Common Sense Atheism

500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

181 Comments »

• LatinAgnostic

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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).  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 16, 2008
• lukeprog

  drive1: Fixed, thanks.

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 29, 2008
• lukeprog

  rebekah: done.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 8, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 1, 2009
• becky

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

  Comment | February 2, 2009
• GeneralTHC

  Ehrman destroyed Craig.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 24, 2009
• lukeprog

  All manual work, unfortunately. Took me about 5 hours.  
  
  (Quote)

  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….  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | March 22, 2009
• lukeprog

  Great! Please do post again if you do more debates.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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/  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | March 24, 2009
• lukeprog

  Added. Thanks!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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?  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  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...  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | March 29, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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….  
  
  (Quote)

  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.   
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 15, 2009
• Euphorix

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

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 21, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Ian!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Blue Pongo,

  The link works for me. Want to try again?  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Oh, okay, thanks. I’ll look into that.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 29, 2009
• lukeprog

  Uh-oh! I’ll fix that. Thanks.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | April 29, 2009
• Damion

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

    
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 3, 2009
• lukeprog

  Great! Thanks, Damion.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• Dan Barker

  Oops. Barker/Fernandes was Feb. 29, 2000 . . .  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 4, 2009
• Lorkas

  Wow! Dan Barker!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 6, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 11, 2009
• Spencer Thayer

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | May 18, 2009
• Damion

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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).  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.
    
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 12, 2009
• lukeprog

  Alex, you can subscribe by email. See the sidebar.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 13, 2009
• lukeprog

  Jake de Backer,

  I have not read Steele’s book yet.  
  
  (Quote)

  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&

    
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• Alex G

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

  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&  
  
  (Quote)

  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/  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Alex!  
  
  (Quote)

  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).  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Amanda.  
  
  (Quote)

  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;)  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 17, 2009
• Alex G

  Shermer/D’souza debate is up again:

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

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | June 30, 2009
• lukeprog

  D C Cramer,

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

  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!
     
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | July 1, 2009
• Paul

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

  Comment | July 24, 2009
• lukeprog

  Paul,

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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…  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | July 27, 2009
• lukeprog

  Sam,

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

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | July 31, 2009
• lukeprog

  Al Williamson,

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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?

    
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | August 20, 2009
• Andrew

  I thought William Lane Craig lost against Shelly Kagan.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | August 26, 2009
• lukeprog

  Jake,

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

    
  
  (Quote)

  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”)  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | September 8, 2009
• lukeprog

  jake,

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | September 24, 2009
• sean lathee

  Now that would take a lot of doing.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | October 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Ken,

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

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | October 21, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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)  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | November 24, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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/  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | November 25, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 4, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jake.  
  
  (Quote)

  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!)  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  Thanks, DJ!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  RA,

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

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• RA

  Oh, that’s how it works.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• lukeprog

  RA,

  Did you really retire at 40?  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 10, 2009
• RA

  Yes. Technically 41.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 11, 2009
• Jake de Backer

  RA,

  May I ask who you are?

  J.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 14, 2009
• majinrevan666

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

  Comment | December 15, 2009
• lukeprog

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 16, 2009
• lukeprog

  Ah. Thanks, majinrevan666!  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 21, 2009
• majinrevan666

  David Berlinski VS James Underdown.

  http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/oct27.htm  
  
  (Quote)

  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!  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | December 31, 2009
• Rick

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

  Thanks again for listing these in one place!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 4, 2010
• MauricXe

  Thanks for this list! Amazing.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 7, 2010
• MattHunX

  Hey people!

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

  Keep it up!  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 15, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  Peter Atkins Vs. Shabir Allay

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• lukeprog

  Awesome! Thanks, Jake!  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 19, 2010
• Jake de Backer

  Yessir.  
  
  (Quote)

  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”  
  
  (Quote)

  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?  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | January 23, 2010
• majinrevan666

  Eddie Tabash vs Matt Slick.

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

  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.”  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 4, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jim!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 5, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks, Jake!  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• lukeprog

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

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 6, 2010
• lukeprog

  Thanks again!  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  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.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 8, 2010
• lukeprog

  Akil,

  I found it and added it. Thanks.  
  
  (Quote)

  Comment | February 8, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment