Lane Craig | link | 1999 | |||
| Irwin Tessman | William Harris | link | 2001 | prayer | ||
| Jade | Harry Callahan | link | 2004 | |||
| James Bower | John Pendleton | link | link | 2006 | resurrection | |
| James Robert Brown | William Lane Craig | link | 2009 | |||
| James Crossley | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2007 | resurrection | |
| James Crossley | Richard Bauckham | 1 2 | 2009 | are the gospels eyewitness accounts | ||
| James Crossley | Richard Bauckham | link | 2009 | nature of Jesus | ||
| James Crossley | Michael Bird | link | 2009 | historical Jesus | ||
| James Crossley | Michael Bird | link | 2009 | historical Jesus (2nd debate) | ||
| James Lisle | Ken Hamm | link dvd | link | science and the Bible | ||
| James Paulson | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| James Randi | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| James Underdown | David Berlinski | link | 2009 | |||
| Janna Lavin | Denis Alexander | 1 2 | 1 2 | 2007 | ||
| Jared Hoag | Kent Hovind | link | creationism | |||
| Jason Wiles | Laurence Tisdall | link | link | 2007 | creationism | |
| Jayman Dick | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism10 | |||
| Jeffrey Jay Lowder | Phil Fernandes | link | link | 1999 | ||
| Jeffrey Noonan | Kirk Durston | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Jeffrey Shallit | Kirk Durston | link | link | 2007 | science and religion | |
| Jim Corbett | Phil Fernandes | link | ||||
| Jim Corbett | Sean McDowell | 1 2 | link | 2010 | morality | |
| Jim Foley | Richard Milton | link | 1997 | creationism | ||
| Jim Hoffman | Kent Hovind | link | creationism | |||
| Jim Lazarus | singer645 | link | 2005 | |||
| Jim Strayer & others | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| J.J.C. Smart | John Haldane | book | 1996 | |||
| Joan Konner | Peter Williams | link | 2009 | |||
| Joe Zamecki | Rick James | link | link | |||
| John Armstrong | J.P. Holding | link11 |
2007 | |||
| John Blanton | Don Patton | link | creationism | |||
| John Callahan | Kent Hovind | link | creationism12 | |||
| John Dominic Crossan | N.T. Wright | link | book | 2006 | resurrection | |
| John Dominic Crossan | William Lane Craig | link | book | 1995 | historical Jesus | |
| John George | Doug Miller | link | 2003 | |||
| John Loftus | David Wood | link | link | 2006 | problem of evil | |
| John Loftus | David Wood | link13 | problem of evil (2nd debate) | |||
| John Loftus | David Wood | link | link | 2010 | ||
| John Loftus | Peter May | link | ||||
| John Loftus | Gene Cook | link | 2006 | |||
| John Loftus | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2010 | ||
| John Powell | Bible Defender | link14 |
2005 | |||
| John Powell | J.P.Holding | link15 | 2003 | |||
| John Shook | William Lane Craig | link | link | link | 2008 | |
| John Shook | Doug Geivett | link | link | 2009 | ||
| John Shelby Spong | William Lane Craig | dvd, link | link | 2005 | ||
| John Wiltshire | Friar Peter | link | ||||
| Johnny Skeptic | Jason Gastrich | link | 2005 | resurrection | ||
| Johnny Skeptic | Bible John | link | 2006 | |||
| Jon Pomnitz | Jason Gastrich | link | 2004 | historical Jesus | ||
| Josh Singer & Sye TenBruggencat | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| Julian Baggini | Nicholas Beale | link | 2009 | |||
| Julian Baggini & others | Alex McLellan & Marc Surtees | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Juliod | Spl_cadet | link16 |
2007 | |||
| Kai Nielsen | William Lane Craig | link | 1991 | problem of evil | ||
| Kai Nielsen | J.P. Moreland | book | 1993 | |||
| kcrady | Majesty | link17 | 2009 | kalam cosmological argument | ||
| Keegan J. Kjeldsen | Gene Cook | link | 2006 | |||
| Karen Bartelt | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Keith Augustine | Gary Habermas | 1 2 3 | ||||
| Keith Parsons | William Lane Craig | link | 1998 | best! | ||
| Keith Parsons | O. Gerald Trigg | tape | 2001 | |||
| Keith Parsons & Michael Martin | Douglas Jones | link | 1991 | |||
| Ken Saladin | Duan Gish | link | 1988 | creationism | ||
| Ken Humphreys | JP Holding | link | 2009 | did Jesus exist? | ||
| Kenneth Humphreys | Gary Habermas | link | link | resurrection | ||
| Kenneth Humphreys | Tony Costa | link | ||||
| Kenneth Miller | Paul Nelson | link | creationism18 | |||
| Kenneth Miller | Philip Johnson | link | 1996 | creationism19 | ||
| Kenneth Miller & others | Phillip Johnson & others | link | link | link pdf | creationism20 | |
| Kenneth Miller & others | Michael Behe & others | link | 2005 | Kitzmiller v. Dover court case about creationism21 | ||
| Kenneth Miller & Lawrence Krauss | Stephen Meyer | link | creationism22 | |||
| Kevin | Eloise | link | 2008 | paganism | ||
| Killjoy | Gee | link | 2009 | |||
| Lawrence Kraus | Michael Behe | link | 2005 | |||
| Lee Basham | Gene Cook | 1 2 | ||||
| Lee Silver | William Demski | link | creationism | |||
| Lewis Wolpert | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Lewis Wolpert | Russell Cowburn | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Lewis Wolpert | Russell Cowburn | link | 2009 | (2nd debate) | ||
| Lewis Wolpert | William Dembski | link | 2009 | |||
| Louise Antony | William Lane Craig | 1 2 | 1 2 | 2008 | morality | |
| Luke Muehlhauser | Mike Licona | link | 2009 | resurrection | ||
| Luke Muehlhauser | cartesian | link | 2009 | |||
| MadMax2976 | Andrew_theist | link | 2002 | |||
| Madalyn Murray O’Hair | Walter Martin | link | 1968 | |||
| Malachi151 | GakuseiDon | link | 2007 | historical Jesus | ||
| ManhattanProject | King of Men | link | 2005 | |||
| Marcus Borg | William Lane Craig | link | resurrection | |||
| Marilyn Mason | Gavin McGrath | link | ||||
| Mark Bonocore | Matt Slick | link | ||||
| Mark Hartman | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism | |||
| Martyn Frame | Joanna Collicut McGrath | link | 2010 | |||
| Massimo Pigliucci | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Massimo Pigliucci | Kent Hovind | link | creationism (2nd debate) | |||
| Massimo Pigliucci | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1995 | ||
| Massimo Pigliucci | Robert Allen | link | 2007 | creationism | ||
| Massimo Pigliucci | Jonathan Wells | link | link | intelligent design | ||
| Matt Dillahunty & others | Matt Slick | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Matt McCormick | Russell DiSilvestro | link | 2010 | |||
| Matthew Rainbow | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Michael Marsden | Nigel Desborough | link | Alpha course | |||
| Michael Martin | Phil Fernandes | link | 1997 | |||
| Michael Martin | John Frame | link | 1996 | |||
| Michael Martin | Paul Copan | 1 2 3 4 | 2000 | |||
| Michael Newdow | Cliffe Knechtle | 1 2 3 4 5 | link | 2003 | ||
| Michael Paytonn | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Michael Ruse | William Dembski | link | link | 2005 | short | |
| Michael Ruse | Stephen Meyer | 1 2 | 1 2 | link | 2006 | intelligent design |
| Michael Shermer | Dinesh D’Souza | 1 2 | link | Is Christianity good? | ||
| Michael Shermer | Dinesh D’Souza | link | 2009 | Is Christianity good? (2nd debate) | ||
| Michael Shermer | Adrian Holloway | link | 2009 | |||
| Michael Shermer & Sam Harris | Deepak Chopra & Jean Houston | link | 2010 | |||
| Michael Shermer | David Robertson | link | 2010 | |||
| Michael Shermer | Jerome Groopman | link | 2008 | science and religion | ||
| Michael Shermer | Douglas Jacoby | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Michael Shermer | William Demski | link | ||||
| Michael Shermer | Jonathan Wells | link | link | 2006 | creationism | |
| Michael Shermer | Karl Giberson | link | link | |||
| Michael Shermer | John Lennox | link | link | |||
| Michael Shermer | Kent Hovind & Kyle Frazier | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Michael Shermer | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Michael Shermer | William Philips | link | link | science and religion | ||
| Michael Shermer | Ben Witherington | link | link | 2005 | short | |
| Michael Shermer | Stephen Meyer | 1 2 | link | 2005 | short | |
| Michael Shermer | Greg Koukl | link | ||||
| Michael Shermer | Jeffrey Schwartz | link | 2004 | |||
| Michael Schmidt-Salomon | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2005 | in german | |
| Michael Sizer | Mariano Grinbank | link | 2010 | morality and god | ||
| Michael Tooley | William Lane Craig | link | 1994 | |||
| Michael Tooley | Alvin Plantinga | book | 2008 | |||
| Michael Tooley | Peter Kreeft | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Mike Begon | William Lane Craig | dvd | 2007 | |||
| Mike O’Donnell | Sharif Abu Laith | link | link | |||
| MikeWright | Spacefoetus | link23 |
2008 | |||
| Mike Yellow | Mike Riddle | 1 2 | creationism | |||
| Mitch Hodge | Shandon Guthrie | link | 2008 | |||
| MitchLeblanc | RazorKiss | link | 2009 | |||
| Nate | Chris | podcast | ||||
| Niall Shanks | Paul Nelson | link | 2005 | intelligent design | ||
| Niall Shanks | William Dembski | link | 2004 | |||
| Nicholas Wolterstorff | Robert Audi | book | 1996 | religion and politics | ||
| Nickcopernicus | P-Dunn | link24 | ||||
| Norman Bacrac | Andrew Wilson | link | 2009 | |||
| Norman Bacrac | Timothy Keller | link | 2009 | |||
| Norman Hansen | Amy Orr-Ewing | link | ||||
| Norman Hansen | Andy Bannister | link | ||||
| Norman Ralph | Adam Deen | link | ||||
| Patrick Grim | Alvin Plantinga | link | 1993 | |||
| Paul Hilpman | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism | |||
| Peter Atkins | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1998 | ||
| Peter Atkins | Alister McGrath | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Peter Atkins | Stephen Meyer | link | 2010 | |||
| Peter Atkins | Shabir Ally | link | link | |||
| Paul Draper | William Lane Craig | link | 1997 | |||
| Paul Draper & others | Alvin Plantinga & others | link | 2008 | best! | ||
| Paul Kurtz | William Lane Craig | link | link | book | 2001 | morality |
| Paul Kurtz | Norman Geisler | link | ||||
| Paul Onton | David Robertson | link | 2010 | |||
| Paul Willis | Carl Wieland | link | creationism | |||
| Pervy | Briane Bosse | link | 2007 | |||
| Pervy | TAG-your it! | link | 2006 | |||
| Peter Hearty | Tom Woodward | link | creationism | |||
| Peter Hearty | Perry Marshall | link | 2009 | |||
| Peter Cave | Peter Williams | link | ||||
| Peter Cave | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | 2008 | islam | ||
| Peter Cave | David Robertson | link | 2009 | |||
| Peter John | Phil Fernandes | 1 2 | ||||
| Peter Ruckman | Karl Keating | link | ||||
| Peter Singer | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2008 | God: Yes or no? | |
| Peter Singer | Dinesh D’Souza | link | link | 2008 | god and morality | |
| Peter Singer | John Hare | link | link | 2009 | morality | |
| Peter Slezak | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2002 | ||
| Peter Ward | Stephen Meyer | link | link | 2005 | creationism | |
| Peter Ward | Stephen Meyer | link | link | 2006 | creationism | |
| Philip Kitcher | Denis Alexander | link | 2007 | early Christianity | ||
| Philip Kitcher | Vinoth Ramachandra | 1 2 | 1 2 | 2006 | science and religion | |
| Philip Natahn | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | islam | |||
| Philip Pullman | Martin Saunders and Anthony McRoy | link | ||||
| Pitchforkpat | ApologiaPhoenix | link25 | 2009 | morality | ||
| P.Z. Myers | Angus Menuge | link | link | 2008 | neuroscience and religion | |
| P.Z. Myers | Denis Alexander | link | 2009 | neuroscience and religion | ||
| P.Z. Myers | Geoffrey Simmons | link | creationism | |||
| Quentin Smith | William Lane Craig | link | 1996 | |||
| Quentin Smith | William Lane Craig | link | 2003 | |||
| Quentin Smith & Richard Gale | William Lane Craig & Alvin Plantinga | link | link | 2004 | ||
| quip | Ridingthescree | link | 2006 | |||
| radical_logic | Jerry McDonald | link | 2009 | |||
| Rational Response Squad | Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort | link | link | 2007 | hilarious | |
| Ray Bradley | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1994 | morality and hell, best! | |
| Ray Bradley | Matthew Flannagan | link | 2010 | |||
| Ray Waller | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Matt Slick | link | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Kent Hovind | link | creationism | |||
| Reggie Finley | Phil Fernandes | link | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Gene Cook | 1 2 | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Shandon Guthrie | link | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Justin Brierly | link | ||||
| Reggie Finley | Jason Gastrich | link | ||||
| RGD | Albert Cipriani | link | 2005 | |||
| Rich R. | Joe Wyrostek | 1 2 | Bible | |||
| Richard Carrier | Mike Licona | link dvd | link | 2004 | resurrection, best! | |
| Richard Carrier | Mike Licona | link | link | 2010 | resurrection | |
| Richard Carrier | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2005 | short | |
| Richard Carrier | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Richard Carrier | Gary Habermas & Mike Licona | link | ||||
| Richard Carrier | Frank Turek | link | resurrection | |||
| Richard Carrier | Nadir ahmed | link | science and religion | |||
| Richard Carrier | Tom Wanchick | link | 2006 | best! | ||
| Richard Carrier | Jake O’Connell | link | 2008 | resurrection | ||
| Richard Dawkins | John Lennox | link, dvd | link | 2007 | Birmingham | |
| Richard Dawkins | John Lennox | link | 2008 | Oxford Museum | ||
| Richard Dawkins | John Lennox | link | 2008 | Oxford followup | ||
| Richard Dawkins | Madeline Bunting | link | ||||
| Richard Dawkins | Alister McGrath | link | 2007 | |||
| Richard Dawkins | Michael Poole | link | ||||
| Richard Dawkins & others | Shmuley Boteach & others | link | ||||
| Richard Dawkins & others | Edgar Andrews & others | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | 1986 | creationism | ||
| Richard Dawkins & Daniel Dennett | Francis Collins & Benjamin Carson | link | 2009 | |||
| Richard Dawkins & others | Julia Neuberger & others | link | 1 2 | 2007 | Would we be better off without religion? | |
| Richard Dawkins | David Quinn | link | 2006 | |||
| Richard Dawkins | Francis Collins | link | 2006 | short excerpts | ||
| Richard Dawkins & A.C. Grayling/td> | Richard Harris & Charles Moore | link | link | 2009 | Is atheism the new fundamentalism? | |
| Richard Gale | Alvin Plantinga | link | link | 2008 | problem of evil | |
| Richard Spencer | David Margolis | link .doc | 2006 | resurrection, best! | ||
| Richard Taylor | William Lane Craig | link | 1993 | |||
| Richard Weisenberg | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism | |||
| Rick Lewis | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | 2009 | islam | ||
| Rob Manning | Gene Cook | link | 2008 | |||
| Robert Stovold | Charles Foster | link | 2009 | nativity | ||
| Robyn Richardson | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism | |||
| Robert Ingersoll | several | link | 1885 | 3 short debates | ||
| Robert Price | William Lane Craig | link | 1999 | resurrection | ||
| Robert Price | Dwight Knight | link | ||||
| Robert Price | Phil Fernandes | link | ||||
| Robert Price | Greg Boyd | link | historical Jesus | |||
| Robert Price | Don Johnson | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | ||||
| Robert Price | John Rankin | link | 1997 | historical Jesus | ||
| Robert Price | Gary Habermas & Mike Licona | 1 2 3 | 2007 | resurrection | ||
| Robert Price & Reggie Finley | Gene Cook & Bob Morey | link | 2005 | |||
| Robert Stovold | Nick Spencer | link | 2009 | |||
| Robert Trivers | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism | |||
| Robert Trivers | Kent Hovind | dvd | creationism (2nd debate) | |||
| Robert Owen | Alexander Campbell | book | 1829 | |||
| Ron Barrier | Ray Comfort | link | ||||
| Ron Barrier | William Lane Craig | link | 2000 | |||
| Ronald de Souza | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Ronald Numbers | Paul Nelson | link | link | 2009 | ||
| Roy Hoover | William Lane Craig | link | 2008 | |||
| Sahotra Sarkar | Paul Nelson | link | link | 2006 | creationism | |
| Sam Harris | Hugh Hewitt | link | short | |||
| Sam Harris | David Wolpe | link | link | |||
| Sam Harris | Reza Aslan | link | link | |||
| Sam Harris | Chris Hedges | link | religion and politics | |||
| Sam Harris | Andrew Sullivan | link | 2007 | |||
| Sam Harris | Rick Warren | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Sam Harris | Dennis Prager | link | 2006 | |||
| Sam Tyler-Smith | Ray Comfort | link | ||||
| Samuel Poling | Paul Herrick | link | link | 2007 | ||
| Sarah Tinker | Michael Sayward | link | virgin birth | |||
| Sea of Red | Kabane52 | link26 | 2007 | |||
| Sean McHugh | Jason Gastrich | link | 2004 | resurrection | ||
| Sean McHugh | punkforchrist | link | 2008 | resurrection | ||
| Shelly Kagan | William Lane Craig | link | link | 2009 | ||
| shunyadragon | Bible Defender | link27 | 2006 | |||
| Silent Dave | whetstone | link | 2006 | |||
| Silent Dave | Smith_87 | link | 2005 | |||
| skepticbud | J.P. Holding | link28 | 2003 | |||
| skepticbud | J.P. Holding | link29 | 2003 | miracles (2nd debate) | ||
| Skeptics | Gary Habermas | 1 2 | ||||
| Stan Kohls | Jason Gastrich | link | ||||
| Stephen Barr | Michael Behe | link((Barr is a theistic evolutionist.)) | 2010 | evolution | ||
| Stephen Law | Denis Alexander | link | 2010 | |||
| Stephen Geddes | Jason Gastrich | link30 | Bible | |||
| Stephen Landsburg et. al. | Dinesh D’Souza et. al. | link | Bible | |||
| Stephen Law | Marianne Talbot | link | 2009 | |||
| Steven Carr | several | link | 7 short debates | |||
| Steven Carr | John Twiselton | link | 2009 | |||
| Steven Carr | Canon Michael Cole | link | 2009 | |||
| Steven Carr | Canon Michael Cole | link | 2009 | (2nd debate) | ||
| Steven Pinker | William Philips | link | 2008 | |||
| Susan Blackmore | Charles Foster | link | 2010 | |||
| Susan Jacoby & others | Jean Bethke Elshtain & others | dvd | link | link | 2007 | Is America too damn religious? |
| Stephen Meyers | Kent Hovind | link | link | creationism | ||
| Steve Scianni | Gene Cook | link | 2006 | |||
| Steve Scianni | Gene Cook | link | 2006 | (2nd debate) | ||
| Sue Blackmore | Alister McGrath | link | ||||
| Sye TenBruggencate | Gene Cook | link | ||||
| Sylas | Jason | link31 | 2003 | creationism | ||
| Terry Prewitt | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| Theodore Drange | William Lane Craig | link | link | 1997 | ||
| Theodore Drange | Chris McHugh | link | 2003 | |||
| Theodore Drange | Douglas Wilson | link | 1999 | |||
| the_eliot_one | blackapologist | link32 | 2008 | resurrection | ||
| Thomas Dixon | Steve Fuller | link | 2010 | |||
| Thomas Huxley | Henry Wace | book | 1888 | |||
| Thomas J.J. Altizer | John Warwick Montgomery | book | 1967 | |||
| Thunderf00t | Ray Comfort | link | 2009 | |||
| Tim Callahan | Gary Habermas | 1 2 | link | 2005 | short | |
| Timothy Muse | PoodleLovinPessimist | link | 2004 | |||
| TinyCrabbieThingie | Matt Slick | link | ||||
| Tom Rubens | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis | link | 2009 | islam | ||
| Tony Beau | llamaluvr | link | 2007 | resurrection | ||
| Torbjorn Tannsjo | William Lane Craig | link | morality | |||
| Tysixtus | Bible John | link | 2006 | |||
| Tysixtus | notapadawan | link | 2007 | |||
| Victor Stenger | William Lane Craig | link | link | best! | ||
| Victor Stenger | Hugh Ross | 1 2 | ||||
| Victor Stenger | David Bartholomew | link | 2010 | |||
| Victor Stenger & others | John Lennox & others | link | link | |||
| Vincent Cassone | Michael Behe | link | creationism | |||
| Vinnie | Stumpjumper | link | 2005 | science and religion | ||
| Vinnie | RobertLW | link | 2001 | Bible | ||
| Vinnie | King Louie | link | 2001 | |||
| Walter Sinnott-Armstrong | William Lane Craig | link | 1999 | |||
| Walter Sinnott-Armstrong | William Lane Craig | book | 2003 | |||
| Will Provine | Philip Johnson | link | link | link | 1994 | creationism |
| William Moore | Kent Hovind | link dvd | link | creationism | ||
| wiploc | seebs | link | 2003 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | Tisthammerw | link | 2009 | |||
| wiploc | punkforchrist | link | 2007 | |||
| wiploc | punkforchrist | link | 2007 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | punkforchrist | link | 2008 | |||
| wiploc | punkforchrist | link | 2006 | |||
| wiploc | Long Winded Fool | link | 2004 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | Gregory | link | 2004 | |||
| wiploc | Daleet | link | 2009 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc & Tsurmon | RaviZachariasFan | link | 2004 | |||
| wiploc | extinctionist | link | 2004 | morality | ||
| wiploc | the_cave | link | 2001 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | Adonael | link | 2008 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | Will Sjorensen | link | 2009 | problem of evil | ||
| wiploc | Tisthammerw | link | 2009 | |||
| Woolsey Teller | James D. Bales | book | 1947 | |||
| Zachary Moore | John Ferrer | link |
Added after February 2010
March 4, 2010:
- Jim Corbett vs. Sean McDowell
- Eugenie Scott vs. David Dewolf
- Andrew Copson vs. David Robertson
- Michael Shermer vs. David Robertson
- Niall Shanks vs. Paul Nelson
March 18, 2010:
- Quentin Smith & Richard Gale vs. William Lane Craig & Alvin Plantinga
- Dan Barker vs. George Pell
- John Loftus vs. David Wood
- Lawrence Kraus vs. Michael Behe
- Peter Ward vs. Stephen Meyer
- Niall Shanks vs. William Dembski
- Michael Shermer vs. Jeffrey Schwartz
- Ronald Numbers vs. Paul Nelson
April 4, 2010:
- Sam Harris vs. Dennis Prager
- Michael Shermer & Sam Harris vs. Deepak Chopra & Jean Houston
- Christopher Hitchens vs. David Wolpe
April 18, 2010:
- Bart Ehrman vs. Michael Brown
- Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D’Souza (Notre Dame)
May 13, 2010:
- Dan Barker vs. Greg Clarke
- Gordon Livesey vs. Richard Morgan & Todd Pitner
- Paul Onton vs. David Robertson
- Don Exodus & Kris Wold vs. Christian Apologetics of Carolina
- Matt McCormick vs. Russell DiSilvestro
- Stephen Law vs. Denis Alexander
- Philip Pullman vs. Martin Saunders and Anthony McRoy
- Richard Dawkins vs. Michael Poole
- Christopher Hitchens vs. Timothy Jackson
June 12, 2010:
- Richard Carrier vs. Mike Licona 2010
July 8, 2010:
- Michael Sizer vs. Mariano Grinbank
- Victor Stenger vs. David Bartholomew
July 25, 2010
- Adam Rutherford vs. Peter Hitchens
- B Strong vs. John Tancock
- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong vs. William Lane Craig (1999)
- Susan Blackmore vs. Charles Foster
- Martyn Frame vs. Joanna Collicut McGrath
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- “Atheist” debater is not an atheist, but defends a typically atheistic position, like evolution or an old earth. [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
- free registration required [↩]
323 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL





Dr. Willian Craig seems to be unbeatable. What do you think of him? LatinAgnostic
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. lukeprog
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. eric
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). drive1
drive1: Fixed, thanks.
eric, you may be right. Do you think Craig has lost any of his debates? lukeprog
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. Al
Hi. Thanks so much for this list! When you update, will you put the new debates at the bottom?
Thanks again. rebekah
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. Charles
rebekah: done. lukeprog
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. Jason
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. Killjoy
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. Jason
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. Killjoy
KillJoy: or Barker vs. Boyd, for the same reason! lukeprog
“…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! Frank Lovell
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. sean lathee
You make my iPod very happy. Thanks for all your hard work scouring the ‘net for these debates! becky
Ehrman destroyed Craig. GeneralTHC
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. Bruce
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. ChristianJR4
All manual work, unfortunately. Took me about 5 hours. lukeprog
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…. Arya Eshraghi
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 Steven Carr
Great! Please do post again if you do more debates. lukeprog
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 BeStrong
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/ BeStrong
Added. Thanks! lukeprog
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. becky
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? lukeprog
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! becky
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... Buster08
Thanks! lukeprog
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. Blue Pongo
Great! Yes, I will fill in the holes wherever I can. I appreciate your OCD. lukeprog
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…. Euphorix
Euphorix,
I will post the Craig-Hitchens debate when a copy becomes available.
Craig destroyed Hitchens, as I explain here. :) lukeprog
Alright, thanks for that Luke. There’s 400 other debates here I could listen to instead. Great list. Euphorix
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 Ian Olson
Thanks, Ian! lukeprog
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. Blue Pongo
Blue Pongo,
The link works for me. Want to try again? lukeprog
The link works, I meant the file was a stub. As in the debate ends in the middle of D’Souza’s question time. Blue Pongo
Oh, okay, thanks. I’ll look into that. lukeprog
Blue Pongo:
I created a full mp3 of the debate, and the audio link in the post above now points to it. lukeprog
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. Blue Pongo
Hello,
Great website! The link for the Hitchens v. Craig & Friends appears to be swapped with the Hitchens v. Sharpton debate.
Cheers,
Don Donald E. Flood
Uh-oh! I’ll fix that. Thanks. lukeprog
Talbot/Law debate mp3 is available now:
http://www.oxfordphilsoc.org/LatestNews.html
Damion
Great! Thanks, Damion. lukeprog
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. Dan Barker
Oops. Barker/Fernandes was Feb. 29, 2000 . . . Dan Barker
Wow! Dan Barker! Lorkas
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. lukeprog
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 Damion
Thanks, Damion! I’ll add it in the next update. lukeprog
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. Simeon
I think Dr. Price kicks Craigs ass. Price’s opening statement totally derails everything Craig tried to setup. Spencer Thayer
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. Damion
BTW – Here are my comments on that debate:
http://agnosticpopularfront.blogspot.com/1999/01/price-vs-craig.html
Damion
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. JustintheChristian
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). vision
Here you find the video for the Craig vs. Stenger Debate:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=37946867 sapere aude
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. Deist Novice
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.
Ranzo
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. lukeprog
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. Deist Novice
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 Tobias
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! Penneyworth
Thanks for making this site. have you started an email list to let us know about updates? please let me know periodically. Alex
Alex, you can subscribe by email. See the sidebar. lukeprog
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 Jake de Backer
Jake de Backer,
I have not read Steele’s book yet. lukeprog
Here’s a new debate between Shermer and D’souza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddhRvi-uymM
And the two new debates between Lennox and Dawkins. Not that interesting, but whatever.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3240,Interview-with-John-Lennox,Tim-Bearder-BBC-Radio-Oxford?detectqt=false&
and
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3911,Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox-at-the-Oxford-University-Museum,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox?detectqt=false&
Alex G
Sorry. The first dawkins one is just an interview with lennox. Alex G
Here it is:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2834,Conversation-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox-Fixed-Point?detectqt=false& Alex G
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/ Alex G
Thanks, Alex! lukeprog
:(
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). Lorkas
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! Amanda
Thanks, Amanda. lukeprog
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;) myprecious
Shermer/D’souza debate is up again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaojzb-7tIg Alex G
The Craig-hitchens debate is finally up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_zr8fpERtU&feature=PlayList&p=83CFA6B8D41B8896&index=0 Alex G
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 D C Cramer
D C Cramer,
It’s already there, but I will add the link to the DVD. Thanks. lukeprog
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!
sean lathee
Any chance of adding a “listener’s” rating to these debates? Paul
Paul,
You mean, like an interactive star-rating thing, like on Amazon or something? lukeprog
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. Paul
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… mattr
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! mattr
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. Sam
Sam,
Looks like you used to be able to order the Montgomery-O’Hair debate here. lukeprog
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! Jason
“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 AL Williamson
Al Williamson,
The Big Bang is an atheist’s god? What? How? lukeprog
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. Deist Novice
Deist Novice,
I love Price’s work.
Yes, Biola is defending their copyright on the Hitchens-Craig debate quite vigorously. lukeprog
CA
I thought William Lane Craig lost against Shelly Kagan. Andrew
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 Jake de Backer
Jake,
Oops – actually, I have no video link for that Hitchens-Turek debate.
lukeprog
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”) Jason
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 Jake de Backer
jake,
That stuff frustrates me to no end. These atheists are, simply, not trained in LD-style debates. lukeprog
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. sean lathee
sean,
I have been dying to get my hands on the Craig-Morriston debate, too. Here are Morriston’s thoughts on the debate. lukeprog
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. sean lathee
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. Terri R
Now that would take a lot of doing. sean lathee
To Terri R:
What’s the harm in letting people believe what they want to believe?
http://www.whatstheharm.net
That’s the harm. Justin
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. André
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. Deist Novice
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. Ken Williamson
Ken,
But I want it sortable in a web page, not in Excel. lukeprog
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 Landon
Thanks, Landon. I’ll change the link in the next update! lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
“‘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. Richard Ball
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. Jake de Backer
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) alex wills
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. Keith
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. André
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. lukeprog
This is new and great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veB1uUOv6Vg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixbI7qKNlg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bne7JB9FSms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxRFXdvBwS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yib7Kwx6Ojw André
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. Hermes
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 Dan
Thanks, Dan, I’ll put it down as a “short” lukeprog
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/ Dan
Thanks, Dan! I’ll add it in the next update. lukeprog
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. GeneralTHC
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. Hermes
Luke
The Dan Barker Vs. Kyle Butt video is up in 14 parts on youtube. You have audio only, currently.
J. Jake de Backer
Thanks, Jake. lukeprog
The Gene Cook/Aaron Kinney debate link is busted. The updated one is:
http://unchainedradio.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=109&category_id=25&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
(Long link, but it works!) DJ
Thanks, DJ! lukeprog
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. RA
RA,
It’s on here already. Just search the page for “Paul Draper.” lukeprog
Oh, that’s how it works. RA
RA,
Did you really retire at 40? lukeprog
Yes. Technically 41. RA
RA,
May I ask who you are?
J. Jake de Backer
I’m sorry Luke, I didn’t check out everything on the website. Apologies Keith
Luke, Kent Hovind aside, are all of the debates labeled
“creationism” about intelligent design? majinrevan666
Not necessarily. I think most of those debates about “creationism” are about Young Earth Creationism. lukeprog
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. majinrevan666
Ah. Thanks, majinrevan666! lukeprog
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 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=11160
Note: To view these threads, I’ve just realized that a valid WWGHA login is required. Hermes
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. sean ledwiidge
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! lukeprog
David Berlinski VS James Underdown.
http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/oct27.htm majinrevan666
Thank you so much for this amazing resource! It’s hours and hours of entertainment for me. I can’t thank you enough! zugu
Man – nicely done! This will save me a lot of time!
Thanks again for listing these in one place! Rick
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. Keith
Thanks for this list! Amazing. MauricXe
Hey people!
Nice site! Been looking for new debaters other then Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and PZ.
Keep it up! MattHunX
Peter Atkins Vs. Shabir Allay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAVV3dUrrYI Jake de Backer
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. Jake de Backer
Awesome! Thanks, Jake! lukeprog
Yessir. Jake de Backer
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” Hermes
Wait … here’s a playlist from the “drcraigvideos” YouTube channel;
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=941908367ED0CF35
Is this the same one? Hermes
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. lukeprog
Eddie Tabash vs Matt Slick.
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/01/matt-slick-vs-eddie-tabash-debate-does.html majinrevan666
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.” Dan
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. Chris
Video of Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath debate at:
http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath Jim
Thanks, Jim! lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
Thanks, Jake! lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
Thanks, Jake. The Kitcher/Ramachandra debate is already here, as is the Dennett/Plantinga exchange. lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
Thanks again! lukeprog
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 Jim
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 lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
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. Akil
Akil,
I found it and added it. Thanks. lukeprog
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, majinrevan666
Working link:
http://pdf.gospel-net.com/god_in_america_national_debate_added_guest.pdf majinrevan666
Yeah, that was in 2006. I don’t see a recording of it anywhere. lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
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 majinrevan666
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! matt
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. Jake de Backer
Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters! lukeprog
In deed.
Or view the audience in there underpants, I’ve always heard was effective.
J. Jake de Backer
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? Jake de Backer
Jake,
Thanks, I’ll look into it. lukeprog
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. Jim
Jim,
Yeah, thanks, that’ll be added in the next update. lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
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. lukeprog
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. lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
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. Jake de Backer
Most excellent. Thanks, Jake. lukeprog
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! matt
speaking of embarrass, make that “publicly” :) matt
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) Jim
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 Jim
Michael Ruse and Stephen Meyer discussed “Intelligent Design vs. Evolution” in 2006:
– part 1 transcript at http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1244.html
– part 1 audio at http://www.thinktanktv.com/media/index.php?a=download-mp3&id=ThinkTank_101206.mp3
– part 1 video at http://www.thinktanktv.com/media/index.php?g=watch&m=243
– part 2 transcript at http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1246.html
– part 2 audio at http://www.thinktanktv.com/media/index.php?a=download-mp3&id=ThinkTank_101906.mp3
– part 2 video at http://www.thinktanktv.com/media/index.php?g=watch&m=242 Jim
Thanks, Jim! I’ll add it in the next round. lukeprog
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) Jim
hi there,
for some reason the link to the meyer-ruse debate a few posts above this one isn´t working. any suggestions? matt
matt,
Wait for my next update. My links will work. :) lukeprog
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 Jim
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 Jim
Wow. Jim’s on a fucking roll. Where are you coming up with all these transcripts, friend?
J. Jake de Backer
Me likey. lukeprog
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. Jim
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. :) lukeprog
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 Jim
Nice. Thanks for the link, Jim. lukeprog
“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…. Jim
The video for the D’Souza – Loftus debate is up
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/02/video-of-my-debate-with-dinesh-dsouza.html Cafeeine
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? Jim
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. Jake de Backer
Jim,
Oops, you’re right, thanks. lukeprog
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) Jim
Jim,
You are muchawesomeo. lukeprog
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. Jim
Suggestion for Jim’s new monikor:
DebateFindingWizard
J. Jake de Backer
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. matt
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? Jim
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 Jim
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. lukeprog
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 Jim
Jim is da man! lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
Jake,
Yeah, I roughly agree with your assessment. lukeprog
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?” lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
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? matt
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. Quaunta
Lol, chill. lukeprog
What the fuck are you on about? Jake de Backer
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? Zeb
Zeb,
They opening presentations are often a succinct summary of major arguments and approaches, but then the rest is mostly entertainment. :) lukeprog
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. matt
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? BJ Marshall
Hmmmm… that’s kind of a good idea. Let me think about how much work that would be. lukeprog
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 Zak
Thanks, Zak, but I don’t want to post partial debates. lukeprog
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. Jake de Backer
Try some combination of URL Snooper and Orbit Downloader. lukeprog
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. Fred
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. Majesty
Fantastic compilation.These will keep me busy for quite awhile. It would be awesome if some kind of rating system was implemented. Marky
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 Dan
Thanks, Dan! lukeprog
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. Michelle
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. lukeprog
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. RA
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. RA
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? Michelle
Just a heads up for a possible addition to this list, I will be attending this one tonight:
http://www.thegreatdebate.me/ MauricXe
Crap, I missed the event. Did here anyone record the audio? lukeprog
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. MauricXe
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 ;) MauricXe
Haha,
Thanks for the report. lukeprog
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 MauricXe
Thanks. lukeprog
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. MauricXe
You can find the audio to the Bart Ehrman vs. Dr. Brown debate here:
http://cwieand.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/my-response-to-bart-ehrman-vs-michael-brown-the-problem-of-suffering/ MauricXe
haha looking back I see some of my summary was off :) MauricXe
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. Peter Griffin
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! Dan
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] Stig
Luke
What happened to all the updates you added a few days before the crash? Are they making a reappearance soon?
J. Jake de Backer
Jake,
There you go. lukeprog
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. Gregory McElvy
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. lukeprog
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. GeneralTHC
Great FUCKING site! Keep up the good work my man! LOVE THIS STUFF!! Tommy Bolero
Dan Barker/Paul Manata link is not working for me. Muto
Will fix in the net update. Here’s the link for now:
http://www.archive.org/details/atheism_theism_debate lukeprog
Thanks,
Whoa Paul Manata’s presuppositionalism makes me aggressive. These arguments about logical absolutes are so badly convoluted… Muto
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. Majesty
Majesty,
It’s in the PDF, anyway. lukeprog
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. doubtingchristian
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. DoAtheistsExist?
Richard Carrier’s second debate with Licona is now avaliable here
http://bit.ly/Apologetics315-Debate2LiconaCarrier KT45
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. GeneralTHC
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! Andrew Ray Gorman
Thanks, Andrew Ray Gorman. lukeprog
There’s a great one at debate.livingdeadman.org Runa
“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. Timo
This is great thank you for an amazing site. Does anyone know how to be informed or to attend a debate? jesus
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. kamana kapu
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? Timo
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. Jake de Backer
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. Tomasz
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. Dan
Dan,
It shall remain updated, and I’m working with a developer to make the list more dynamic. lukeprog
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. Hermes
Dinesh D’Souza/Steven Landsburg mock trial of religion
http://www.booktv.org/Program/11750/FreedomFest+2010+Debate+on+Religion+with+Dinesh+DSouza+Steven+Landsburg+Stephen+Moore+Charles+Murray+Michael+Shermer+et+al.aspx RA
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. Sagar Gorijala
Another debate to add: Raymond Bradley vs. Matthew Flannagan. TaiChi
TaiChi,
Yeah, it’ll be added in the next update. lukeprog
wooow.. not atheism ? what ? what? İslami Paylaşım Platformu
I wish you’d identify programs from the Brit’s Unbelievable radio show. I don’t like them, and would rather not download them. Warn me Please
Some of the Unbelievable shows are good, though they miss the mark frequently and unnecessarily. Hermes
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 Gary
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. lukeprog
Gary,
I think it is Turek. Muto
Hey Muto, thanks for that it is Turek. Get a little confused between creationists =). Thanks again for your work lukeprog. Gary
Ray Bradley vs. Matt Flannagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPon3YxZpA David Hume
David Hume,
Oops, I forgot to add the links! Thanks. lukeprog
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. Muto
Robert Price vs. James White (mp3 costs $4.10) http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=994 Haecceitas
Thanks, Haecceitas. lukeprog
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 Klara Orlsson
I do, actually. It’s the “Christopher Hitchens and other vs. Boteach and others” one. But thanks anyway! lukeprog