Christian vs Atheist Debates

Below is a list of 583 debates. Use the search feature to narrow down your search. Comment below if you know of any debates not in this list.

ChristianAtheistFormatYearTopicNotes
Adam DeenAndrew CopsonAudiomoral argument
Adam DeenDan BarkerAudio2009
Adam DeenNorman RalphVideo
Adonaelwiploclink2008problem of evil
Adrian HollowayMichael ShermerAudio2009
afdaveConstant Mewslink2007Bible
Al SharptonChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2007
Alan KeyesAlan DershowitzAudio, Video, link2000
Albert CiprianiRGDlink2005
Alex McLellan and Marc SurteesJulian Baggini and othersVideo, Audio2009
Alexander CampbellRobert Owenbook1829
Alister McGrathCaspar MelvilleAudio2010
Alister McGrathChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio, link2007
Alister McGrathDaniel DennettAudio, book2008
Alister McGrathPeter AtkinsVideo, Audio2007
Alister McGrathRichard DawkinsAudio2007
Alister McGrathRoger PenroseAudio2010
Alister McGrathSue BlackmoreAudio
Alvin PlantingaDaniel DennettAudio2009discussion
Alvin PlantingaMichael Tooleybook2008
Alvin PlantingaPatrick Grimlink1993
Alvin PlantingaRichard GaleVideo, Audio2008problem of evil
Alvin PlantingaStephen LawAudio2010naturalism
Alvin Plantinga and othersPaul Draper and otherslink2008best!
Amy Orr-EwingNorman HansenAudio
Andrew SullivanSam Harrislink2007
Andrew WilsonNorman BacracAudio2009
Andrew_theistMadMax2976link2002
Andy BannisterEd TurnerAudio 1, 2
Andy BannisterNorman HansenAudio
Angus MenugeP.Z. MyersVideo, Audio2008neuroscience and religion
anonymousAlan Halelink1997
Answers in GenesisAustralian Skepticslink2005creationism
ApologiaNickDoubtingJohnlink
ApologiaPhoenixPitchforkpatlink2009morality
Apologist4HimCD Wardlink2003
Arthur HipplerGeorge KaneAudio
Ben WitheringtonMichael ShermerVideo, Audio2005short
Bible DefenderJohn Powelllink2005
Bible Defendershunyadragonlink2006
Bible JohnJohnny Skepticlink2006
Bible JohnTysixtuslink2006
blackapologistthe_eliot_onelink2008resurrection
Bob BalesChris Stassenlink1992creationism
Brandeis University JewsBrandeis University HumanistsVideo,Audio2008
Brandeis University JewsBrandeis University HumanistsVideo2009
Brian TraffordEarl Dohertylink2001historical Jesus
Briane BossePervylink2007
Burris JenkinsE. Haldeman-Juliuslink1930
Cal ThomasGeorge WillAudio, link
Canon Michael ColeSteven CarrAudio2008
Canon Michael ColeSteven CarrAudio2009(2nd debate)
Carl WielandPaul WillisVideocreationism
cartesianLuke Muehlhauserlink2009
Cees DekkerHerman PhilipseVideo2008
Charles FosterRobert StovoldAudio2009nativity
Charles FosterSusan BlackmoreAudio2010
ChrisNatepodcast
Chris HedgesChristopher HitchensAudio
Chris HedgesSam HarrisAudioreligion and politics
Chris McHughDoug Kruegerlink2003
Chris McHughTheodore Drangelink2003
Cliff KnechtleJeremy BeahanAudio2010
Cliffe KnechtleMichael NewdowVideo 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Audio2003
Craig EvansBart EhrmanVideo, Audio2010
CybershyBoshkolink2001
Daleetwiploclink2009problem of evil
Daniel WallaceBart EhrmanAudiotextual reliability
Dave HuntChristopher DiCarloDVD2008
David Allen WhiteChristopher HitchensAudio2007impact of Christianity
David BartholomewVictor StengerAudio2010
David BerlinskiChristopher HitchensVideo2010
David BerlinskiJames UnderdownAudio2009
David DewolfEugenie ScottAudio2001creationism
David MargolisRichard Spencerlink .doc2006resurrectionbest!
David QuinnRichard Dawkinslink2006
David RobertsonAlister McBayAudio, Video2008
David RobertsonAndrew CopsonAudio2010
David RobertsonAdrian HayterAudio2009
David RobertsonAdrian HayterAudio2009(2nd debate)
David RobertsonMichael ShermerAudio2010
David RobertsonPaul OntonAudio2010
David RobertsonPeter CaveAudio2009
David Robertson and Richard MorganEd TurnerAudio2009
David WolpeChristopher HitchensVideo2010
David WolpeChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2007
David WolpeSam HarrisVideo, Audio
David WoodJohn LoftusVideo, Audio2006problem of evil
David WoodJohn LoftusAudioproblem of evil(2nd debate)
David WoodJohn LoftusVideo, Audio2010
Deepak Chopra and Jean HoustonMichael Shermer and Sam HarrisVideo2010
Denis AlexanderJanna LavinVideo 1, 2, Audio 1, 22007
Denis AlexanderPhilip KitcherAudio2007early Christianity
Denis AlexanderP.Z. MyersAudio2009neuroscience and religion
Denis AlexanderStephen LawAudio2010
Dennis PragerChristopher HitchensVideo
Dennis PragerSam Harrislink
Derek TidballGordon LiveseyAudio
Dinesh D'SouzaBart EhrmanAudio2009suffering
Dinesh D'SouzaChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2009
Dinesh D'SouzaChristopher HitchensAudio2009(second 2009 debate)
Dinesh D'SouzaChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2010(Notre Dame)
Dinesh D'SouzaChristopher Hitchenslink DVD, Audio2007
Dinesh D'SouzaDan BarkerVideo,Audio
Dinesh D'SouzaDan BarkerVideo, Audio2008
Dinesh D'SouzaDan BarkerVideo, Audio2009
Dinesh D'SouzaDaniel DennettVideo, Audio2007a review
Dinesh D'SouzaJohn LoftusVideo, Audio2010
Dinesh D'SouzaMichael ShermerVideo 1, 2, AudioIs Christianity good?
Dinesh D'SouzaMichael ShermerVideo2009Is Christianity good? (2nd debate)
Dinesh D'SouzaPeter SingerVideo, Audio2008God: Yes or no?
Dinesh D'SouzaPeter SingerVideo, Audio2008god and morality
Dinesh D'Souza and Dennis PragerChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2008
Dinesh D'Souza et. al.Stephen Landsburg et. al.VideoBible
Don JohnsonEdwin KaginAudio
Don JohnsonRobert PriceAudio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Don PattonJohn BlantonAudiocreationism
Doug GeivettJohn ShookVideo, Audio2009
Doug MillerJohn GeorgeVideo2003
Douglas GeivettEddie TabashDVD2007
Douglas JacobyMichael ShermerVideo, Audio2007
Douglas JonesKeith Parsons and Michael Martinlink1991
Douglas WilsonChristopher Hitchensbook2009
Douglas WilsonChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio, link2008
Douglas WilsonDan BarkerAudio
Douglas WilsonFarrell Tilllink
Douglas WilsonTheodore Drangelink1999
Duan GishKen Saladinlink1988creationism
Duane GishFrank Zindlerlink1990creationism
Dwight KnightRobert PriceVideo
Ed DoerrChristopher HitchensAudio
Edgar Andrews and othersRichard Dawkins and othersAudio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 91986creationism
EloiseKevinlink2008paganism
extinctionistwiploclink2004morality
Francis CollinsRichard DawkinsText2006
Francis Collins and Benjamin CarsonRichard Dawkins and Daniel DennettAudio2009
Frank TurekChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2008
Frank TurekChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2009
Frank TurekRichard CarrierAudioresurrection
Frederick CoplestonBertrand Russelllink1948
Friar PeterJohn WiltshireVideo
GakuseiDonMalachi151link2007historical Jesus
Gary HabermasAntony FlewVideo, Audio, book2003resurrection
Gary HabermasArif AhmedVideo, Audio2008resurrection
Gary HabermasKeith AugustineAudio 1, 2, 3
Gary HabermasKenneth HumphreysVideo, Audioresurrection
Gary HabermasSkepticsAudio 1, 2
Gary HabermasTim CallahanVideo 1, 2, Audio2005short
Gary Habermas and Mike LiconaRichard CarrierAudio
Gary Habermas and Mike LiconaRobert PriceAudio 1, 2, 32007resurrection
Gavin McGrathMarilyn MasonAudio
GeeKilljoylink2009
Gene CookAaron Kinneylink2005
Gene CookAnton BateyVideo
Gene CookDan BarkerAudio2005
Gene CookDavid CossAudio2005
Gene CookEdwin KaginAudio
Gene CookJames RandiAudio
Gene CookJohn LoftusAudio2006
Gene CookJosh Singer and Sye TenBruggencatAudio
Gene CookKeegan J. KjeldsenAudio2006
Gene CookLee BashamAudio 1, 2
Gene CookRay WallerAudio2005
Gene CookRob ManningAudio2008
Gene CookSye TenBruggencateAudio
Gene Cook and Bob MoreyRobert Price and Reggie FinleyAudio2005
Geoffrey SimmonsP.Z. MyersAudiocreationism
George PellDan BarkerVideo, Audio2010
Glenn PeoplesArif AhmedAudio2010
Greg BahnsenGeorge SmithAudio1991
Greg BahnsenGordon SteinVideo, Audio, Transcript
Greg BoydRobert PriceAudiohistorical Jesus
Greg ClarkeDan BarkerVideo
Greg KouklMichael Shermerlink
Gregorywiploclink2004
Hamza Andreas TzortzisEd BucknerVideo2010
Hamza Andreas TzortzisPeter CaveVideo2008islam
Hamza Tzortzis and Adam DeenBrian Layfield and Robert TeeVideo,Audio2008
Hans JacobseMatt DillahuntyVideo, Audio2010morality
Harry CallahanJadelink2004
Hassanain RajabaliDan BarkerVideo 1, 2, 3, Audio2003
Hassanain Rajabali and Michael CoreyDan Barker and Richard CarrierVideo, DVD, Audio2009
Henry WaceThomas Huxleybook1888
Howard SternHermant MethaAudio2006
Hugh HewittSam HarrisVideoshort
Hugh RossVictor StengerAudio 1, 2
Imran AijazBill Cookelink2002
J.P. HoldingAmerican Atheistslink2008historical Jesus
J.P. HoldingJohn Armstronglink2007
J.P. Holdingskepticbudlink2003
J.P. Holdingskepticbudlink2003miracles(2nd debate)
J.P. MorelandClancy MartinVideo, Audio2005resurrection
J.P. MorelandKai Nielsenbook1993
J.P.HoldingJohn Powelllink2003
Jake O'ConnellRichard Carrierlink2008resurrection
James D. BalesWoolsey Tellerbook1947
James WhiteAnn McKinneyAudio
James WhiteBart EhrmanVideo, linktextual reliabilitybest!
James WhiteBrian LynchAudio
James WhiteDan BarkerVideo, Audio1986
James WhiteRobert PriceVideo2010historical jesus
JasonSylaslink2003creationism
Jason GastrichDan BarkerAudio
Jason GastrichDoug KruegerAudio
Jason GastrichDoug KruegerAudio(2nd debate)
Jason GastrichDoug Kruegerlink2005(3rd debate)
Jason GastrichEddie TabashAudio
Jason GastrichEddie TabashDVD, Audio2007(2nd debate)
Jason GastrichFarrell Tilllink2003
Jason GastrichFrancois Tremblaylink2004morality
Jason GastrichJohnny Skepticlink2005resurrection
Jason GastrichJon Pomnitzlink2004historical Jesus
Jason GastrichReggie FinleyAudio
Jason GastrichSean McHughlink2004resurrection
Jason GastrichStan KohlsAudio
Jason GastrichStephen GeddeslinkBible
Jay RichardsChristopher HitchensDVD, Audio2008
Jean Bethke Elshtain and othersSusan Jacoby and othersDVD, Audio, link2007Is America too damn religious?
Jeffrey SchwartzMichael ShermerVideo2004
Jerome GroopmanMichael Shermerlink2008science and religion
Jerry Don BauerFedmahn Kassadlink2003creationism
Jerry McDonaldradical_logiclink2009
Jim CookArnold Guminskilinkthe moral argument
Jim LawsRichard SchoenigVideoAudio
Joanna Collicut McGrathMartyn FrameAudio2010
Joel BootChristopher DiCarloVideo,Audio2009
Joel ReifEddie TabashVideo 1, 2, Audio2007
John FerrerZachary MooreAudio
John FrameMichael Martinlink1996
John HaldaneChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio
John HaldaneJ.J.C. Smartbook1996
John HarePeter SingerVideo, Audio2009morality
John KosterFrank Zindlerlink1990
John LennoxChristopher HitchensDVD2008
John LennoxChristopher HitchensDVD2009
John LennoxMichael ShermerVideo, Audio
John LennoxRichard DawkinsVideo, DVD, Audio
John LennoxRichard DawkinsAudio2008Oxford Museum
John LennoxRichard DawkinsAudio2008Oxford followup
John Lennox and othersVictor Stenger and othersVideo, Audio
John MorrisFrank Zindlerlink1989Noah's flood
John Onaiyekan and Anne WiddencombeChristopher Hitchens and Stephen FryVideo, Audio2009Is the Catholic Church good?
John PendletonJames BowerVideo, Audio2006resurrection
John RankinDan BarkerAudio2006
John RankinRobert Pricelink1997historical Jesus
John TancockB StrongAudio2010
John TwiseltonSteven Carrlink2009
John Warwick MontgomeryThomas J.J. Altizerbook1967
Jonathan WellsMassimo PigliucciVideo, linkintelligent design
Jonathan WellsMichael ShermerVideo, Audio2006creationism
JP HoldingKen HumphreysAudio2009did Jesus exist?
Julia Neuberger and othersRichard Dawkins and othersVideo
Justin BrierlyReggie FinleyAudio
Kabane52ENDH8link2005resurrection
Kabane52hamandcheeseLink2008
Kabane52Sea of Redlink2007
Karl GibersonMichael ShermerVideo, Audio
Karl KeatingBart BrewerAudio
Karl KeatingBill JacksonAudio
Karl KeatingPeter RuckmanAudio
Ken HamEugenie ScottAudio
Ken HammJames LisleVideo, Audio
Kenneth MillerChristopher Hitchenslink2008science and religion
Kent HovindFarrell TillAudio 1, 2
Kent HovindHugh RossAudiocreationism
Kent HovindHugh RossVideocreationism
Kent HovindJames PaulsonVideo, DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindJayman DickDVDcreationism
Kent HovindJim HoffmanVideocreationism
Kent HovindJim Strayer and othersVideo DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindJohn CallahanAudiocreationism
Kent HovindKaren Barteltlink DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindMark HartmanDVDcreationism
Kent HovindMassimo Pigliuccilink DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindMassimo PigliucciAudiocreationism (2nd debate)
Kent HovindMatthew RainbowVideo, DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindMichael Shermerlink DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindPaul HilpmanDVDcreationism
Kent HovindReggie FinleyAudiocreationism
Kent HovindRichard WeisenbergDVDcreationism
Kent HovindRobyn RichardsonDVDcreationism
Kent HovindRobert TriversDVDcreationism
Kent HovindRobert TriversDVDcreationism(2nd debate)
Kent HovindStephen MeyersVideo, Audiocreationism
Kent HovindTerry Prewittlink DVD, Audiocreationism
Kent Hovind and Kyle FrazierMichael Shermerlink DVD, Audiocreationism
King LouieVinnielink2001
King of MenManhattanProjectlink2005
Kirk Cameron
and Ray Comfort
Rational Response SquadVideo, Audio2007hilarious
Kirk DurstonJeffrey NoonanVideo, Audio2009
Kirk DurstonJeffrey ShallitVideo, Audio2007science and religion
Kris Wold vs. Christian Apologetics of CarolinaDon ExodusVideo
Kyle ButtDan BarkerVideo, Audio2009
Larry TauntonChristopher HitchensVideo,Audio
Laurence TisdallJason WilesVideo, Audio2007creationism
llamaluvrTony Beaulink2007resurrection
Long Winded Foolwiploclink2004problem of evil
Lorenzo AlbaceteChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2008science and religion
Madeline BuntingRichard DawkinsAudio
Majestykcradylink2009kalam cosmological argument
Marianne TalbotStephen LawAudio2009
Mariano GrinbankMichael SizerVideo2010morality and god
Mark HausamDavid KellerVideo, Audio2007
Mark RobertsChristopher HitchensAudio
Martin Saunders and Anthony McRoyPhilip PullmanAudio
Marvin OlaskyChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2007
Matt SlickChadElinkscroll down to Atheism and Morality Second Debate
Matt SlickDan BarkerAudio
Matt SlickDerek SansoneAudio
Matt SlickEddie TabashVideo, Audio
Matt SlickEdwin KaginVideo, Audio2008
Matt SlickMark BonocoreAudio
Matt SlickMatt Dillahunty and othersVideo2009
Matt SlickReggie FinleyAudio
Matt SlickTinyCrabbieThingielink
Matthew FlannaganRay BradleyAudio, link2010
Meic PearseEd TurnerAudioIs Christianity good?
MetacrockGurderLink2001
Michael BeheKeith FoxAudio2010intelligent design
Michael BeheLawrence Krauslink2005
Michael BeheMichael ReissAudio2005short
Michael BeheStephen BarrAudio2010evolution
Michael BeheVincent CassoneAudiocreationism
Michael Behe and othersKenneth Miller and otherslink2005debater is not an atheist
Michael BirdJames CrossleyAudio2009historical Jesus
Michael BirdJames CrossleyAudiohistorical Jesus (2nd debate)
Michael BrownBart EhrmanAudio2010
Michael HornerDan Barkerlink1996
Michael HornerFarrell Tilllink1995resurrection
Michael NovakHeather MacDonaldVideo, Audio, Link
Michael PooleRichard Dawkinslink
Michael SaywardSarah TinkerAudiovirgin birth
Mike LiconaBart EhrmanVideo, Audio2008resurrection
Mike LiconaBart EhrmanVideo, Audio2009resurrection
Mike LiconaDan BarkerVideo, Audio2003resurrection
Mike LiconaElaine PagelsVideo, Audio2005gnostic gospelsshort
Mike LiconaElaine PagelsAudiohistorical Jesus
Mike LiconaLuke MuehlhauserAudio2009resurrection
Mike LiconaRichard Carrierlink DVD, Audio2004resurrectionbest!
Mike LiconaRichard CarrierVideo, Audio2010resurrection
Mike PagetAlan ConradiAudio, Video2010
Mike RiddleMike YellowAudio 1, 2creationism
N.T. WrightBart EhrmanAudio, linkproblem of evil
N.T. WrightJohn Dominic CrossanAudio, book2006resurrection
Nadir AhmedDenis GironVideo 1, 2
Nadir ahmedRichard CarrierAudioscience and religion
Nicholas BealeColin Howsonlink1998
Nicholas BealeJulian BagginiAudio2009
Nick SpencerRobert StovoldAudio2009
Nigel DesboroughMichael MarsdenAudioAlpha course
Norman GeislerFarrell Tilllink1994resurrection
Norman GeislerPaul KurtzAudio
Norton and othersEmerypodcast
notapadawanTysixtuslink2007
O. Gerald TriggKeith Parsonstape2001
P-DunnNickcopernicuslink
Paul CopanMichael Martin1 2 3 42000
Paul HerrickSamuel PolingVideo, Audio2007
Paul ManataDan BarkerAudio
Paul ManataDerek SansoneAudio
Paul NelsonKenneth MillerAudiodebater is not an atheist
Paul NelsonNiall ShanksAudio2005intelligent design
Paul NelsonRonald NumbersVideo, Audio2009
Paul NelsonSahotra SarkarVideo, Audio2006creationism
Perry MarshallPeter HeartyAudio2009
Pete BocchinoEd BucknerAudio2009
Peter HitchensAdam RutherfordAudio2010
Peter HitchensChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2007only partly about religion
Peter KreeftMichael TooleyVideo, Audio2009
Peter MayJohn LoftusAudio
Peter PayneDan BarkerAudio 1, 22005
Peter WilliamsAndrew CopsonAudio
Peter WilliamsBart EhrmanAudiotextual reliability
Peter WilliamsJoan KonnerAudio2009
Peter WilliamsPeter CaveAudio
Peter YoungrenDan BarkerVideo, DVD, Audio2003
Phil FernandesDan BarkerAudio 1, 2, 3, 42000
Phil FernandesEddie TabashAudio
Phil FernandesElliot RatzmanVideo, Audio
Phil FernandesJeffrey Jay LowderVideo, Audio1999
Phil FernandesJim CorbettAudio
Phil FernandesMichael Martinlink1997
Phil FernandesPeter JohnAudio 1, 2
Phil FernandesReggie FinleyAudio
Phil FernandesRobert PriceAudio
PhilAlAtheistArchonlink2003
Philip JohnsonKenneth Millerlink1996debater is not an atheist
Philip JohnsonWill ProvineVideo, Audio, link1994creationism
Phillip Johnson and othersKenneth Miller and othersVideo, Audio, link pdf debater is not an atheist
PhilosophickleChaoslord2004link2006
Philosophickus RexENeGMAlink2006
PoodleLovinPessimistTimothy Muselink2004
punkforchristDante Alighierilink2007
punkforchristSean McHughlink2008resurrection
punkforchristwiploclink2007
punkforchristwiploclink2007problem of evil
punkforchristwiploclink2008
punkforchristwiploclink2006
Rabbit JeretAmerican Atheistslink2008
RaviZachariasFanwiploc and Tsurmonlink2004
Ray ComfortRon BarrierAudio
Ray ComfortSam Tyler-SmithVideo
Ray ComfortThunderf00tVideo2009
RazorKissMitchLeblanclink2009
Reza AslanSam HarrisVideo, Audio
rhutchinDlx2link2006
Richard BauckhamJames CrossleyAudio 1, 22009are the gospels eyewitness accounts
Richard BauckhamJames CrossleyAudio2009nature of Jesus
Richard Harris and Charles MooreRichard Dawkins and A.C. GraylingVideo, Audio2009Is atheism the new fundamentalism?
Richard HaysBart EhrmanAudioissues raised by The Da Vinci Code
Richard MiltonJim Foleylink1997creationism
Richard Morgan and Todd PitnerGordon LiveseyAudio2010
Richard SwinburneBart EhrmanAudioproblem of evil
Richard WeikartHector AvalosAudioDarwinism and Nazism
Rick JamesJoe ZameckiVideo, Audio
Rick WarrenSam Harrislink2007
Ridingthescreequiplink2006
Robert AllenMassimo PigliucciAudio2007creationism
Robert AudiNicholas Wolterstorffbook1996religion and politics
Robert KoonsBrian Holtzlink
RobertLWVinnielink2001Bible
Roger ForsterGordon LiveseyAudio
Russell CowburnLewis WolpertVideo, Audio2009
Russell CowburnLewis WolpertAudio2009(2nd debate)
Russell DiSilvestroMatt McCormickVideo2010
Russell DiSilvestroMatt McCormickVideo2010miracles and salem witch trials
Russell DiSilvestroMatt McCormickVideo2010miracles and lourdes and lazarus
Russell DiSilvestroMatt McCormickVideo2010god and miracles
Scott WilkinsonChristopher DiCarlo1 2 3 4
Sean McDowellJim Corbett1 2, Audio2010morality
seebsepepkelink2006
seebswiploclink2003problem of evil
severalRobert Ingersolllink1885short debates
severalSteven Carrlink7 short debates
Shabir AllyChristopher DiCarloVideo
Shabir AllyPeter AtkinsVideo, Audio
Shandon GuthrieDaniel Adamslink1997
Shandon GuthrieDoug KruegerAudio2005
Shandon GuthrieMitch Hodgelink2008
Shandon GuthrieReggie FinleyAudio
Sharif Abu LaithMike O'DonnellVideo, Audio
Shmuley BoteachChristopher HitchensVideo, Audio2008
Shmuley Boteach and othersChristopher Hitchens and othersVideo, Audio2009
Shmuley Boteach and othersRichard Dawkins and othersAudio
Siewert OholmChrister SturmarkVideo2008morality
singer645Jim Lazaruslink2005
Smith_87Silent Davelink2005
SpacefoetusMikeWrightlink2008
Spl_cadetJuliodlink2007
Stephen MeyerKenneth Miller and Lawrence KraussAudiodebater is not an atheist
Stephen MeyerMichael RuseVideo 1, 2, Audio 1, 2, link2006intelligent design
Stephen MeyerMichael ShermerVideo 1, 2, Audio2005short
Stephen MeyerPeter AtkinsAudio2010
Stephen MeyerPeter WardAudio, link2005creationism
Stephen MeyerPeter WardVideo, Audio2006creationism
Stephen Meyer and Richard SternbergDonald Prothero and Michael ShermerAudio2009
Steve FullerThomas DixonAudio2010
Steve Fuller and Alex HochuliConway Morris and David PerksVideo, Audio
Stewart Goetz and Charles TaliaferroTom Clarklinknaturalism
StumpjumperVinnielink2005science and religion
TAG-your it!Pervylink2006
Terry L. MietheAntony Flewbook1991
the_cavewiploclink2001problem of evil
Thomas WarrenAntony FlewAudio, Video19768 hours!
Tim LeiszChris HallquistAudio
Timothy JacksonChristopher HitchensVideo
Timothy KellerNorman BacracAudio2009
TisthammerwGeorge Hathawaylink2009reverse-role debate
Tisthammerwwiploclink2009
Tisthammerwwiploclink2009
Todd FrielDan BarkerAudio2006
Todd FrielEddie TabashVideo 1, 2, Audio2007
Tom PriceBarry DukeAudio2009Does religion make people unhappy?
Tom WanchickRichard Carrierlink2006best!
Tom WoodwardPeter HeartyAudiocreationism
Tony BlairChristopher HitchensVideo, link2010
Tony CostaKenneth HumphreysAudio
Vincent CheungDerek Sansonelink
Vinoth RamachandraPhilip KitcherVideo 1, 2, Audio 1, 22006science and religion
Walter MartinHugh SchonfieldAudiohistorical Jesus
Walter MartinMadalyn Murray O'HairAudio1968
whetstoneSilent Davelink2006
Will Sjorensenwiploclink2009problem of evil
William DembskiChristopher HitchensVideo,Audio2010
William DembskiEugenie ScottAudio, linkcreationism
William DembskiLewis WolpertAudio2009
William DembskiMichael RuseVideo, Audio2005short
William DembskiNiall ShanksVideo2004
William DemskiLee SilverAudiocreationism
William DemskiMichael ShermerAudio
William HarrisIrwin Tessmanlink2001prayer
William Lane CraigAndrew PyleDVD2007
William Lane CraigAntony FlewAudio, Video, Book1998Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigAustin DaceyVideo, Audio2004Does God Exist?best!
William Lane CraigAustin DaceyAudio2005best!
William Lane CraigBart EhrmanVideo, Audio, link pdf2006resurrection
William Lane CraigBill CookeVideo, Audio2008
William Lane CraigBrian EdwardsAudio
William Lane CraigBrian EdwardsAudio(2nd debate)
William Lane CraigChristopher DiCarloVideo,Audio2009
William Lane CraigChristopher HitchensDVD2009
William Lane CraigCorey Washingtonlink1995Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigDouglas Jessephlink1996Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigEddie TabashVideo, Audio1999Secular Humanism vs Christianity
William Lane CraigEdwin Curleylink1998Does the Christian God Exisit?
William Lane CraigEric DaytonAudioproblem of evil
William Lane CraigFrancisco AyalaVideo 1, 2, 3, 4, Audio"intelligent design
William Lane CraigFrank ZindlerVideo, Audio1993Atheism vs Christianity
William Lane CraigGarrett HardinAudioChristianity vs Scientific Naturalism
William Lane CraigGerd LudermannAudio1997resurrection
William Lane CraigGerd LudermannAudio2002resurrection
William Lane CraigGeorge WilliamsonVideo, Audio2009resurrection
William Lane CraigGeorge WilliamsonAudioradio debate
William Lane CraigGreg CavinAudio1995resurrection
William Lane CraigHector AvalosAudio2004resurrection
William Lane CraigHenry MorgentalerAudio
William Lane CraigIngmar Perssonlink1999
William Lane CraigJames Robert BrownAudio2009
William Lane CraigJames CrossleyVideo, Audio2007resurrection
William Lane CraigJohn Dominic CrossanAudio, book1995historical Jesus
William Lane CraigJohn ShookVideo, Audio, link2008Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigJohn Shelby SpongDVD, Video, Audio2005resurrection
William Lane CraigKai Nielsenlink1991Morality and problem of evil
William Lane CraigKeith ParsonsAudio1998Why I am/am not a Christian
William Lane CraigLewis WolpertVideo, Audio2007
William Lane CraigLouise AntonyVideo 1, 2, Audio 1, 22008morality
William Lane CraigMarcus BorgAudioresurrection
William Lane CraigMassimo PigliucciAudio, link1995Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigMassimo PigliucciTranscript1998Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigMichael PaytonnVideo, Audio2009
William Lane CraigMichael Tooleylink1994Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigMike BegonDVD2007
William Lane CraigPeter AtkinsVideo, Audio1998
William Lane CraigPaul DraperAudio1997Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigPaul KurtzVideo, Audio, book2001morality
William Lane CraigPeter AtkinsAudio, Video1998Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigPeter SlezakVideo, Audio2002Atheism vs Christianity
William Lane CraigQuentin Smithlink1996Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigQuentin Smithlink2003Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigRay BradleyAudio, link1994morality and hellbest!
William Lane CraigRichard CarrierVideo, Audio2005short
William Lane CraigRichard CarrierVideo, Audio2009
William Lane CraigRichard Taylorlink1993morality
William Lane CraigRobert (Greg) CavinAudio1995resurrectiontwin theory debate
William Lane CraigRobert PriceAudio1999resurrection
William Lane CraigRon BarrierAudio2000Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigRonald de SouzaVideo, Audio2009
William Lane CraigRoy HooverAudio2008resurrection
William Lane CraigShabir AllyAudio, Video2002resurrection
William Lane CraigShabir AllyAudio2002Who is the real Jesus?
William Lane CraigShelly KaganVideo, Audio2009
William Lane CraigTheodore DrangeVideo, Audio1997Does God Exist?
William Lane CraigTorbjorn TannsjoAudio2001morality
William Lane CraigVictor StengerVideo, Audio2003Does God Exist?best!
William Lane CraigWalter Sinnott-ArmstrongAudio1999problem of evil
William Lane CraigWalter Sinnott-Armstrongbook2003
William Lane Craig and Alvin PlantingaQuentin Smith and Richard GaleAudio, Video2004
William Lane Craig and othersChristopher HitchensVideo,Audio2009
William Lane Craig et. al.Richard Dawkins et. al.Video, Audio2010panel
William PhilipsMichael ShermerVideo, Audioscience and religion
William PhilipsSteven Pinkerlink2008
William Lane CraigGeorge Williamsonaudio, video2011Does God Exist?
Dinesh D’SouzaDan BarkerLink, Video, Audio2011 March 7Is Religion the Problem?University of California, San Diego, CA
Randy MartinEddie TabashVideo2011Does God Exist?Bakersfield, CA
John LennoxPeter AtkinsVideo
Michael LiconaStephen PattersonAudio2010 SpringDid Jesus Rise from the Dead?FSU
William Lane CraigSam HarrisAudio2011 April 7Is Good From God?University of Notre Dame
William Lane CraigLawrence KraussAudio2011 March 30Is There Evidence for God?NC State
Joe BootClare RowsonAudio2010 January 30Does God Exist?
Peter S. WilliamsCarl StecherLink2001-2002God Questions
William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett, and Rabbi David WolpeRichard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Matt Ridley Audio, AudioDoes the Universe Have a Purpose?
Douglas JacobyRobert BrotherusAudio, Audio2011Is Christianity Rational?Helsinki
William Lane CraigPeter MillicanAudio2011Does God Exist?Reasonable Faith tour
William Lane CraigMichael TooleyAudio, Video2010Is God Real?University of North Carolina, Charlotte
William Lane CraigStephen LawAudio2011Does God Exist?Reasonable Faith tour
Greg KouklJohn BakerAudio, Video2009Do Moral Truths Exist?Faith Beyond Belief and the University of Calgary Freethinkers
William Lane CraigHerb SilvermanAudio, Video2010Does God Exist?University of North Carolina Wilmington
William Lane CraigAC GraylingAudio2005Does the existence of evil and suffering in the world preclude the existence of the Christian God?Oxford Union
Dinesh D'SouzaBart EhrmanAudio, Video2010Theodicy, God and SufferingGordon College
Mary Jo SharpEhteshaam GulamVideo2009Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?
Dinesh D’Souza and David WolpeA.C. Grayling & Matthew ChapmanVideo2011The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion
Gary HabermasGeoff CamposAudio2011Is it rational to believe in miracles?
Lenny EspositoRichard Carrier Audio2012 May 23Does God exists?University of California, Riverside
Hugh RossLewis WolpertAudio2012 Evidence for God Premier radio
William Lane CraigMike BegonAudio, Video2007Reasonable Faith Tour
Calum MillerPeter AtkinsVideo2012Does God Exist?Oxford
William Lane CraigKlemens KappelAudio2012Does God Exist

44 Responses to Christian vs Atheist Debates

  1. Pingback: Christian vs Atheist Debates | Christian Doubt

  2. Todd says:

    Dear Religious people,

    Atheists have no doubt that the supernatural does not exist. Just live with this view for a while. Trust yourself and utilize the natural senses and abilities that we are born with to understand that we are lucky to be alive. You will find life opening up and really worth living. There will be no need to go running back to the control of religion.

  3. Seamus Riley says:

    Dear Atheist people,

    Atheists cripple their understanding of the universe around them by denying the very possibility of supernatural explanations. Theists are able to consider both natural and supernatural explanations and are therefore less biased in their interpreting of data, whereas atheists MUST subscribe to purely natural explanations. Given that the big bang is by definition a supernatural event, the atheist interpretation is affected by self imposed blindness from the get go. Be an agnostic, be a skeptic, don’t be controlled by religion, but respect yourself enough to not blind yourself.

  4. Joakim Risberg says:

    Dear people,
    the atheist point of view subcribe matter and mind to causality. Everything that happens has a natural cause, determined by laws of physics. This would include also the mind and the free will, which of cource, in that sense, would not be free, other than through the pure experience. The greeks had two words for time: Kronos and Khairos. If you believe in the existence of a real free will, the Kharios are the essence of that, while the Kronos are the natural cause of every decision made in Kharios time. None of them would exist without the other. Khairos is the one that make any change possible. Kronos are its children. Kronos itself can not give rise to change, only causality. Scince deals with Kronos, while religion delas with Khairos, both equally important. Without the mind there would be no time. Imagine a DVD, a piece of plastic with carvings on it. the beginning and the end are there simultaneously, but the time come into existence the very moment you put it into the DVD-player and watch the movie. Mind preceeds matter, but matter is essential for the realisation of the mind.

  5. Harry Dennis says:

    Dear Religious people,

    Atheists are willing to hear your beliefs and then prove why they are wrong with evidence, however religious people turn there backs to amazing theories like evolution that are backed with evidence. I think religion should accept some science is true and realize that the bible and other religious teachings are very old and has many story’s that have been proven wrong.

  6. Seamus Riley says:

    Joakim, I’m so glad you used a DVD as an example as it also illustrates interdependent systems. Note that a DVD depends on a DVD player to have any use at all and does not play movies by itself. One is designed with the other in mind and aren’t simply adapted to one another after arising independently. The mind doesn’t arise spontaneously after a brain is stitched together by random processes guided by natural selection. Information and Intelligence imply forethought and inspiration.

    Harry, the difference between my previous claim and your response to it is that I have shown logically how atheists must necessarily be biased by choice and you have provided an anecdotal (while theoretical) example of how some theists aren’t being honest with data (ie, global flooders and young earthers). You haven’t stacked atheism against theism, but rather chosen a straw man from among theists to represent the whole set.

    The bible doesn’t actually teach a global flood or a young earth (while interestingly, doesn’t impugn those who either in faith or by lack of faith want to believe in these things either). These concepts actually have been recent applications while the bible itself still stands yet to be overturned.

  7. Cecil Acker says:

    Aetheists cannot see any purpose in life. Their only outlook is waiting for the death they so fear.
    True Christianity on the other hand, has a vital purpose – hope and the opportunity of everlasting life.
    Apart from that, true Christians base their lives according to the Bible’s moral teachings.
    The way aetheists frantically spend their time attacking Christianity it seems that morality is not for them.

  8. Tuxy says:

    Cecil Acker,

    Either you are an ass, a deluded person or you do not read enough of the bible, not all bible teachings are anything that sane decent adults should live by. What makes you think that the few good lines in the bible are not something the aethist or any other persons beside theists have in them as moral codes to live by?

    The christian notion of the afterlife life is seen by some thinkers as morally depraved, christian theists have no reason to do good for the sake of being good in this life. Aethists are quite happy knowing they have only this life they take care to make the best of it, do not fool yourself, theists are no more moral creatures than atheists, in fact, christian theists in particuliar, may be far less moral if they adhere to the cruel, absurd moral codes in the christian bible.

    What is eternal life? why would you want it? will you have free will so you can displease your sadistic god and so start the whole nonsense of punishment for sins again? what is the point of living forever? Why is this absurd notion comforting to you? How do you know this infantile religious argument is true?

    There are many things that challenge our intellect in this life, we will be occupied for many years to come, this is one of the joys of living for most free thinkers, we rationalists do not spend our lives worrying about insane nonsense such as everlasting life or living in fear of this monster god who will torture unbelievers forever, what a sad depressing way to live.

  9. JRS says:

    I am Christian.

    I am writing this in response to a book and debate I have recently read & listened to by Bart Ehrman who is a well repsected religious studies professor and agnostic/ atheist (not sure which).

    In his book and debate he mentions that no one can say that God exists w/o using theology as an argument. He also mentions that miracles do not exist because they can’t be proven as well as Jesus was not resurrected b/c so many humans have died throughout the course of history & stayed dead that the laws of probability state that Jesus therefore, cannot have been resurrected.

    I would like to answer all 3 of these stances as concisely as possible.

    First, I can make a defnitive argument for God existing w/o using theology. In fact I will use his own argument of probability. Try to walk through an ordinary day w/ a slip of paper and pencil and tally anything you see throughout just one day that exists in your daily life that has not been created by an external force. Humans were created through the external force of sex, cars were created through auto plants, vegetation through the external force of planting and watering, clothing through the external force of a manufacturer and so on. Why then is the universe any different? The law of probability (paraphrased) is a mathematical law that simply means based on past events we can predict certain outcomes w/o all of the data. If all of human history requires things to be made externally then why is the universe in theory any different? This is a non theological argument, in fact a mathematical one.

    Secondly, the argument that miracles do not exist. Given what we know about how huge the universe is, and given that it can be proven that their are millions if not billions of miles of space w/o life, and given that the earth in the universe is probably smaller than a grain of sand in the ocean, is not life on this planet evidence that miracles do exist?

    Lastly, I cannot prove that Jesus was resurrected. However, given the rationale that almost anything we contact on a daily basis is created externally and with intelligence (try fixing your own car) thus leading me to the belief that the laws of probability HEAVILY favor an intelligent being creating the universe, then is it really a leap of faith to say he is also capable of raising one human being from the dead?

    It would seem to me these are logical and rational arguments with some substance.

  10. Seamus Riley says:

    Tuxy, Romans 2:15 makes the claim that all have had the law “written on their hearts”, so christians agree that the atheist need not read the bible to arrive at a moral code. But the bible goes beyond this, explaining that man has more purpose than simply living morally which would only serve a temporal purpose.

    You should have been more specific in your suggestion that christians may be less moral. Is it their efforts to abolish slavery and apartheid, to end poverty and disease? I can only guess you may be implying that “absurd moral codes” refers to Levitical law that others before you have objected to. I think it’s very clear that the law of the Torah had a specific purpose for a certain people and for a limited time. Deuteronomy 4:5-6 says this expressly and Moses later admonished the Jews to look forward to the Messiah whom they should venerate even more than himself. Christ fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17-20) and then shifted the gospel from being a living example of a people in one place (see again Deut 4) to going into the rest of the world and preaching the gospel (Mark 16:15). The strictness of Levitical law, which did include banishment and even the death penalty, was for the Jews themselves, so that they would become a righteous people to be an example, and they were not to impose these rules on their neighbors if they chose not to believe in their God. So it is a free market concept. When Christ came to fulfill the law and to draw all people to Himself, he expressed mercy for all, even those who would formerly be subject to capitol punishment (ie, the woman caught in adultery, John 8:11) and even explained why the law for the Jews was so strict by his words, “because of the hardness of their hearts” (Matt 19), thus closing the circle on why the Levitical law was written as it was and why it was provisional.

    From the viciousness of your objections to God, the bible and eternal life, it does seem as if you are directly fulfilling Cecil’s predictions about atheists’ reaction to the gospel. Use of “monster” and “sadistic” to describe God sounds more like fear and hatred than rationality. I’m not offended by the vitriol or trying to put you in your place, but perhaps you and the greater dialogue itself could be best served if you were more distinct in your criticisms.

  11. Cecil Acker says:

    The apostle Paul implied that even atheists (Heathen, or people of the Nations)
    who do not have the law, do by nature, the things in the law.
    (Law of Moses Romans 2:14 NKJV)

  12. Cecil Acker says:

    @Seamus Riley. The apostle Paul implied that even atheists (Heathen, or people of the Nations)
    who do not have the law, do by nature, the things in the law.
    (Law of Moses Romans 2:14 NKJV)

  13. fourtoe says:

    Thank you for maintaining this page! I review a bunch of these debates on my website and also link to other reviews of the debates and other links to them if some of the links on this page are not working anymore!

  14. whitemann says:

    Dear Seamus,

    Utter nonsense, how do you just conclude that the big bang is a supernatural event? this fallacy is typical of theists and you are attacking atheist as more biased than theists? I would like to see a theist who is able to wait on sound evidence for god and discard the writings in the holy books and god of the gaps type arguments, if he does any such thing he will cease to be a theist. You believe just ascribing unknown causes to the supernatural is a sound position?

    “The bible does not actually teach a global flood”

    What does the bible really teach? You can just interpret anything any way you like? The argument is not as simple as that, many theists believe the global flood story, some have alternate explanations that are unacceptable as well, you implying that all atheists say there is no god, when you say they blind themselves to the possibility of a supernatural explanation, is a strawman argument against the atheists. Please take some time to read what atheism is, see: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html, for more information.

    “the bible itself still stands yet to be overturned.”

    What an asinine statement, why do you look at things this way? Many things in the bible and claims by theists are contrary to reason, there are things that can not be disproved, but the onus is on the ones making the claims to show evidence of such, thus, in the meantime, the nonsensical claims in the bible and elsewhere are examined and rejected by atheists.

    Atheists are not biased toward disbelief by blind faith it is reason that pushes them to it, what makes someone accept the nonsense and immorality in the bible without question? What makes the theist accept a supernatural god with fallacious arguments or no argument at all ?
    When you can demonstrate that the absurdities in the bible are historical facts or science then there may be some need to overturn it, until then there is no such need, the same reason applies to the book of mormons, the quaran and the latest text used by the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

    “The mind doesn’t arise spontaneously after a brain is stitched together by random processes guided by natural selection. Information and Intelligence imply forethought and inspiration.”

    How the blazes did you come to this conclusion? Seems you are just making up nonsense as you go along.

  15. Seamus Riley says:

    Whitemann, thanks for your objections. I would like to respond as briefly as possible but out of respect for how many there are and how good they are I think it may take a longer reply to fully appreciate them.

    Every big bang model, even those that appeal to non-testable and unscientific multiverse models require an uncaused cause. Even if you twist quantum mechanics into possibly creating the universe out of nothing, it still requires time in order to do so and there is no time before the big bang. The idea that nature came into being out of nothing doesn’t simply strongly imply a super natural event, one is absolutely required. It’s pure physics.

    A theist who disregarded holy books? Try Job. The gospel of the new testament is actually modeled by Job even before Moses came along to write the Torah. Job was able to conclude through observing nature alone that nature has a creator as well as the concept that only that creator can redeem man’s sinful nature. If you’d like to believe against scholarship that Job is entirely fictional and doesn’t account for a man who lived over 4000 years ago, you can instead turn to every single group of people however small and uncivilized that have been scattered over the earth and cut off from the rest of the world since the rapid migration out of Africa many thousands of years ago: every single one of them believe in a creator god based on their observance of nature, with or without a holy book. Atheism has always been a reaction to theology and never a starting point for any one of us who were then perverted by religion.

    I haven’t appealed to “god of the gaps” tactics and many other theists don’t either. Raising that objection here is trading my argument for some other straw man that you would prefer to challenge, it seems.

    Regarding a global vs local flood, as I said before the bible isn’t expressly specific enough to condemn those who wish to believe in a global flood, but contextually I believe a case can be made that a local flood can be implied exegetically. While the bible is the first to describe the earth as spherical (“a circle, hung upon nothing” Isa 40:22 and Job 26:7), the phenomenology of the ancient Hebrew term “world” is not the same as our modern concept of what global is. Various places in the bible describe the Roman “world” and the Egyptian “world”. The use of the term in Genesis regarding the flood describes the “world of wicked men” which at that period in history would have been before the migration out of the local region so a flood of the Mesopotamian area would be all that was required. There are several places in the bible that imply a local flood, but i’ll just provide one: the creation Psalm 104 describes how the earth was at first a water world, but that after the emergence of continental land masses, the oceans would never cover the entire face of the earth again, verses 6-9.

    I’ve already answered your next claim before you raised it here. Go back to my previous post of Feb 20, where I explained why atheists must necessarily be biasing themselves if they espouse a purely naturalistic methodology. There are some atheists who are spiritual or believe in the supernatural. I’m not challenging that. It should be clear in the context of me answering Todd’s comment that I was merely addressing the claims against any possible supernatural thing.

    I agree with you that there are certainly concepts in the bible that contradict human reasoning: the Trinity is a good example. But that to me is evidence for inspiration by something greater than a human mind, thus giving more weight to the idea that it is “God breathed” and not simply yet another holy book concocted by men.

    When you say things like “nonsensical claims in the bible and elsewhere are examined and rejected by atheists” do you mean like how you insist upon fixating on concepts such as a global flood that are so easy to dismiss? That doesn’t sound like examining at all. That is a wholly dishonest straw man tactic.

    As far as accepting the claims of the bible without question, I’m afraid you have a very unbiblical view of what faith really is. The bible was first to promote the building blocks of the scientific method: “taste and see that the Lord is good”; “test all things and hold to that which is true”. Faith is not blind faith. Faith is best expressed by David when he confronted Goliath. He believed by faith he would overcome his formidable opponent because he’d previously overcome a bear and a lion and recognized these events as God showing him in advance the outcome of this battle and says so expressly in 1 Sam 17.

    In your objection to my claim that minds do not simply arise spontaneously after being built, what biological pathway are you appealing to? The mind cannot be reduced to particles. I would interpret that as super natural. We model the brain every time we build computers, and yet consciousness does not arise from computers. If you believe consciousness simply happens you are appealing to a much blinder faith than I could rationally concede to.

  16. Cecil says:

    @ Seamus Riley, “Faith is not blind faith.”
    Paul said, ” ..faith is the substance of things hoped for,
    the evidence of things not ‘seen’.” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV)

    We didn’t see the flood, the exodus from Egypt nor Jesus’ miracles.
    But have ‘seen’ in the Biblical record that God’s dealings with
    mankind always been in the interest of those who love
    righteousness and truth. (Isa. 25:8; 1Cor 13:4-7)

    By contrast none of us have seen evolution, and Christians
    will never accept this ‘theory’. (Gen. 1:24, 25; Jer. 24:4, 5)
    Try as they will, scientists have never found any traces of life
    elsewhere in the universe, nor will they find any. (Psalm 115:16)

    The Big bang ‘theory’ is also ridiculous.
    What is the source of that energy? What came before that?
    In any case, whatever happened before the creation (Gen. 1:1)
    would not have had any effect on our lives.

  17. Cecil Acker says:

    Seamus Riley said, “Faith is not blind faith.”
    Paul said, ” ..faith is the substance of things hoped for,
    the evidence of things ‘not seen’.” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV)

    We didn’t see the flood, the exodus from Egypt nor Jesus’ miracles.
    But have ‘seen’ in the Biblical record that God’s dealings with
    mankind always been in the interest of those who love
    righteousness and truth. (Isa. 25:8; 1Cor 13:4-7)

    By contrast none of us have seen evolution, and Christians
    will never accept this ‘theory’. (Gen. 1:24, 25; Jer. 24:4, 5)
    Try as they will, scientists have never found any traces of life
    elsewhere in the universe, nor will they find any. (Psalm 115:16)

    The Big bang ‘theory’ is also ridiculous.
    What is the source of that energy? What came before that?
    In any case, whatever happened before the creation (Gen. 1:1)
    would not have had any effect on our lives.

  18. Tuxy says:

    Seamus Riley,

    Why do you want specifics? if you are not conceited you will see it all around you, and through, Christian history such as the atrocities during the crusades and the dreadful persecutions during the inquisitions, knowing what these things were, we can not conclude that they were moral acts rather these things were immoral, they were motivated by Christian thinking

    In England Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake by Bloody Mary, the people doing the killings and tortures here were not atheists, even outside of this, using only information from the bible, the principle of putting people to death for breaking nonsensical rules, one can easily see how people with these beliefs and willingness to act on them could be considered immoral, and a well behaved non-believer with no such beliefs or adherence could be considered more moral, by even the same Christians definition of morality. Unless one wants to use the depraved idea that the unbeliever and non-Christians are immoral.

    “law of the Torah had a specific purpose for a certain people and for a limited time”

    you know this is a nonsensical statement, absurdities and immoral ideas are not only in the parts you quoted, they are there from old to new, should not the all powerful all seeing god has moral codes that are timeless? Why a set of absurd rules for a specific group of people for a specific time period? If you say, do and sanction something immoral 2000 years or more ago it does not follow necessarily that the passage of time will make it irrelevant, it also does not follow that because it was for a specific group that it should be ignored now, this is a morally corrupt argument, an indictment of your god I would say.

    Does my viciousness remind you of your god? How do you find it fair to criticize me and not him? The person whom I decided to answer started with a nasty attack on atheists, yet you choose not to say anything about that, Is this an example of theistic fairness?

    Why are you quoting bible verses to me? can you not see that this kind of argument is circular? The bible itself is questionable as a book of facts,why not quote the sexist verse in Timothy?

    Use of “monster” and “sadistic” to describe God sounds more like fear and hatred than rationality

    This is laughable, try to lookup the meaning of fear, hatred and rationality, the first is the main tool of religion, nothing is wrong with hating evil, and the latter has eluded many of the religious, hence the rubbish arguments from you.

  19. John Fromm says:

    Seamus Riley,

    The laws of the Torah being provisional as you put it does not mean the laws themselves and acts committed based on those laws are not to be criticized, the acts have already been committed some of them atrocious, we are talking about laws supposedly made by god not men, furthermore, how does those laws being provisional discount the bad behaviour of god in the OT, how does it let the wanton killings and atrocities any less obnoxious to a moral person then or now?

    I am sorry to disappoint you but people even now still believe these laws, they use them to justify anti gay arguments and so on. Your interpretation is of little help if any at all, for a multitude of people have different interpretations as to why those laws are not provisional and should be adhered to, at least if they are not too embarassing. This is one of the many problems with your book.

    Have you not one iota of honesty? The argument you put forward to tuxy is shamelessly flawed and makes you look bad, stop pretending as if you have all the answers.

  20. Tuxy says:

    Seamus Riley,

    There is no need for specifics to make my case, look around you now, look to history and you will see many bad acts committed in the name of religion or because someone is religious. not hard to imagine how an Unbeliever could be considered more moral than such people.

    Gods morality is supposed to be timeless, Why would an all seeing god had these absurd immoral laws, sanctioned bad acts in the name of these laws for just a specific time and a specific group? this does not make much sense at all. We are not just talking about the laws, god’s laws, we are talking about acts, If thy were committed thousands of years ago and are bad in the eyes of man now, how were those acts not bad in the eyes of god then? are we now more moral than god? if not, how does the argument that the laws that gave rise to them, being provisional make them not bad or excusable? You can not extricate god form these acts regardless of what the new Testament says. this is dishonest, and not a morally worthy explanation, it is a deceitful corrupt argument.

    it does not matter if the Torah’s laws are repealed by the New Testament, which by the way, many have good arguments from the same Bible against this. Many adhere to some of these laws and make arguments for them up to this day, hence the problem. What you are trying to do here is morally corrupt.

    This argument is also lose credibility in the light that poor arguments are put forward in the New Testament as well, there are some sexist suggestions in the book of 1 Timothy, some very bad explanations have been given by apologists for this rather shameful text, there are many problems with the New Testament, a number of scholars, theists and former theists have written about this.

    I am not vicious, the person I was answering was harsh with Atheists, probably stemming from a misunderstanding of Atheism, why do you not address that? Why do you not criticize the vicious acts in the Bible sanctioned by god, sometimes committed by him?

    Your comment about fear, hate and rationality is a poor deduction, fear is the main tool of religion, I do not know where you detect hate here, as for rationality, that has eluded many religious people.

  21. Cecil says:

    @Tuxy “you will see many bad acts committed in the name of religion.”
    This is true, but God cannot be blamed for the ‘bad acts’ of, EG: Cain, Judas,those
    who burnt at the stake readers of the Bible, etc.

    When archaeologists unearthed remains of sacriced Canaanite children and
    relics ot torture, many wondered why God did not wipe them out earlier.
    Yet, when he sent the Israelites to conquer them, they were told to first
    try to make peace with them. (Deut 20:10)

  22. Seamus Riley says:

    John, it’s one thing to disagree with the morality of a set of laws (I would suggest you probably didn’t understand the purpose God had in mind for them), but then you cannot call the execution of those laws as “wanton killings”. You’re surrendering all your power to reason when you do so. Punishment for a broken law is the very opposite of wantonness.

    Tuxy, the acts committed in the name of anything fall on those who committed them, which is why it is not Jodie Foster’s fault that John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan.

    If you insist upon hiding behind generalities, waving a hand at the entirety of history broadly and thus concluding that “an Unbeliever could be considered more moral” you serve your position in the poorest manner possible and allow your opposition the ease of pointing broadly at the many historical unbelievers and their atrocities (Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung) and saying “you’re wrong” using your own logic.

    The “why” question from your second paragraph was already answered by my previous response to you (June 15) in its second paragraph.

    Regarding your objection about 1 Timothy, Paul’s epistles are each specific letters to various churches addressing their own unique conflicts. There’s scholarship to suggest passages even refer to specific people without naming them to avoid embarrassment. Regardless, they’re not laws and in fact the passage you’re referring to in 1 Tim 2 is preceded by Paul’s reinforcement of Christ’s grace replacing the law in chapter 1. You can, if you choose to, get hung up on Paul’s suggestions on how women should dress in that church at that time without understanding the specific problems that church at that time was undergoing for not having lived there, and many have done so, but I don’t.

    Cecil, the big bang is theory is our best tested cosmological model. My last count was 18 independent tests, many with only 1 or 2 assumptions and I think there has even been an assumption free (or perhaps the only assumption is “if math works”, lol) test that was very recently published. And by the way, the big bang was also taught first in the bible. That matter, energy, space and time have a beginning; that the universe is governed by unchanging laws of physics where one is the ever pervasive law of decay; that the universe is expanding…all taught in the bible. An article published here should get you started: http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-bang—the-bible-taught-it-first

  23. Common Sense says:

    Any of u christians looked up horus or mithra? Guys that came way before jesus and somehow did all the stuff he did.. Just way before jesus existed.. Hmm

    Saw someone say atheist fear death and live life not believing in afterlife. So maybe your heaven wasnt just made up so people would not be afraid of deayh anwould have hope.

    Maybe maybe the bible was made up to control people.. Follow these rules or you will burn in hell. but by the way u have free will. Doesnt make sense.
    So another point, all these people will die because they dont worship god. All thesre people with different or no religions will die. What if you were born into a different religion. You would most likely believe that was the correct religion and if it wasnt right, ud be f***ed. It doesnt make sense how there is so many different religipns ehh?

    And if u want bible contradictions.. youtube the bible contradictions quiz..

  24. Cecil Acker says:

    @ ‘common’ Sense.

    Yeah, Horus came – so will others. (Matt 24:24)
    What are you trying to prove – besides your display of illiteracy
    which apparently requires an expletive for emphasis?

  25. Common Sense says:

    @cecil
    Illiteracy is due to being on a phone.

    Anyhow, whats it look like im trying to prove?

    Why common sense will lead u to believe that the bible and other holy books are fake.

    I was born into a christian family as i am sure you were too. But from the start i never really had faith. To me jesus was just like santa. Luckily i had a dad who i later in life found out was not religious.

    Nobody really knows if there is anything out there. You just rely on your faith. Why waste your time and money on an imaginary object. Why do u truly believe? People are gullible as children and if your parents were muslim when u grew up, you would have likely been muslim too.. You have your reasons for believeing what u do and ill respect that because theres no way i could probably change your mind. In the world of religion nobody is absolutely right.

    These are just some of my many reasons for not being religious and you should be able to understand that

    I should not have to prove anything simply because it is u preaching there is a god and christianity is the only way.

    It is like trying to convince a firm believer of bigfoot that bigfoot is not real. It simply will not happen.

  26. Cecil Acker says:

    @common sense. “if your parents were muslim …you would have likely been muslim.. ”
    That is true. Same if they were Anglican, Catholic, Jew, etc. It’s biological – not faith.
    True Christian faith is based on the fact that no one before Jesus (or after him)
    revolutionised moral teachings the way he did. (John 7:45; Luke 4:24; Matt 7:29)

    For instance Confucius, long before Jesus time, said, “What you do not want done to you,
    do not do to others.” That’s negative.
    IOW, do nothing until you have to.

    Rather than simply instructing Christians not to do bad to others, Jesus Christ offered this counsel:
    “Therefore, whatever you want men do to you, do also to them…”
    IOW, Take the lead in doing what is good to others. (Matt. 7:12)

    Jesus’ brother stressed that point:
    “If one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.” (James 4:17)

    Christianity is not only ‘A way of life’, it’s ‘The way to life.’
    But, there is a great difference between Christianity and Christendom.
    The former may lead you. Whereas the latter may bleed you.

  27. Seamus Riley says:

    @ Common Sense, one thing that theists and atheists have a consensus on is that the ancient Egyptians, Persians and Jews shared common ancestry. So it would follow logically that they would share common legends such as creation myths, etc. Something that is less understood is that God’s plan for redemption by His own son through the human lineage was described and prophesied in some the Bible’s earliest texts (Job and Gen). So the fore-bearers to the Egyptian and Persian peoples would have also benefited from these oral traditions before they began writing down their own.

    The idea that religion and “heaven” were made up to control people and give them hope (respectively) seems very short sighted to me. For the sake of argument, let’s assume we are all purely natural and that random processes have given rise to life as well as intelligence and that you and I are early humans living thousands of years before there is any kind of written language. Also assume that while we don’t possess a modern understanding of technology and science, we do still possess the same basic intelligence and ability to reason as modern humans (since there is scientific consensus that early man was just as smart as we are, just low tech). Ok, so for thousands of years our naturalist based oral traditions have said that we live, then we die and decay and that’s all. Let’s say you wanted to control people. You probably wouldn’t even think to invent religion to accomplish this. If military force and law enforcement weren’t effective in keeping control, what on earth would make you think that inventing religion and a false ‘god’ would be more effective? Flogging, exile and stoning to death didn’t keep people in line, so why would the promise of punishment after life be any more effective? And just how would you sell this concept of an afterlife to a purely naturalistic population?

    The reason every single population no matter how big, civilized and well connected or small, primitive and disconnected has had some religion, concept of a god and belief in an after life is because of Ecc. 3:11, that God has put eternity in their hearts. We all start out believing in God, we all know innately that our consciousness extends beyond our own brain, every atheist has prayed at some point in their life, but many people give up on this inherent belief in God because they feel He isn’t listening (because He didn’t break the laws of physics by preventing our pet dog or our mother or our child from dying, because we didn’t understand the purpose of death and were uncomfortable with it) and therefore He must not be there at all.

    If pure naturalism were true, we would see MORE populations were actually atheist and acting on their naturalism, and perhaps SOME religious populations given the concept that religion was a product of social evolution. But you seem to agree that there are many religions and I have yet to know of any scholarship that shows any civilization that began naturalist/atheist and then became religious or were converted. It’s the other way around, atheism was forcefully imposed in Russia and China and failed to be accepted nationally.

    The idea that because there are many religions, they must all be false doesn’t logically follow. It is possible they are all false, but you need a stronger argument than “there are so many of them”. They certainly cannot be all true, given they often contradict one another, but it is still then possible for one to be true. Like varying maps to a single destination that contradict one another, they cannot all be correct, but they’re not then automatically all false. So, given that man is inherently spiritual and the universe has a creator, it seems to me that one religion should be true. It then boils down to which holy book has the best explanatory power, which transcends man’s own ability to invent his own ‘gods’, which predicts the future accurately, which answers best our reason for existing and why we even ask such questions…for me, it’s the Bible.

  28. John says:

    There is no proof of magic from the past ,there is only reality the we can detect with our senses.
    Our galaxy alone has a diameter of six thousand billion miles, and is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies , with single objects out there putting out more energy than our galaxy.
    Why would a god poof all of that into existence, He would have to be infinitely wasteful.

    EDUCATE YOURSELVES, PEOPLE!!!

  29. Cecil Acker says:

    Magic can be defined as:
    ‘The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.’

    When God gathers his people (Zechariah 2:11) he neither uses magic, the armies of heaven, nor by his power. He does it solely by means of his spirit. (Zech 4:6)

    His people accept him by faith:
    “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
    In other words, God draws people who have a desire for truth and righteousness in their hearts. (John 6:44 NKJV)

  30. Jhon Roy says:

    Dear Atheist people,

    The reason why we Theist(Christian, Islam, …) Believed in supernatural things like God Himself, is we can’t accept a very irrational point of view of “some” of the atheist, specially the beliefs that SOMETHING CAN COME OUT, OUT OF NOTHINGNESS.
    It is illogical to think that out of nothing the universe sprang into being. 90% of atheist and scientist agrees that the bigbang is the cause of all things that had been created. But the question is where is the bigbang came from. Why? is that the bigbang exist, who created the bigbang… and so on. If we want to know the cause of the cause of the cause again and again. We need to accept that there is someone who created everything. Now the question of atheist goes like this WHO CREATED GOD, the reason why we believed that God is not created by anyone is that GOD is GOD! why would we call Him God if He has just been created.

  31. Seamus Riley says:

    @John, according to the history of nature (the cosmos) and in accordance with the various creation texts of the Bible (provided you don’t get hung up on just one of the texts and end up drawing false conclusions), the Creator doesn’t just “poof” it all into existence, but rather builds everything over the course of billions of years from a singularity. The Anthropic Principle Inequality is the understanding that in order to arrive at advanced life that would achieve civilization with sophisticated technology it takes an inordinate amount of time and expenditure of energy for such a brief moment in cosmological history for a species like Man to enjoy. It takes a whole eco-system to sustain one life form. It takes a whole planet to sustain life. It takes a whole solar system to sustain that planet. It takes a whole galaxy to sustain that solar system. It takes a whole universe to sustain that galaxy. It is VERY costly, but all required, not wasteful. I interpret this near infinite expenditure by God (or if you prefer, the outside uncaused causal agent) to be a testament of how much He loves human beings.

    Considering all of this, I would therefore conclude beyond what Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss already concede to, that is a “deistic god”, and go further to accept a personal God. One who placed us in the just right time and place to even be able to see beyond our solar system and even see far back enough into cosmological history to discover the Big Bang. This to me is obviously a God who wants to be discovered scientifically, ie personal.

  32. Cecil Acker says:

    @Seamus
    Please re-consider being in agreement with all scientific ‘theories’. (Notably the so called ‘Big bang theory.’ )These are mostly proposed by atheists who are really “The destruction’ that lays waste at noonday”. (Psalm 91:6) The Bible also instructs us “not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6, IE: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1) It’s more important that we believe that God created the universe, and that it never came about by accident.

  33. Seamus Riley says:

    Cecil, in academia there are competing models, such that no one accepts all scientific theories. Scientific theories are not all in agreement with each other, therefore no one can be in agreement with all of them. Acceptance of a particular theory depends on its explanatory power, predictive power and whether or not it agrees with what we see in nature.

    The scientific method can actually be attributed to various passages in the bible which admonish to “taste and see that the Lord is good”, “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”, “examine everything carefully, hold onto that which is true”, and so on. There are many examples in the Bible where God allows Himself to be tested, the contest at Mt. Carmel being one of the more famous events demonstrating a controlled experiment.

    Your use of the word ‘theory’ appears to be of the more common vernacular to which is ascribed properties such as unsubstantiated belief, but in academia, nothing could be further from that description. A theory in science is that which is rigorously tested and then either rejected or conceded to.

    Big Bang cosmology originally received its name derisively because the atheist who agrees to it must also agree to a Creator. Despite attempts to hide behind multiverse theory and superstring theory, a contingent thing such as the universe requires a non-contingent creative agent. An uncaused cause. Atheists have been trying for decades to disprove Big Bang cosmology for this reason and yet it remains our best tested theory in science. I’ve stated all this in the previous missives as well as pointed out the fact that Big Bang cosmology was actually taught first in the Bible.

    I’ll repeat from my previous message to you specifically in case you missed it before: “That matter, energy, space and time have a beginning; that the universe is governed by unchanging laws of physics where one is the ever pervasive law of decay; that the universe is expanding…all taught in the bible. An article published here should get you started: http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-bang—the-bible-taught-it-first

    Nowhere have I said the universe came about by accident. I have no idea why you’d ascribe that claim to me.

  34. Cecil Acker says:

    @John “Nowhere have I said the universe came about by accident”
    I did not imply that you said it. It was written as an alternative to the words ‘more important’

    Nevertheless, the bible is silent on the details how God created the universe, and we should not speculate.
    In any case, the ‘so called’ big bang theory is full of flaws and contradictions.I’ve read many articles on how scientists themselves are baffled by these.

    Moreover, our salvalation does not require that we accept ALL scientific theories.
    Discussion closed.

  35. Cecil Acker says:

    Sorry, my last comment should have been addressed to @Seamus not @John.
    I happened to be perusing a few posts before sending.

  36. Seamus Riley says:

    Cecil, I wholly disagree with the sentiment that “we should not speculate.” That’s very unbiblical: Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” That would seem to me to be an admonition to discover the details of how God created the universe, among other things. The discovery of the Big Bang is probably the main reason most professional astronomers are theists, whereas in other fields (except mathematics) naturalism is predominant.

    If you consider the discussion closed, I’ll respect that, but if you choose to respond, I’m going to hold you to showing me all the “flaws and contradictions” of the Big Bang Theory, because there are none in the scientific literature. And I disagree that the Bible is “silent” on the details of God creating the universe. There are 25 creation passages and there are 11 places where it describes God “stretching the heavens”, which is the crux of the Big Bang model.

    You’re certainly welcome to hold to your views if you like, even the unbiblical ones, but I do hope you don’t continue to share them with others which I think will confuse them: I mean, just imagine leading someone to Christ and telling them there was no Big Bang and then they actually read the Bible and find the Big Bang taught throughout. They may just feel a little disillusioned.

  37. Brian says:

    Dear all

    Anyone can debate anything they want but can only draw any conclusion based on their ability to understand and interpret what they think they see or prove. However science is extremely limited in its efforts to study and “prove” anything about anything that is not physically on this planet. To not find evidence in soil, fossils, or any species of a supreme being is hardly reason to say he doesn’t exist. If I never left my house in America or had any kind of contact with the world outside my own window I could argue that the Chinese do not exist but it would be ridiculous to draw a conclusion based solely on the physical evidence present in my house or available to me. Anyone with any intellect would agree. Equally to attempt to conclude that God does not exist based on your “so called scientific proof” because you have combed but a tiny percent of the universe is very immature thinking.
    While I may not be able to physically show God to you, you cannot prove he does not exist.
    A Christian is not in religious bondage, but if an individual has truly fallen in love with God their heart has a desire to leave a lifestyle of sin behind. For anyone who wants to sin this appears to be bondage, but for anyone who loves God does not desire to do those things. The Christian life is driven by a hearts desire.
    In closing I would have to ask, why do you want to prove there is no God? Are we not better off if there is a God? I hardly think that anyone wants life to end in nothingness. There is much i do not know about the universe and certainly about God, but I am not foolish enough to think if I can’t find him through the study of things on a tiny planet in a massive universe then he cannot possibly exist. Just as you want to convince Christians there is no God, which certainly doesn’t benefit either of us, I want you to come to know what his Spirit can do for you. Whether you believe in him or not is not a problem for me. You are free to believe what you will, or should I say look for proof in the soil, but do yourself a favor and place the faith you have in the “intellect” of man in God and experience life!

    All this shared in love!
    Signed: “a changed life”

  38. Randy Churchill says:

    Alex Rosenburg who is a very smart Atheist says that if Atheism is true then there are no morals, purpose or meaning to life. That there is no free will, and that even your thoughts are an illusion. What is interesting about his conclusions in his book on Atheism is that he comes to the same conclusions that Cornilus Van Til came to decades ago. My thoughts are that if Atheism is true then why would anybody even argue for the concept of God in the first place. If Atheism were true then there would be no reason to think at all. To say there is a reason is to presuppose rationality. It seems to me that Atheist have to presuppose things that are more consistent with Christian Theism to argue against it. In that case they are proving that Atheist presuppositions are not adequate to argue with and that they cannot presuppose there world view when they argue. The greatest prove for the existence of God is the impossibility of the opposite.

  39. Cecil says:

    “to …conclude that God does not exist based on your ‘so called scientific proof’.”

    @Brian. Thanks.
    Evidence of God cannot be found on earth – Spirits exist in another dimension.
    Believers accept this based on faith in God’s word and his visible creation. (Rom. 1:20)

    According to evolutionists, environment, need and circumstances cause changes.
    Why then, is man born naked with unshod feet, or other characteristics
    which prove how mankind differs from the beast.

    These things indicate that God wants us to depend on him for everything.
    (Including continued life)
    One wonders how many evolutionists have really studied the Bible.

  40. Cecil says:

    @Seamus Riley
    Discussion on the big bang theory remains closed.
    Firstly, had you researched this you would have noted the arguments.
    Perhaps you opted to side with scientists.
    (Most of which are born again atheists trying to disprove creation)
    Secondly, in no way does our salvation depend on scientific knowledge.

    But, I did ponder whether to answer your claim that speculation is unbiblical.
    You quoted Prov. 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing:
    but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.”
    Do you really think the ‘honour’ of kings should be placed above the ‘glory’ of God?

    Did you not know that earthly kings are really God’s enemies, and that most of
    Israel’s kings either ruled badly or were/became apostate? (Psalm 2:1-6; 1Kings 14:9)

    King Nebuchadnezzar indeed ‘concealed’ the temple’s utensils,
    and it was an ‘honour’ for him to do so, as these were later returned to Jerusalem.
    However, his son Belshazzar while drunk, called for them.
    (Hence the writing on the wall, and his downfall.)

    Faith is more important to true Christians. Speculation on how God created
    the universe being mere ‘food for thought’ for Atheists and agnostics.
    (Deut. 29:29; Psalm 14:1; Romans 11:33)

  41. Jordan says:

    Dear Todd,

    The thing is God gave us these “abilities” that we have and we would never be able utilize these abilities if it wasn’t his will, most atheists that do not beleive in God have not read the bible and do not know the bible therefore they don’t see God in our prespective anyways, one more thing God has walked the earth before and he has done miracles and are still performing them today even though he can’t be here personally to perform those miracles.

  42. Ed Buckner says:

    I’ve been in quite a few of these debates and I think several more–beyond the two shown–are online. One, versus Wallace Marshall, which has quite good audio and video quality, is in two parts here:

    Video 1: http://youtu.be/-vvHpNcLnZs
    Video 2: http://youtu.be/0yWUuOLgfvk

    If you’re still actively posting these, let me know–I think there are several others out there, maybe including one or two with audio-only postings.

    Regards,

    Ed Buckner, ebuckner@atheists.org (post e-mail address freely)

  43. Ed Buckner says:

    Is your site still active, still adding debate data? If so, there are several I’ve been in that are now online. E-mail me for details. Regards, Ed Buckner

  44. Ezekiel says:

    Dear Religious People,

    If you’re happy with what you have right now then, I’m truly happy for you. If by following dogmas and traditions you find peace in your heart and in your mind, then I’m very happy for you. If your religion makes you feel complete, I’m very glad you feel that way.

    My only humble request is “Please, respect the constitution” and “Please, don’t shove your belief down my throat.”

    Peace be to all.

    A happy atheist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>