I recently had a fascinating debate with David Warden of the Dorset Humanists concerning Islam, which I have written fairly extensively about. The debate was really well-mannered and a pleasure to be involved with. Thanks to the Dorset Humanists for hosing and inviting me. Here it is:
A few years ago, around the time of the release of my book The Nativity: A Critical Examination, Reasonable Doubts…
I really respect and like what Dillahunty said in his closing speech here (the video is linked to the correct…
This is still a fantastic debate, primarily because of the format. After 40 minutes, they sit down and thrash it…
The long-awaited debate (well, by me, anyway) is here, on You Tube: Having only listened to the opening…
So, God and cosmology will be debated tomorrow as cosmologist Sean Carroll takes on theologian William Lane Craig. I, for one, am…
Bill Nye the Science Guy plans to visit Kentucky next month for a creation-vs.-evolution debate with Creation Museum founder Ken Ham.
Ham wrote on his blog that the museum will host Nye, the star of a long-running science show for kids, on Feb. 4.
Here’s a reminder about my debate with Randal Rauser which took place last year over the historicity of the nativity accounts. Listen in and enjoy! The post from last year. My nativity book is available from the sidebar over there!
A moment of Schadenfreude: David Marshall recently debated Phil Zuckerman on the issue “What provides a better foundation for civil society: Christianity or Secular Humanism?” and Marshall apparently got creamed. The debate was recorded and the church that organized it planned to upload it. But after their guy lost, they changed their mind on that. Zuckerman asked them when they will finally keep their word and upload the video material of the debate, this is the reply he got:
SO this is a few years old now, but this debate is great. Jeremy Beahan, presenter on Reasonable Doubts podcast and radio show, calmly deconstructs every argument this rather smarmy apologist gives. I enjoyed listening to this one, and I hope to hear Beahan do more debates. Good stuff.
So I came across this debate between Dr Michael Tooley, a philosopher, and William Lane Craig, which can be seen here:
This was a cracking debate based on the fact that Tooley was a philosopher, and prepared. Let me say that again. He was prepared. He had done his homework.
H/T Reasonably Faithless:
As mentioned before, myself, Justin Schieber and Counter Apologist will be having a Google Hangout discussing the logical and evidential…
Craig has been involved in a series of discussions in Australia with Laurence Krauss regarding philosophy and science. Unfortunately, Krauss is no great philosopher which is what most of this discussion revolved around. However, both Craig and the annoying moderator claimed the “consequentialism is a terrible ethic” and that utilitarianism and consequentialism had been “renounced” by the Abrahamic faiths.
Due to work commitments on Justin’s part, we have had to postpone the hangout until Monday 2nd September at the…
I have recently listened to a really interesting debate between Justin Schieber of the rather excellent Reasonable Doubts podcast and Max Andrews. Andrews writes at Senentias.org and I believe may be some sort of ‘backroom staff’ for William Lane Craig. His bio is:
On Thursday night I gave another talk on the Nativity to the Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub. The talk was a great success. I was able to establish the case in some good detail as I set out in my last book The Nativity: A Critical Examination. There was a good turnout for the relaunching of PSITP and it was a nice touch that I gave the lats talk to PSITP 1.0 and the first to PSITP 2.0! However, there was a Winchester Skeptics in the Pub event on the same night which was a shame and attracted away a few key members.
So, on to the rebuttals. Craig pointed out in several of his rebuttals that Law has not, and did not seem to want to, critique the cosmological argument. Craig does have some beef here as Law seemed to want to debate Craig’s version of God rather than the more fundamental argument over A God’s existence. Thus in true debate point-scoring, Law would take a hit here. However, as Law plainly stated, and I think this was a wise move, this would have broadened the scope too far and wasn’t important for discussing the moral character of Craig’s version of God (thus allowing Law to wedge in his evil God thesis).
What was one of my favourite moments, and it met with a good round of applause from the secularists in the audience (a clear minority), was when Law, whilst talking about his non-answering of Craig’s first (cosmological) argument, declared himself not to be an expert, and to say something like, “I don’t know, I mean I don’t know the answer to the question why the universe exist.”