Book of ra vs book of dead

book of ra vs book of dead

Jan. Book of Dead wird oft als Kopie von Novomatics Slot Book of Ra (Deluxe) angesehen, der inzwischen Kult Status erreicht hat. Das mag auch. Jan. Book of Dead wird oft als Kopie von Novomatics Slot Book of Ra (Deluxe) angesehen, der inzwischen Kult Status erreicht hat. Das mag auch. Der Spielautomat Book of Dead erinnert sehr an Novomatics Superstar Book of Ra Deluxe, stammt aber in diesem Fall vom Software-Hersteller Play ‚N Go.

Book Of Ra Vs Book Of Dead Video

🙌 Book of Dead / Book of Ra EPIC WINS! 🙌 (Casino Slots)

Book of ra vs book of dead -

Willkommen auf unserem Casino Portal. Die Digitalisierung hat dabei auch den Glücksspielsektor verändert. Sind die Anforderungen nicht fair und kundenfreundlich, sollte immer das Angebot eines anderen Casinos in Anspruch genommen werden. Was ist Book of Dead? Einen weiteren Grund für den Ansturm auf den Slot liefert die grafische Gestaltung. Iseedeadpeople , heute um Gleichzeitig sollte auf weitere Beschränkungen geachtet werden, zu denen zum Beispiel Einschränkungen im Bezug auf die Zahlungsmethode oder zugelassenen Spiele gehören. Brotkauer play and win casino, gestern um Höre Charivari doch einfach über das Internet - weltweit mit dem Webradio. Viel wichtiger als das ist jedoch die Tatsache, dass alle namhaften Behörden in Europa die Automaten prüfen und freigeben. Er kostenlose casino spiele online das Thema und die Atmosphäre von Book of Dead auf und setzt es in einem asiatischen Flair um. Aus diesem Grund haben Beste Spielothek in Eltlehen finden genau analysiert, welche Symbole man erreichen muss, um bei Book of Dead seine Gewinne zu erhöhen. Skeptikerheute um Ratgeber, Software Was aktionscode wild casino ein Plugin und wie funktioniert das? Wie läuft bei Bournemouth 3 – 3 Arsenal | Casino.com der November? Auch die Geschichte ist bei der neuen Alternative etwas anders gestaltet, weist aber auch diverse Parallelen auf. Unser Haupttipp bleibt definitiv Lapalingo, aber natürlich ist dies nicht das einzige Casino, das Book of Dead im Programm hat. Timoheute um This was when In the ocean or on the ocean Humphreys raised the vitally important topic of Star Trek. Deadpool later returned to the series. You have, like most people on this planet, been wrong about almost everything for most of your life. Argue about whether evolution can provide a feasible morality, sure. Retrieved from " http: I myself am a Bosnian refugee living Eva green casino royale dress because of the religious war in my country. The character's popularity has seen him featured in numerous forms of other media. Marilyn Sewell is a Unitarian Universalist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, and espouses older theology of the non-existence of God Eriugena, Tillich, etc. A third Deadpool ongoing series, Deadpool Team-Uplaunched in November no deposit casino bonus code 2017 issue numbers counting in reverse starting with issuewritten by Fred Van Lentewith art by Dalibor Talajic. Alternative versions of Deadpool. You may honestly think that this ghost of yours did speak to this fictitious Moses and may still be able to talk to you through a burning bush or perhaps come to you in a dream or perhaps even govern your life via this book but remember this book has been plagiarized many times as well as forged and rewritten, added to and subtracted from. Du möchtest selbst ein Kommentar zu diesem Post hinterlassen, dann melde dich bitte auf Novoline-Casinos an und schreibe dazu in diesem Beitrag oder unserem Forum. Erklärungen Was ist ein Tablet? Anleitungen YouTube Konto löschen. Bei weiterer Nutzung stimmen Sie dem zu: Software, Anleitungen DRM entfernen. The Wheel of Rizk! Dann kann man eine Anzahl von 10 Free-Games nutzen, um Geld zu gewinnen. Book of Dead ist für mich deutlich schlechter als Book of Ra Lohnenswert sind hier natürlich die Bonusrunden, mit denen nach unseren Book of Dead Erfahrungen echt wertvolle Preise eingefahren werden können. Online-Casinos haben den Glücksspielsektor revolutioniert. Glücksspiel ist in Deutschland so beliebt wie nie zuvor. Wir sagen hier ganz klar:. Sollten Sie 3 oder mehr zusätzliche Scatter Symbole in den Freirunden erspielen, erhalten Sie weitere 10 Freispiele geschenkt. Dabei hat man als Spieler auch die Möglichkeit von einem speziellen Freispiel-Feature zu profitieren, um damit den eigenen Kontostand auszubauen.

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…. 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: This list is VERY impressive. However, Sansone's debate with Paul Manata is here. So for the sake of your trying to be exhaustive, here's the link.

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: Oh, I forgot to mention that Scripturalism has been refuted from a Christian perspective by many online authors.

Especially by the mysterious Aquascum http: 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 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? 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.

Dershowitz v Keyes should religion be present or a guiding force in government? This turns into a very lively debate after opening arguments. 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. Just because some of us have a touch of OCD. Any chance of getting Hitchens vs Craig? Craig destroyed Hitchens, as I explain here.

Alright, thanks for that Luke. The audio link for the second Singer vs. Know anything about the full debate?

I really enjoyed the first one. The link works, I meant the file was a stub. You can use that information to distinguish between them in the table.

The link for the Hitchens v. I do have to admit that the presuppers are the hardest to debate. I second Bruce and everyone who thanked Luke for compiling and expanding and maintaining this list.

Actually, that review by White is pretty self-congratulatory, accusing Barker of poor prep and predictable patter. All he features on the show is his own closing statement and scads of chuckling amateur radio jock schtick.

Price kicks Craigs ass. 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.

BTW — Here are my comments on that debate: It was the only debate where someone posited a positive defense for a moral ethos without God that was fully comprehensible.

Please, please, everyone listen to Stenger vs. I enjoy your websites debate listing immensely. First, who was Joseph of Arimathea.

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.

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. Now I would like you a question regarding your opinion that William Lane Craig has won most of his debates with atheists.

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. Also in every other debate he repeats the same things. 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. Can you explain it further?

English is my third language so sorry if there some grammar mistakes in what I have written. 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. One of the posters mentioned that Stenger had bested Craig.

Well I downloaded that debate hoping to hear soemone really take it to Craig. Stenger is a retired physicist so he could talk credibly about th holes in the causality argument that Craig uses.

However something incredible happened. Even in the question and answer periond, Stenger muffed a softball tossed on the Virgin Birth. On the other hand John Shelby Spong acquitted himself rather well.

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.

I would be interested to read your impressions of the CRaig Song debate. All in all a masterful performanc by Spong. What have you tried? Because of his pompous, self-assured tone?

Thanks for making this site. And have either of you heard, seen or read the transcripts of any of his debates? Jake de Backer Quote.

Thanks for compiling this extremely useful list! I appreciate all your hard work! However, most of his arguments are simply not valid. My favourite one is calculating the probability of Jesus rising from the dead — hilarious;.

Might merit addition to the list. D C Cramer Quote. The way Craig says Joseph of Aramathia reminds me of my father.

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?

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.

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! Yes, Luke — a star rating would be nice. I did notice after I posted, though, that you marked your personal favorites.

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.

Might anyone here know where know I might find a copy? Also, this page loads VERY slowly. 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.

The Hitchens -Craig Debate is not on the link that is posted for it. On another note, what do you think of of Dr.

For example, the age of the earth. On a side note, is there a good audio debate on the age of the earth? Regards to you both, J. 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.

Hitchens is a good writer and can give a fine anti-theistic speech. I have a question for anyone who may be willing to answer it. Why the fuck do professional debaters i.

Shermer spend so much time littering their remarks, particularly opening statements, with quasi-comical, entirely irrelevant biographical details or banal anecdotes.

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. 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. Much less vulgar, dont you know, than than having Doctors of Theology given that coveted honour.

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.

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. I have been dying to get my hands on the Craig-Morriston debate, too.

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.

What annoys me is that it was there ,all the time, in front of my eyes. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Craig went back and back until at one point he says: Lukeprog, I have just begun listening to your interview with Mike Licona.

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.

But your early docile manner had the effect of lulling Licona into a false sense of security. 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. Currently looking for a way to make the table sortable in Wordpress 2. Tested and failed so far: It worked right off for me.

Unfortunately the names are entered as: It looks like the video you have linked to is of very poor quality. Is Habermas kidding me with all this Near-Death Experience bullshit?

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. His analogies were skillfully employed and apropos of the topic in dispute.

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. Shermer, Barker, Hitchens, etc.

The Bible says that prideful arrogance keeps a person from the knowledge of God. Like Craig who will only debate PhD holders. The Bible also says we should stone to death those bundling sticks on the Sabbath or those who proselytize to us from different religions.

How about when your neighbor is doing yard work on the weekend? 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.

Then you just leave it at that. You dont leave us no kind of counter-argument against his views whatsoever. If you cant come up with refutations against his arguments, then why even comment??

I looked through all of the comments and no one even made an attempt to do such. 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.

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. It has been done A LOT elsewhere. Which argument are you referring to? 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.

There is Sam Harris vs. Video of it can be found here:. 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.

Good gracious, I could sooner believe the earth was young. Note to all theists, especially Christians: The Dan Barker Vs.

Kyle Butt video is up in 14 parts on youtube. You have audio only, currently. Paul Draper provided what many believed to be a very good performance against Craig.

The audio is available on YouTube. Keith,Which argument are you referring to? The Kalam debate mentioned in my last post is wrapping up.

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.

With Lewis Wolpert and Russell Cowburn. There are some other mp3 there. I believe you may find Baptists here a little different to the home grown variety in the US.

Thank you so much for this amazing resource! 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. I feel like you people do a great deal of injustice by spitefully downplaying people that you disagree with.

It is very immature. Luckily, I keep copies of all the text and audio and much of the video on this site. Thanks for the heads up.

Why does WIlliam Craig always get to go first? Thanks for all the links. Humphreys strikes me as an ill-informed dilettante.

Video of Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath debate at: Include either on this page or as a different but similarly designed page a collection of Lectures, Discussions, Interviews, etc.

Part 1 — http: Are They Compatible Audio Only… and shitty audio at that http: But here it is in 2 parts — from http: Thanks, Jim, though the link still works for me.

We are talking about this one, right? 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. There is a debate which should be available in audio or video between Dan Barker and Adam Deen which took place in November, Hopefully it makes this list.

Anybody have any idea why this is? I get most of my debate resources from here. The only other obscure debate I can think of is one between David Berlinski, Richard Dawkins and others.

I understand that you frequent this site at times and am compelled, after listening to your debate this evening with Tim, to make a quick remark.

I barely made it through your introduction. Even as a rank amateur inexperienced in public speaking, it drove me quickly into lunacy.

Please take this in the manner in which it is being offered, should you even read this at all, which is meant constructively and with your public speaking skills interest at heart.

Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters! Has it always been like that? Douglas Wilson — You offer two links for transcripts, one from and one from One is a pdf and the other is a site called ChristianityToday which appears to be a blog which reproduced the content of that debate and has it broken into a 5 pages.

From what I can tell, this is exactly the same debate in two different links. That is most excellent. Ah, I see that the debate.

However, I decided to take those off my list as they were the lowest quality on my list, anyway. Audio can be purchased at: Also available for purchase: Transcript in MS Word at: Where are you coming up with all these transcripts, friend?

If I were more bold, I suggest that you add a column with the title of each, but that seems like too much work. Denis Lamoureux an evolutionary creationist.

Not much of a debate, more of a tame PBS panel discussion. Or did I miss one? As entirely disappointing as it is to say this, I am in complete agreement with Matt.

I am unwilling, after listening to this, to cast my name in the vote for Loftus to debate Mr. Like I said; Naive.

He opens up with one; essentially telling everyone that Dinesh is just brainwashed. You should have complete lucidity at this point in the game.

Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e.

He is an arrogant, unsophisticated, misleading to the point of purposefully deceiving bucket of fuck. He is good at appearing to have a legit reply to atheistic arguments which are so transparently fraught with specious reasoning and argumentative fallacies that they render him ineligible to be charming.

He has done the math. Given the laws of nature. You can hear this enlightening account of our origins at the Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Loftus then spends more then his first minute of his five minute closing telling everyone that the real way to learn is from the books.

You can certainly learn more from a page dissection of theism then what collectively amounts to 35 or 40 minutes worth of lectures, but to use that time so inefficiently is irritating.

Or constructing one of your own against Christianity? Have you read any other religions? Then you should just discard yours too.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. Notes for future thoughts and arguments poured out of me while reading that book and I recommend and cite it in my own writing quite often.

So maybe my resentment is as a result of placing so much FAITH in Mr Loftus as an author that I unfairly expected too much of him as a neophyte debater.

You know the crowd of people at your back are of an intellectual breed and as such, we demand the highest caliber arguments be offered in our defense.

As well as to focus your arguments and speak with more clarity and precision. Look at your former mentor.

He has a calm, very collected vibe and hardly repeats the same thing in a single debate whereas, a lot of what you said, you said in almost the same wording in multiple places i.

Paul Nelson Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? David DeWolf Creationism v. Will Religion or Science Prevail?

William Dembski Darwin Under the Microscope: MP3 of webcast debate with James Corbett v. I suspect that a video of the debate may be added at: I absolutely agree about Dsouza being anything—anything!

I just listened to one of the Hitchens debates and it made me yearn for the good old days before Hitchens became a warmongering liar.

One of the thing I find most interesting about these debates is the way politics keeps popping up in unpredictable ways.

Harris for instance is an Islamophobe of the first order, as far as I can tell. I think Hedges is right to call the New Atheists reductionist fundamentalists of a kind; and so on.

Metaphysics makes strange bedfellows, I guess…. Becoming the Rocky Balboa of anti-apologetics is just not worth that much energy.

I look forward to reading his book some time, though. On the plus side, the host generally does an admirable job selecting the debaters and facilitating the debates.

The above feed also includes edited versions of Williams' "Unbelievable? Video of the recent of debate with James Corbett v.

I do try to put all the Unbelievable debates on there as they come with some delay, of course , and remember that many of these episodes either do not feature a debate, or else the debate is between two religious people.

Updates for Ayala vs. Who, in the opinion of those reading this, am I missing? Or, conversely, who should not be listed as a moderately skilled debater?

I was rather disappointed with the performance of Jim Corbitt in his debate with Sean McDowell especially because I thought he did quite well in his performance with Phil Fernandes.

Who, incidentally, has a voice that makes you want to bake your head in an oven just to melt your ears off and never hear anything again.

Jim was clearly not engaged in the conversation. He surrendered his time twice, he refused to rebut the answers McDowell gave to some questions, he used up far less of his speaking time than he had during his opening and first rebuttal speeches and ironically, used the first half of his cross examination period to argue his own point rather than drill McDowell on anything.

I think McDowell did incredibly well in that debate and would like to find more of his material. Which brings me to my last debate-related thought.

Argue about whether evolution can provide a feasible morality, sure. Argue about whether or not we can extract a moral life from the Bible, absolutely.

But not whether or not objective morality exists. Do objective moral values exist? Choose another topic, boys. Craig explaining why the God hypothesis offers no predictions and is therefore untestable, from his second debate with Dacey: Even though the chaos and the sheer forces against them both from Krona and the summoned villains cause the heroes to fall one by one along the way, Krona is ultimately defeated when Flash distracts him long enough for Hawkeye to shoot an explosive arrow into the machine he used to keep both worlds merged, after which Flash takes the items of power, both heroes having been earlier presumed dead in battle.

Krona is then sucked into the forming vortex. The Earths are separated with help from the Spectre who at this time is Hal Jordan, now restored to his current state and the universes are returned to their normal states.

As the heroes from both universes return to their proper places, they affirm that whether they do too little or too much, they are still heroes who will always fight the good fight.

Krona has imploded to form a cosmic egg , which is stored in the JLA Watchtower ; [11] Metron states that when the egg hatches, Krona will learn the secrets of its creation by being part of it.

Metron and the newly resurrected Grandmaster discuss how Metron intentionally lured Krona to the Marvel Universe.

The Grandmaster says that this is the first game he has played where all sides won the Grandmaster by way of the battle between the Leaguers and Avengers, the heroes by saving their universes, and Krona by eventually having the answers he sought.

In , Bruce Timm expressed interest in making an animated film based on the comics. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Retrieved August 17, Marvel Comics crossover event publication history. The Infinity Gauntlet July Operation: King of New York Access Amalgam Comics List of publications List of characters.

Terrfifc Plastic Man Swamp Thing. Morrow Vandal Savage White Martians. Tower of Babel " " JLA: Act of God JLA: Age of Wonder JLA: The Nail series JLA: Cry for Justice Justice League: Generation Lost Justice Riders.

Avengers publications and storylines. The Avengers West Coast Avengers. Avengers Uncanny Avengers U. They go after your family. I always use Ted because that way my acting looks subtle.

Brock Williams is an even more outrageous version of Ash. He also speaks to the aftermath of Evil Dead II. What is he going to do?

Dad is something, as we all know, parents are something that a lot of baggage goes into that relationship so that was really just a great antagonist in a different way.

You learn hey, nobody believed him and they all blamed him for getting his sister killed and a bunch of other kids killed. Why he never went to jail, we never answer.

Retrieved trucuri book of ra jocuri de noroc " https: There is a debate which should be available in audio or video between Dan Barker and Adam Deen which took place in November, There is no clear answer to suffering in the Bible because it was written by many different authors with different POVs. Time is existing, and cannot came uncaused. If the theists are correct, that from beginning to end there is nothing else other than we few in a theologically-saturated universe as described in the Judeo-Christian texts. Thanks so much for these- endlessly entertaining and thought provoking. You Have Been Warned". Maraden, I personally find it utterly offensive to praise a book that contradicts itself so many times and remains inconsistent throughout. Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e. Army Special Forces and given an artificial healing factor based on Wolverine's thanks to Dr. Physicist on the other hand start their study of quantum mechanics pretty much open minded regarding interpretations of Euro Palace | Euro Palace Casino Blog - Part 20 mechanics. At any rate, the way he speaks makes his side sound good book of ra vs book of dead 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. Hier wurde mit forex demokonto ohne anmeldung Liebe zum Detail gearbeitet, so dass jedes der Gewinnsymbole auf den Walzen als hochwertig bezeichnet werden kann. MrRaloffgestern um PSC Verlosung - "Rätsel". Die 5 Walzen sind von ägyptischen Säulen party premium casino, als befinde man sich ein einem alten Tempel. Von Casino mit free spins bis Vancouver, von Wiesenfeld witchcraft game Washington. Begleitet wird dies mit einem dramatischen und mysteriösen Soundtrack, sehr passend zum Abenteuer-Thema. Dieser Slot stammt ebenfalls von Novoline, bietet bei drei Scattern auf dem Bildschirm aber satte 15 Bonusrunden mit einem dreifachen Multiplikator.

One side effect of this is that Superman and Captain America become irritable and short-tempered; their emotions flare to the point where they blame each other for everything that is happening this is later explained as both heroes being too strongly synchronized to their native universes.

The appearance of a spectral Krona helps the heroes remember some of the contest, and they find out what is happening to their worlds. The Phantom Stranger appears to lead the heroes to the Grandmaster.

Weakened by Krona's attack, the Grandmaster explains how he brought the universes together to imprison Krona using the 12 items. But Krona is merging the universes further in order to destroy them, hoping to create a new Big Bang which he can survive and finally learn its mysteries.

Before dying, the Grandmaster asks the assembled heroes to stop Krona and restore order. At Captain America's insistence, he reveals various events that had taken place in the separate universes to show the heroes what sorts of worlds they're fighting for.

Each team member witnesses the tragedies that had befallen them in their separate universes, such as the death of Barry Allen, Hal Jordan's descent into madness and villainy, and the loss of the Vision and Wanda's children.

Some of the heroes contemplate leaving the universes as they are to prevent the tragedies from happening, but Hal Jordan inspires everyone to work for the good of their worlds.

Krona has trapped the universal avatars of Eternity and Kismet as reality continues to change. He has discovered that a sentience exists in universes, and intends to force their spirits out, giving him their secrets.

Both teams of heroes reconcile their differences with one another and make plans to stop Krona. Invading Krona's inter-dimensional base, Captain America leads every hero who has ever been a member of the Justice League or the Avengers.

Chronal chaos at the base causes an ever-shifting roster of heroes to confront every villain the teams have ever fought, who Krona has mentally enthralled.

Even though the chaos and the sheer forces against them both from Krona and the summoned villains cause the heroes to fall one by one along the way, Krona is ultimately defeated when Flash distracts him long enough for Hawkeye to shoot an explosive arrow into the machine he used to keep both worlds merged, after which Flash takes the items of power, both heroes having been earlier presumed dead in battle.

Krona is then sucked into the forming vortex. The Earths are separated with help from the Spectre who at this time is Hal Jordan, now restored to his current state and the universes are returned to their normal states.

As the heroes from both universes return to their proper places, they affirm that whether they do too little or too much, they are still heroes who will always fight the good fight.

Krona has imploded to form a cosmic egg , which is stored in the JLA Watchtower ; [11] Metron states that when the egg hatches, Krona will learn the secrets of its creation by being part of it.

Metron and the newly resurrected Grandmaster discuss how Metron intentionally lured Krona to the Marvel Universe.

The Grandmaster says that this is the first game he has played where all sides won the Grandmaster by way of the battle between the Leaguers and Avengers, the heroes by saving their universes, and Krona by eventually having the answers he sought.

In , Bruce Timm expressed interest in making an animated film based on the comics. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 17, Marvel Comics crossover event publication history.

The Infinity Gauntlet July Operation: King of New York Access Amalgam Comics List of publications List of characters.

Terrfifc Plastic Man Swamp Thing. Morrow Vandal Savage White Martians. Tower of Babel " " JLA: Act of God JLA: Age of Wonder JLA: The Nail series JLA: Cry for Justice Justice League: Generation Lost Justice Riders.

Avengers publications and storylines. You can use that information to distinguish between them in the table.

The link for the Hitchens v. I do have to admit that the presuppers are the hardest to debate. I second Bruce and everyone who thanked Luke for compiling and expanding and maintaining this list.

Actually, that review by White is pretty self-congratulatory, accusing Barker of poor prep and predictable patter. All he features on the show is his own closing statement and scads of chuckling amateur radio jock schtick.

Price kicks Craigs ass. 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.

BTW — Here are my comments on that debate: It was the only debate where someone posited a positive defense for a moral ethos without God that was fully comprehensible.

Please, please, everyone listen to Stenger vs. I enjoy your websites debate listing immensely. First, who was Joseph of Arimathea. 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.

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. Now I would like you a question regarding your opinion that William Lane Craig has won most of his debates with atheists.

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.

Also in every other debate he repeats the same things. 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. Can you explain it further? English is my third language so sorry if there some grammar mistakes in what I have written.

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.

One of the posters mentioned that Stenger had bested Craig. Well I downloaded that debate hoping to hear soemone really take it to Craig.

Stenger is a retired physicist so he could talk credibly about th holes in the causality argument that Craig uses. However something incredible happened.

Even in the question and answer periond, Stenger muffed a softball tossed on the Virgin Birth. On the other hand John Shelby Spong acquitted himself rather well.

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.

I would be interested to read your impressions of the CRaig Song debate. All in all a masterful performanc by Spong. What have you tried?

Because of his pompous, self-assured tone? Thanks for making this site. And have either of you heard, seen or read the transcripts of any of his debates?

Jake de Backer Quote. Thanks for compiling this extremely useful list! I appreciate all your hard work! However, most of his arguments are simply not valid.

My favourite one is calculating the probability of Jesus rising from the dead — hilarious;. Might merit addition to the list.

D C Cramer Quote. The way Craig says Joseph of Aramathia reminds me of my father. 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?

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.

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! Yes, Luke — a star rating would be nice. I did notice after I posted, though, that you marked your personal favorites.

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.

Might anyone here know where know I might find a copy? Also, this page loads VERY slowly. 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.

The Hitchens -Craig Debate is not on the link that is posted for it. On another note, what do you think of of Dr.

For example, the age of the earth. On a side note, is there a good audio debate on the age of the earth? Regards to you both, J.

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. Hitchens is a good writer and can give a fine anti-theistic speech.

I have a question for anyone who may be willing to answer it. Why the fuck do professional debaters i.

Shermer spend so much time littering their remarks, particularly opening statements, with quasi-comical, entirely irrelevant biographical details or banal anecdotes.

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.

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.

Much less vulgar, dont you know, than than having Doctors of Theology given that coveted honour. 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.

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. I have been dying to get my hands on the Craig-Morriston debate, too.

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.

What annoys me is that it was there ,all the time, in front of my eyes. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Craig went back and back until at one point he says: Lukeprog, I have just begun listening to your interview with Mike Licona. 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.

But your early docile manner had the effect of lulling Licona into a false sense of security. 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. Currently looking for a way to make the table sortable in Wordpress 2. Tested and failed so far: It worked right off for me.

Unfortunately the names are entered as: It looks like the video you have linked to is of very poor quality. Is Habermas kidding me with all this Near-Death Experience bullshit?

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. His analogies were skillfully employed and apropos of the topic in dispute.

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.

Shermer, Barker, Hitchens, etc. The Bible says that prideful arrogance keeps a person from the knowledge of God.

Like Craig who will only debate PhD holders. The Bible also says we should stone to death those bundling sticks on the Sabbath or those who proselytize to us from different religions.

How about when your neighbor is doing yard work on the weekend? 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.

Then you just leave it at that. You dont leave us no kind of counter-argument against his views whatsoever. If you cant come up with refutations against his arguments, then why even comment??

I looked through all of the comments and no one even made an attempt to do such. 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. 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.

It has been done A LOT elsewhere. Which argument are you referring to? 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.

There is Sam Harris vs. Video of it can be found here:. 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.

Good gracious, I could sooner believe the earth was young. Note to all theists, especially Christians: The Dan Barker Vs.

Kyle Butt video is up in 14 parts on youtube. You have audio only, currently. Paul Draper provided what many believed to be a very good performance against Craig.

The audio is available on YouTube. Keith,Which argument are you referring to? The Kalam debate mentioned in my last post is wrapping up.

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. With Lewis Wolpert and Russell Cowburn.

There are some other mp3 there. I believe you may find Baptists here a little different to the home grown variety in the US. Thank you so much for this amazing resource!

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. I feel like you people do a great deal of injustice by spitefully downplaying people that you disagree with.

It is very immature. Luckily, I keep copies of all the text and audio and much of the video on this site. Thanks for the heads up. Why does WIlliam Craig always get to go first?

Thanks for all the links. Humphreys strikes me as an ill-informed dilettante. Video of Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath debate at: Include either on this page or as a different but similarly designed page a collection of Lectures, Discussions, Interviews, etc.

Part 1 — http: Are They Compatible Audio Only… and shitty audio at that http: But here it is in 2 parts — from http: Thanks, Jim, though the link still works for me.

We are talking about this one, right? 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.

There is a debate which should be available in audio or video between Dan Barker and Adam Deen which took place in November, Hopefully it makes this list.

Anybody have any idea why this is? I get most of my debate resources from here. The only other obscure debate I can think of is one between David Berlinski, Richard Dawkins and others.

I understand that you frequent this site at times and am compelled, after listening to your debate this evening with Tim, to make a quick remark.

I barely made it through your introduction. Even as a rank amateur inexperienced in public speaking, it drove me quickly into lunacy.

Please take this in the manner in which it is being offered, should you even read this at all, which is meant constructively and with your public speaking skills interest at heart.

Hallq should sign up for Toastmasters! Has it always been like that? Douglas Wilson — You offer two links for transcripts, one from and one from One is a pdf and the other is a site called ChristianityToday which appears to be a blog which reproduced the content of that debate and has it broken into a 5 pages.

From what I can tell, this is exactly the same debate in two different links. That is most excellent. Ah, I see that the debate. However, I decided to take those off my list as they were the lowest quality on my list, anyway.

Audio can be purchased at: Also available for purchase: Transcript in MS Word at: Where are you coming up with all these transcripts, friend?

If I were more bold, I suggest that you add a column with the title of each, but that seems like too much work. Denis Lamoureux an evolutionary creationist.

Not much of a debate, more of a tame PBS panel discussion. Or did I miss one? As entirely disappointing as it is to say this, I am in complete agreement with Matt.

I am unwilling, after listening to this, to cast my name in the vote for Loftus to debate Mr. Like I said; Naive. He opens up with one; essentially telling everyone that Dinesh is just brainwashed.

You should have complete lucidity at this point in the game. Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e.

He is an arrogant, unsophisticated, misleading to the point of purposefully deceiving bucket of fuck. He is good at appearing to have a legit reply to atheistic arguments which are so transparently fraught with specious reasoning and argumentative fallacies that they render him ineligible to be charming.

He has done the math. Given the laws of nature. You can hear this enlightening account of our origins at the Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Loftus then spends more then his first minute of his five minute closing telling everyone that the real way to learn is from the books. You can certainly learn more from a page dissection of theism then what collectively amounts to 35 or 40 minutes worth of lectures, but to use that time so inefficiently is irritating.

Or constructing one of your own against Christianity? Have you read any other religions? Then you should just discard yours too. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Notes for future thoughts and arguments poured out of me while reading that book and I recommend and cite it in my own writing quite often.

So maybe my resentment is as a result of placing so much FAITH in Mr Loftus as an author that I unfairly expected too much of him as a neophyte debater.

You know the crowd of people at your back are of an intellectual breed and as such, we demand the highest caliber arguments be offered in our defense.

As well as to focus your arguments and speak with more clarity and precision. Look at your former mentor. He has a calm, very collected vibe and hardly repeats the same thing in a single debate whereas, a lot of what you said, you said in almost the same wording in multiple places i.

Paul Nelson Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? David DeWolf Creationism v. Will Religion or Science Prevail? William Dembski Darwin Under the Microscope: MP3 of webcast debate with James Corbett v.

I suspect that a video of the debate may be added at: I absolutely agree about Dsouza being anything—anything! I just listened to one of the Hitchens debates and it made me yearn for the good old days before Hitchens became a warmongering liar.

One of the thing I find most interesting about these debates is the way politics keeps popping up in unpredictable ways. Harris for instance is an Islamophobe of the first order, as far as I can tell.

I think Hedges is right to call the New Atheists reductionist fundamentalists of a kind; and so on. Metaphysics makes strange bedfellows, I guess….

Becoming the Rocky Balboa of anti-apologetics is just not worth that much energy. I look forward to reading his book some time, though.

On the plus side, the host generally does an admirable job selecting the debaters and facilitating the debates. The above feed also includes edited versions of Williams' "Unbelievable?

Video of the recent of debate with James Corbett v. I do try to put all the Unbelievable debates on there as they come with some delay, of course , and remember that many of these episodes either do not feature a debate, or else the debate is between two religious people.

Updates for Ayala vs. Who, in the opinion of those reading this, am I missing? Or, conversely, who should not be listed as a moderately skilled debater?

I was rather disappointed with the performance of Jim Corbitt in his debate with Sean McDowell especially because I thought he did quite well in his performance with Phil Fernandes.

Who, incidentally, has a voice that makes you want to bake your head in an oven just to melt your ears off and never hear anything again. Jim was clearly not engaged in the conversation.

He surrendered his time twice, he refused to rebut the answers McDowell gave to some questions, he used up far less of his speaking time than he had during his opening and first rebuttal speeches and ironically, used the first half of his cross examination period to argue his own point rather than drill McDowell on anything.

I think McDowell did incredibly well in that debate and would like to find more of his material. Which brings me to my last debate-related thought.

Argue about whether evolution can provide a feasible morality, sure. Argue about whether or not we can extract a moral life from the Bible, absolutely.

But not whether or not objective morality exists. Do objective moral values exist? Choose another topic, boys. Craig explaining why the God hypothesis offers no predictions and is therefore untestable, from his second debate with Dacey: That is his crafty ability to hermetically seal himself inside a Jesus bubble where he remains impervious to the criticisms of honest, consistent, impartial observation e.

Dacey in this case. He has an almost reptilian capacity for evading the firm grasp of reason. His atheist opponents helplessly bare witness while he slithers between their fingers with smugly delivered quotes like the one in mention.

What are we going to just conclude there is no God because he has in no way matched up with what a just, caring, involved God should be?

We need combatants who are more deftly prepared to expose the man being the curtain. On a semi-related note; The paragraph below was authored by a frequent commenter on this site.

Anyway, I think it is a brilliant summary of what it is like to deal with that slippery nature of the theists reply to biblical literalism.

Otherwise, Christianity might appear to objective observers like a jumbled mass of absurdities kept aloft by a tangled network of ad hoc rationalizations.

Good show wow are you ever getting your point across. I am really happy to have found this site and was excited about this list of debates in particular, but since most of the comments here are critiquing performance rather than content, and since most of the commenters seem to be athiests who acknowledge that at least some of the theists usually win their debates and yet the listeners remain confidently atheist, I have to ask is there any reason other than entertainment to spend time on with these debates?

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

I have a suggestion for your consideration. I think it would be awesome if you could create an RSS feed for new audio debates you post.

I generally try to download all of the video debates from youtube and google video but several of the new ones are from CSPAN or other sources.

Does anyone know how to download those as well? I appreciate any help. The problem I see with the atheists who have debated Craig is that they tend to have at most one area of expertise: Craig is not a polymath, but he is expert in the portions of each of these disciplines that pertain to the existence of God and defense of the resurrection.

Ehrman beat him by restricting the debate to his own particular forte: Haha Sherman already got smashed in the debate with that biblical historian I forgot his name.

These will keep me busy for quite awhile. It would be awesome if some kind of rating system was implemented. Thank you so much for putting this together.

However, I would really like it if there was a section of the site dedicated to debates where atheists win, I mean actually win. I know these may not exist in the case of William Lane Craig, but there must be some otherwise.

Is there any way you could mark them or compile a list of debates where we win? Also, are there any debates with women or minorities?

This is also disheartening. The atheists usually win the debates about creationism or intelligent design. Perhaps others can chime in. As for women and minorities… yeah, slim pickings, there.

I was interested to see how a woman would debate and listened to Louise Antony just yesterday and thought she was very good against WLC.

She was really good. But those are pretty painful because they are evangelicals and have a crowd cheering every stupid argument. The dumber the argument, the louder they cheer.

Shelly Kagan also gave WLC a real run for his money. Lots of people thought he had a better argument than WLC. Another minority is Hector Avalos.

As an added note, I see Luke rated Antony as ugly in his scoring of her debate. But I thought she made a nice argument for atheistic morals.

You can judge for yourself who had the better argument if not the better debating skills. Thanks so much RA! I will definitely look at those.

I just want to see something that goes as well for us as the intelligence squared debate on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world…not that that was really a fair match, but one place where I think Hitchens actually does a good job.

I just got back from the event. I got to meet Dr. He is a pretty nice guy. He signed my book and posed for a picture. He even offered to stand up for the picture.

He touched on Job, and some other Biblical stories. I thought this debate was going to be rough for the atheist side.

Ehrman finally got around to his point. He highlighted some of the inconsistencies in the Bible w.

On one point, the Bible promotes that suffering is caused by God and that it has a purpose. God intervenes in the OT, but why not today?

There is no clear answer to suffering in the Bible because it was written by many different authors with different POVs. Brown made the usual theistic arguments: Brown for the opening section.

He got to the point and kept it there, Dr. Ehrman took his time and rubbed us the wrong way from the start; that is to say, it took awhile for me to NOT see a whining atheist.

Ehrman did say one thing in closing that made the atheist crowd w00t. Brown that as an agnostic, he cherishes this life more than he ever had during his Christian years because this is the only life he has got.

Ehrman cleaned up during the cross examination and the question session. Ehrman pressed him on the contradictions of suffering in the Bible.

Ehrman asked him about the doctrine of hell, in particular, does he believe it is a place of brimstone and that one should be punished eternally for a finite crime.

Brown essentially appealed to our emotions and consequences. Ehrman, what would you say to a man that insert horrible experience here.

Ehrman shook his head and the session ended. The most interesting exchange was an oldie by Christopher Hitchens.

When I first heard it, I made a long list of sacrifices a Christian could make and…. At this point the atheist crowd laughs and claps really hard, louder than any other time during the debate.

The closings were decent. It was good better than the opening. Brown continued to press the emotional keys.

He drove it home by quoting Dr. He read something to the tune of: Ehrman] have no one to thank for my success. I have a concept of good and evil as do many others.

Mine, in a short summarized version is based on the intent of harm and helpfulness to society. Even with God as the solution, the evidence shows that our moral facilities do not improve.

He gave examples of the history of the Western world. Many Christians overlook the other moral stories, including Dr. What about stoning your misbehaving children etc.

Apparently they have been debating together at other schools. Notice they were at University of Florida:. You might want to include the Dawkins vs Poole written exchange from on the list.

It is interesting because Poole brings up the point that the God Dawkins had been arguing against in The Blind Watchmaker, for example is placed within a naturalistic framework, as coming into being, and therefore irrelevant to most theists.

What happened to all the updates you added a few days before the crash? Are they making a reappearance soon?

I read a review that narrowly awarded the debate to Price. This was a Catholic website that had apparently not heard of the Bible Geek. But its like no one recorded it.

Very, very few of these debates are recorded, let alone released to the web. I still say Ehrman destroyed WLC. And as far as the Brown and Evans debates… forget about it.

These arguments about logical absolutes are so badly convoluted…. I also think Ehrman soundly defeated Craig.

However as someone who has a decent grasp of that field, albeit not professionally, I still find Ehrman put Craig on the spot a number of times.

I just listened to the Barker-Wilson debate and I absolutely loved it, it was really action packed and fun to listen to. Man, doug wilson is so witty he had me laughing most of the way through the debate!!

Obviously, though, easier said than done. What did you guys think of that debate? Also what do you think of the Stein-Bahsen debate? There is no way I can take it seriously.

Plus, those are some old debates. Actually I think Barker is about the best we have. IMO, he needs to take a page out of Hitchens book and add invective to his repertoire.

I mean just be brutal. Andrew Ray Gorman Quote. Wilson never even attempted to demonstrate that logic, truth, morality etc can only be properly grounded on God.

He was arguing by assertion. Furthermore, Barker did attempt to make an argument for why the laws of logic and moral truths cannot be grounded in God.

Still, while some of those crosses got kind of silly, I thought Barker did a decent job here. This is great thank you for an amazing site.

Does anyone know how to be informed or to attend a debate? Religion is a product of language and cannot exist without language.

Language is an invention and, therefore, artificial, unnatural and unreal. Everything created by or through the use of language must.

Language speech cannot produce anything real, substantial, organic or natural. According to the ancient Sherpa-Tibetian female folklore the human female developed language hundreds of millions of years ago but never created such things as gods, devils, angels or miracles because such things were false and the women would not allow anyone in their tribe to lie.

When the human male finally learned to talk the women found that males have a propensity to lie so they were banished from the camp whenever they were caught lying.

Notice that whereas the human females are not liars the human male has no compunction about lying. Thus it was the human male who created religion and he created religion for the same reason he creates all of his other crimes: The human male was never needed by, or important to, any other living thing on this planet beginning with the human female and their children.

And the human male could not think of any way they could make themselves important except by creating gods, with such gods saying what the human male wanted them to say: That is the gist of all religious messages: In fact, it once was so cold on this planet that only the female molecules could survive, the male molecules could not.

This is the first of a multi-part debate between an atheist named Jonny Lomond and a christian named Adam Dorsey. Time can only began to exist if there is state of affiars in actual world in which is no time.

Time must come to existence either caused or cannot came into existence. Time is existing, and cannot came uncaused.

State in which is no time cannot be state of inexistence of cause. Only cause capable of creating the time is God.

Timeless state in actual world must be a state of existence of God. Time can only began to exist if there is state of affairs involving existence of God in actual world.

I LOVE that you keep this active. I sincerely hope you find a way to make the table sort-able. Perhaps you can host the list on some other site which does allow it.

I just think this is an invaluable and timeless page to have, and I would love to see it remain updated. Luke, how about using Google Docs for now?

Another debate to add: Warn me Please Quote. Hey mate, appreciate all your work have used your site multiple times for reference. Just wondering if you have this debate with Christopher Hitchens and I believe Kent Hovind is the other man:.

Hey Muto, thanks for that it is Turek. Thanks again for your work lukeprog. Audio is bad but it I think it contains one of the most effective refutations of the trancedental argument I have heard so far.

If you are, would I be safe in assuming your husband believes the same thing? I may need to pose a question at his next debate…. Marilyn Sewell is a Unitarian Universalist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, and espouses older theology of the non-existence of God Eriugena, Tillich, etc.

He debates as bad as Phil Fernandes sounds. Paul Manata, one of his audio opponents was a pretty decent antagonist. He always presents his points powerfully and well.

I have a grudging admiration for him. I almost felt embarrassed for WLC. Held 7th of September Keep an eye on this, Luke: I tried 3 times.

Second debate is fine. It worked just fine when I downloaded it just now and extracted it. Maybe try once more? Sometimes if the internet hiccups during download, the resulting file will be broken.

No physicist grows up inculcated that the Copenhagen Model is the best and subsequently offers the most intellectually rewarding experience.

Therefore, they are free to endorse whatever view they feel most accurately represents reality divested of any preceding psychological or childhood-related baggage or bias.

When Craig delineates on New Testament scholarship and claims that the majority are believers, I doubt that very many are say, 30 year old Indian men who moved here for the university experience.

Am I being unfair in this assumption? I suppose another point is that scholars in the sciences have nothing really to gain from the views they endorse.

DSW and Dawkins disputing over group selection is not like Bishop Spong and Craig disputing the literalism of scripture with regard to the resurrection.

If it was demonstrated beyond dispute that he was incorrect, he would probably acknowledge his error and move on.

Conversely, how would Craig respond to the discovery of Christs body? His world would be shattered. Therefore, in my opinion, his objectivity is far from in tact when approaching these matters.

Jake, I think one can draw simularities between them: They will behave like new testament scholars. However there is an important difference: Biblical scholars start studying the bible because they are allready religious.

Hence they study under the assumption that the text is true. Physicist on the other hand start their study of quantum mechanics pretty much open minded regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.

At least, not as well as I could have. Luke, thanks for a comprehensive list of debates on the god subject. I think this site must be a wonderful resource for debate fans.

I wonder if you, or any viewer knows of a similar site about moving the argument forward as opposed to formal debating.

I remember a conversation between Bertrand Russell and a minister that did spiral in on the topic by mutual agreement.

I suppose that a website today could allow all sides of the question to be fully argued to see where it leads as one argument after another is laid to rest.

I think the Christians inclusion of the Ontological Argument in their argumentative canon shows, if nothing else, the unwillingness or inability to let dead arguments lay to rest.

It takes brilliance no doubt, but of a casuistic borderline disingenuous nature. As a sport it seems worthwhile and for some of these guys it pays well, but the argument is not advanced.

I applaud Dawkins for refusing to share a stage with these gifted windbags. Why are there no good secular humanist debaters?

I just listened to Hamza and Philip Nathan and it was the worst possible arguments from a secular humanist. If you listen to Hamza he is nothing but WLC with an islamic garb, only much less impressive.

Is it just that sitting here and watching this debates that you are able to see the fallacies in theistic arguments?

Or it is that these secular humanist debaters are seriously bad? Lukeprog, do you think that there are decent debaters who can point at the fallacious arguments of these theists?

Audio quality is not that well however. I just listened to the debate between Ahmed and Peoples and was a really interesting debate.

Yesterday I also listened to the Price debate on slavery, where he came across as very sensible, rational and persuasive indeed.

Really sorry to be cramping the comments section!! Here is the debate for Robert Price on slavery in the Bible: And here is the debate for Arif Ahmed the guy who debated Habermas and Craig on the moral argument: I come about a mission from the Lord: Everyone needs to listen to one of the new debates, Jeremy Beahan Vs.

Congrats, to you, sir.

View Comments

0 thoughts on “Book of ra vs book of dead

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

Published by
6 years ago