Common Sense Atheism

500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

323 Comments »

• LatinAgnostic

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

  Comment | December 10, 2008
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | December 11, 2008
• eric

  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

  Comment | December 12, 2008
• drive1

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

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

  Thanks for all the links. There’s good ammo here (Mr Humphreys notwithstanding).  drive1

  Comment | December 16, 2008
• lukeprog

  drive1: Fixed, thanks.

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

  Comment | December 17, 2008
• Religious Debates - lewism
  Pingback | December 18, 2008
• Al

  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

  Comment | December 26, 2008
• rebekah

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

  Thanks again.  rebekah

  Comment | December 28, 2008
• Charles

  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

  Comment | December 29, 2008
• lukeprog

  rebekah: done.  lukeprog

  Comment | December 30, 2008
• Jason

  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

  Comment | December 31, 2008
• Killjoy

  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

  Comment | January 5, 2009
• Jason

  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

  Comment | January 6, 2009
• Killjoy

  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

  Comment | January 8, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | January 8, 2009
• Frank Lovell

  “…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

  Comment | January 30, 2009
• sean lathee

  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

  Comment | February 1, 2009
• becky

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

  Comment | February 2, 2009
• GeneralTHC

  Ehrman destroyed Craig.  GeneralTHC

  Comment | February 5, 2009
• Bruce

  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

  Comment | February 21, 2009
• ChristianJR4

  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

  Comment | February 24, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | February 25, 2009
• Arya Eshraghi

  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

  Comment | March 22, 2009
• Steven Carr

  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

  Comment | March 22, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | March 22, 2009
• BeStrong

  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

  Comment | March 24, 2009
• 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

  Comment | March 24, 2009
• lukeprog

  Added. Thanks!  lukeprog

  Comment | March 24, 2009
• becky

  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

  Comment | March 28, 2009
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | March 28, 2009
• becky

  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

  Comment | March 28, 2009
• Buster08

  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

  Comment | March 29, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks!  lukeprog

  Comment | March 29, 2009
• Blue Pongo

  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

  Comment | April 10, 2009
• lukeprog

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

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

  Comment | April 10, 2009
• Euphorix

  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

  Comment | April 15, 2009
• lukeprog

  Euphorix,

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

  Craig destroyed Hitchens, as I explain here. :)  lukeprog

  Comment | April 15, 2009
• Euphorix

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

  Comment | April 16, 2009
• Ian Olson

  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

  Comment | April 21, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Ian!  lukeprog

  Comment | April 21, 2009
• Blue Pongo

  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

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Blue Pongo,

  The link works for me. Want to try again?  lukeprog

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• Blue Pongo

  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

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Blue Pongo:

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

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• Blue Pongo

  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

  Comment | April 28, 2009
• Donald E. Flood

  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

  Comment | April 29, 2009
• lukeprog

  Uh-oh! I’ll fix that. Thanks.  lukeprog

  Comment | April 29, 2009
• Damion

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

    Damion

  Comment | May 3, 2009
• lukeprog

  Great! Thanks, Damion.  lukeprog

  Comment | May 3, 2009
• Dan Barker

  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

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• Dan Barker

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

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• Lorkas

  Wow! Dan Barker!  Lorkas

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• Damion

  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

  Comment | May 6, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | May 6, 2009
• Simeon

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

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

  Comment | May 11, 2009
• Spencer Thayer

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

  Comment | May 14, 2009
• Damion

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

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

  Comment | May 18, 2009
• Damion

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

  Comment | May 18, 2009
• JustintheChristian

  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

  Comment | May 18, 2009
• vision

  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

  Comment | May 26, 2009
• sapere aude

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

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

  Comment | May 31, 2009
• Deist Novice

  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

  Comment | June 2, 2009
• Ranzo

  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

  Comment | June 4, 2009
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | June 4, 2009
• Deist Novice

  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

  Comment | June 5, 2009
• Tobias

  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

  Comment | June 10, 2009
• Penneyworth

  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

  Comment | June 11, 2009
• Alex

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

  Comment | June 12, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | June 12, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | June 13, 2009
• lukeprog

  Jake de Backer,

  I have not read Steele’s book yet.  lukeprog

  Comment | June 13, 2009
• Alex G

  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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• Alex G

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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• 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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• 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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Alex!  lukeprog

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• Lorkas

  :(
  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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• Amanda

  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

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Amanda.  lukeprog

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• myprecious

  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

  Comment | June 17, 2009
• Alex G

  Shermer/D’souza debate is up again:

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

  Comment | June 18, 2009
• 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

  Comment | June 18, 2009
• D C Cramer

  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

  Comment | June 30, 2009
• lukeprog

  D C Cramer,

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

  Comment | June 30, 2009
• sean lathee

  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

  Comment | July 1, 2009
• Paul

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

  Comment | July 24, 2009
• lukeprog

  Paul,

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

  Comment | July 25, 2009
• Paul

  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

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• mattr

  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

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• 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

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• Sam

  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

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Sam,

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

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• Jason

  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

  Comment | July 30, 2009
• AL Williamson

  “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

  Comment | July 31, 2009
• lukeprog

  Al Williamson,

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

  Comment | July 31, 2009
• Deist Novice

  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

  Comment | August 3, 2009
• lukeprog

  Deist Novice,

  I love Price’s work.

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

  Comment | August 3, 2009
• CA

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

    CA

  Comment | August 20, 2009
• Andrew

  I thought William Lane Craig lost against Shelly Kagan.  Andrew

  Comment | August 24, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | August 26, 2009
• lukeprog

  Jake,

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

    lukeprog

  Comment | August 26, 2009
• Jason

  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

  Comment | August 27, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | September 8, 2009
• lukeprog

  jake,

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

  Comment | September 8, 2009
• sean lathee

  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

  Comment | September 12, 2009
• lukeprog

  sean,

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

  Comment | September 12, 2009
• sean lathee

  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

  Comment | September 12, 2009
• Terri R

  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

  Comment | September 24, 2009
• sean lathee

  Now that would take a lot of doing.  sean lathee

  Comment | September 25, 2009
• Justin

  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

  Comment | September 30, 2009
• André

  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

  Comment | September 30, 2009
• Deist Novice

  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

  Comment | October 14, 2009
• Ken Williamson

  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

  Comment | October 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Ken,

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

  Comment | October 16, 2009
• Landon

  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

  Comment | October 21, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | October 21, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | October 24, 2009
• Richard Ball

  “‘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

  Comment | October 28, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | October 30, 2009
• alex wills

  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

  Comment | November 7, 2009
• Keith

  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

  Comment | November 19, 2009
• André

  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

  Comment | November 19, 2009
• lukeprog

  Keith,

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

  Comment | November 19, 2009
• André

  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

  Comment | November 19, 2009
• Hermes

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

  I accept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Comment | November 24, 2009
• Dan

  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

  Comment | November 24, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | November 24, 2009
• Dan

  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

  Comment | November 25, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | November 25, 2009
• GeneralTHC

  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

  Comment | December 2, 2009
• Hermes

  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

  Comment | December 3, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  Luke

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

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | December 4, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jake.  lukeprog

  Comment | December 4, 2009
• DJ

  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

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, DJ!  lukeprog

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• RA

  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

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  RA,

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

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• RA

  Oh, that’s how it works.  RA

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  RA,

  Did you really retire at 40?  lukeprog

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• RA

  Yes. Technically 41.  RA

  Comment | December 11, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  RA,

  May I ask who you are?

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | December 14, 2009
• Keith

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

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

  Comment | December 14, 2009
• majinrevan666

  Luke, Kent Hovind aside, are all of the debates labeled
  “creationism” about intelligent design?  majinrevan666

  Comment | December 15, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | December 15, 2009
• majinrevan666

  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

  Comment | December 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Ah. Thanks, majinrevan666!  lukeprog

  Comment | December 16, 2009
• Hermes

  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

  Comment | December 17, 2009
• 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

  Comment | December 19, 2009
• sean ledwiidge

  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

  Comment | December 21, 2009
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | December 21, 2009
• majinrevan666

  David Berlinski VS James Underdown.

  http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/oct27.htm  majinrevan666

  Comment | December 31, 2009
• zugu

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

  Comment | December 31, 2009
• Rick

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

  Thanks again for listing these in one place!  Rick

  Comment | January 3, 2010
• Keith

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

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

  Comment | January 4, 2010
• MauricXe

  Thanks for this list! Amazing.  MauricXe

  Comment | January 7, 2010
• MattHunX

  Hey people!

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

  Keep it up!  MattHunX

  Comment | January 15, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  Peter Atkins Vs. Shabir Allay

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

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• 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

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Awesome! Thanks, Jake!  lukeprog

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  Yessir.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• Hermes

  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

  Comment | January 23, 2010
• 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

  Comment | January 23, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | January 23, 2010
• majinrevan666

  Eddie Tabash vs Matt Slick.

  http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/01/matt-slick-vs-eddie-tabash-debate-does.html  majinrevan666

  Comment | January 27, 2010
• Dan

  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

  Comment | January 30, 2010
• Chris

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

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

  Comment | January 30, 2010
• Jim

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

  Comment | February 4, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jim!  lukeprog

  Comment | February 4, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 5, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jake!  lukeprog

  Comment | February 5, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks again!  lukeprog

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 7, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | February 7, 2010
• Jake de Backer

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

  Anybody have any idea why this is?

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 7, 2010
• Akil

  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

  Comment | February 8, 2010
• lukeprog

  Akil,

  I found it and added it. Thanks.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 8, 2010
• majinrevan666

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

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

  http://gospel-net.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid=1161703800,91130,  majinrevan666

  Comment | February 9, 2010
• majinrevan666

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

  Working link:

  http://pdf.gospel-net.com/god_in_america_national_debate_added_guest.pdf  majinrevan666

  Comment | February 9, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | February 9, 2010
• Jake de Backer

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

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 9, 2010
• majinrevan666

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

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

  http://www.shmuley.com/store/debates/shmuley-archives-oxford-debate-with-rabbi-shmuley-richard-dawkins-david-berlinksi-and-more.html  majinrevan666

  Comment | February 10, 2010
• Why the New Atheists are SO 19th Century « SpeakEasy
  Pingback | February 12, 2010
• Common Sense Atheism « Friendly Humanist
  Pingback | February 15, 2010
• matt

  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

  Comment | February 16, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters!  lukeprog

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  lukeprog: Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters!  

  In deed.

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

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jake,

  Thanks, I’ll look into it.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jim,

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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | February 19, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 20, 2010
• lukeprog

  Most excellent. Thanks, Jake.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 20, 2010
• matt

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

  Comment | February 20, 2010
• matt

  speaking of embarrass, make that “publicly” :)  matt

  Comment | February 20, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 21, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 21, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 21, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | February 21, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 21, 2010
• matt

  hi there,

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

  Comment | February 22, 2010
• lukeprog

  matt,

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

  Comment | February 22, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 22, 2010
• 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

  Comment | February 24, 2010
• Jake de Backer

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

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 24, 2010
• lukeprog

  Me likey.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 24, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 24, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | February 24, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 25, 2010
• lukeprog

  Nice. Thanks for the link, Jim.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 25, 2010
• Jim

  “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

  Comment | February 25, 2010
• Cafeeine

  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

  Comment | February 25, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 26, 2010
• Jake de Backer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Best,
  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 26, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jim,

  Oops, you’re right, thanks.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 26, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 26, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jim,

  You are muchawesomeo.  lukeprog

  Comment | February 26, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | February 27, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  Suggestion for Jim’s new monikor:

  DebateFindingWizard

  J.  Jake de Backer

  Comment | February 27, 2010
• matt

  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

  Comment | March 1, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | March 2, 2010
• 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

  Comment | March 2, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | March 3, 2010
• Jim

  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

  Comment | March 4, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jim is da man!  lukeprog

  Comment | March 4, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | March 5, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jake,

  Yeah, I roughly agree with your assessment.  lukeprog

  Comment | March 5, 2010
• 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

  Comment | March 5, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | March 6, 2010
• matt

  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

  Comment | March 6, 2010
• Quaunta

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

  Comment | March 8, 2010
• lukeprog

  Lol, chill.  lukeprog

  Comment | March 8, 2010
• Jake de Backer

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

  What the fuck are you on about?  Jake de Backer

  Comment | March 8, 2010
• Zeb

  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

  Comment | March 12, 2010
• lukeprog

  Zeb,

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

  Comment | March 12, 2010
• matt

  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

  Comment | March 12, 2010
• For those who just can’t get enough : Minor Thoughts
  Pingback | March 14, 2010
• BJ Marshall

  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

  Comment | March 16, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | March 16, 2010
• Zak

  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

  Comment | March 20, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | March 20, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | March 22, 2010
• lukeprog

  Try some combination of URL Snooper and Orbit Downloader.  lukeprog

  Comment | March 22, 2010
• Fred

  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

  Comment | March 24, 2010
• Majesty

  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

  Comment | March 29, 2010
• Marky

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

  Comment | April 3, 2010
• Dan

  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

  Comment | April 5, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Dan!  lukeprog

  Comment | April 5, 2010
• Michelle

  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

  Comment | April 5, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | April 5, 2010
• RA

  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

  Comment | April 7, 2010
• 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

  Comment | April 7, 2010
• Michelle

  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

  Comment | April 7, 2010
• MauricXe

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

  http://www.thegreatdebate.me/  MauricXe

  Comment | April 15, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | April 15, 2010
• MauricXe

  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

  Comment | April 15, 2010
• 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

  Comment | April 15, 2010
• lukeprog

  Haha,

  Thanks for the report.  lukeprog

  Comment | April 15, 2010
• MauricXe

  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

  Comment | April 16, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks.  lukeprog

  Comment | April 16, 2010
• MauricXe

  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

  Comment | April 17, 2010
• 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

  Comment | April 18, 2010
• MauricXe

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

  Comment | April 18, 2010
• Peter Griffin

  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

  Comment | April 30, 2010
• Dan

  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

  Comment | May 4, 2010
• Stig

  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

  Comment | May 12, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | May 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Jake,

  There you go.  lukeprog

  Comment | May 20, 2010
• Gregory McElvy

  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

  Comment | May 24, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | May 24, 2010
• Books, Blogs, videos and podcasts « WUSS Blog
  Pingback | May 25, 2010
• GeneralTHC

  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

  Comment | May 28, 2010
• Tommy Bolero

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

  Comment | May 28, 2010
• Lots of really cool Atheist-themed stuff and sites ^^ « The Blog For Everything by Arthur
  Pingback | May 31, 2010
• Muto

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

  Comment | June 2, 2010
• lukeprog

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

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

  Comment | June 2, 2010
• Muto

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

  Comment | June 3, 2010
• Majesty

  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

  Comment | June 3, 2010
• lukeprog

  Majesty,

  It’s in the PDF, anyway.  lukeprog

  Comment | June 3, 2010
• doubtingchristian

  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

  Comment | June 6, 2010
• DoAtheistsExist?

  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?

  Comment | June 8, 2010
• KT45

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

  http://bit.ly/Apologetics315-Debate2LiconaCarrier  KT45

  Comment | June 9, 2010
• GeneralTHC

  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

  Comment | June 13, 2010
• Andrew Ray Gorman

  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

  Comment | June 13, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Andrew Ray Gorman.  lukeprog

  Comment | June 13, 2010
• Runa

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

  Comment | June 17, 2010
• Timo

  “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

  Comment | June 25, 2010
• jesus

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

  Comment | July 2, 2010
• kamana kapu

  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

  Comment | July 4, 2010
• Timo

  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

  Comment | July 6, 2010
• A Plethora of Religion Debates « Geeky Atheist
  Pingback | July 13, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  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

  Comment | July 18, 2010
• Tomasz

  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

  Comment | July 20, 2010
• Dan

  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

  Comment | August 1, 2010
• lukeprog

  Dan,

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

  Comment | August 1, 2010
• Hermes

  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

  Comment | August 3, 2010
• RA

  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

  Comment | August 7, 2010
• Sagar Gorijala

  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

  Comment | August 8, 2010
• TaiChi

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

  Comment | August 12, 2010
• lukeprog

  TaiChi,

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

  Comment | August 12, 2010
• İslami Paylaşım Platformu

  wooow.. not atheism ? what ? what?  İslami Paylaşım Platformu

  Comment | August 20, 2010
• Warn me Please

  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

  Comment | August 20, 2010
• Hermes

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

  Comment | August 20, 2010
• Gary

  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

  Comment | August 23, 2010
• lukeprog

  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

  Comment | August 23, 2010
• Muto

  Gary,
  I think it is Turek.  Muto

  Comment | August 23, 2010
• Gary

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

  Comment | August 24, 2010
• David Hume

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

  Comment | August 26, 2010
• lukeprog

  David Hume,

  Oops, I forgot to add the links! Thanks.  lukeprog

  Comment | August 26, 2010
• Muto

  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

  Comment | August 27, 2010
• Haecceitas

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

  Comment | August 28, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Haecceitas.  lukeprog

  Comment | August 28, 2010
• Klara Orlsson

  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

  Comment | September 2, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  Comment | September 2, 2010