"I will be praying that God's truth will be a bright and shining light to open the eyes of the unbeliever."
Kathy

"Dawkins is going to rule!"
gil

"God bless both of you. Hopefully God will shine throughout this debate. But may both of you be blessed in your own endeavors."
Kent

"Amen to that. Its always dangerous when a debate like this happens, but I hope that God will show Himself through this debate. "
Jared

"...and I hope that the deluded will see the Light of Reason rather than the Blinkers of Faith."
Russell

"I will be hoping that the truth will a bright and shining light to open the eyes of the believer. "
Addison

"I hope that people have an open mind, and base their decision on logic, reason, and evidence. That pretty much rules out God, but we'll see! "
Kris

"Our church www.LivingVineChurch.org are tuned in, listening, and praying God will be glorified through this debate tonight! Thank you for making this available! Living Vine Church Pineville, NC"
pastor bruce abercrombie

"Sam Harris has recently stated "...rather than declare ourselves "atheists" in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general." The key then is to, "advocate reason and intellectual honesty". Let's hope we hear reason and intellectual honesty tonight. Thank you "
Ted S

"For Richard Dawkins....If I believe in God and I am wrong, what harm is done? What is the consequence? If you do not believe in God and YOU are wrong, what harm is done? What is the consequence? "
Kimberly Williams

"Just as we cannot absolutely, positively, 100% *prove* that God exists, we also cannot absolutely, positively, 100% *prove* that God does NOT exist. The same faith that we as Christians have, being an atheist is the same kind of faith."
Chris

"Dawkins' comments on his book's thesis seem to be full of empty rhetoric. He brings up so many dilemmas that "religion forces upon us", but only ends up displaying that they are false dilemmas and false dichotomies. If religion is right, that God created, then religion is telling us to understand how things happened. He's just not being clear on the real issues so far. It's just a bunch of assertions based on his atheistic presuppositions."
Glenn

"Anyone with good sense can see that someone obviously created the trees, flowers, mountains,etc. To chalk it all up to science is just pure ignorance. Mr. Dawkins needs an experience with the God of Abraham, Iaasac, and Jacob and that is going to be my prayer for him. If he does have an encounter with God, then maybe he will pull all of his energy into getting the gospel out instead of leading others to an eternity in hell. "
Shayla

"Although I do not agree with his arguments, Dawkins sure has a charisma about him; well spoken and articulate. I can only pray that he sees that God gave him that! The antichrist is said to be articulate and very charismatic as well."
Kent

"Where is the real proof for evolution? The evidence that complex life has roots in simple life can as easily be explained by a creator using a common template and/or design and materials. Did a typewriter evolve by itself into a computer or were both created by a common creator? Scientists may be jumping to a conclusion they want to see that fits the evidence. That alone does not make it true."
Douglas Brown

"As my husband and I were coming home from TN recently we remarked to one another the beautiful design of the highway,the landscaping etc, and we made the same conclusion, it didnt happen 'by accident', that someone had to design it,complete it, and make it as safe as possible for those who use it everyday. I especially like that analogy of the above statement. I love to watch sunrises and sunsets, and I love the Eternal,Everlasting Divine Designer of both!..........the program is very interesting,but one of them has blinders on, you can draw your own conclusion."
Sandusky resident

"Back in 1985 I attended a similar debate & sat solid with the evolutionary side - Thank God for his grace. Wisdom can come to those who hear his call and respond - as a scientist we insist we can explain it all - try it honestly and it is easy to understand there is God. All things happen for the greater good"
Terri

"This format is frustrating. Why read quotes from Dawkins Book and then have him say basically "yeah I wrote that" and then have the Dr. argue that topic. Then Move On??? This is an interesting topic I would have no problem with them staying on a topic and not moving on."
Ryan Hogan

"I was listening to the debate and about 30 minutes into it, I lost the programming...nothing. I live in Boynton Beach, Florida. I've heard enough, however, to realize that Richard Dawkins in in way over his head and woefully outmatched by his counterpart. I was also astounded by the impressive amount of faith exhibited by Mr. Dawkins. He is truely one of the great enigmas of our times."
Dr. Harold Lucas

"Dawkins says that there is no logical path via which atheism leads to killing, etc. Perhaps he should speak with Peter Singer."
Ambrose

"Yeah, it wasn't planned out very well. I want to hear them respond more to each others statements."
Keven

"There does need to be time for "DEBATE". There really isn't any debate. I would love to have these guys back to focus on each thesis and actually debate them."
Kent

"By making points on Religion, Dawkings conitues to elude the main subject of this debate. I want to hear his main thoughts about what he belives this debate is about. It is not about religion. Lets hear about why God is a delusion? Give me some facts, If I need facts to prove God, then give me facts to disprove him. I dont wan't to hear points about various religions."
Richard Case

"Aethists believe that man is no more than an evolved being and therefore has no inherent value. That makes it much easier to kill another person. Whereas a person who believes that man is created in the image of his Creator and has a higher purpose than what is within himself, will see all men as being created and of great value. All societies have condemned the killing of another person. "
John Butler

"Well I do feel the need to quickly point out a few fallacies. The designer argument, Pascal's wager, Atheism is a belief are all finding there place within the comments. I truely hope that is not a basis for your religious beliefs. They all were 100% refuted long before we were born."
Ryan Hogan

"It is my understanding that Richard Dawkins has written The God Delusion, amongst many other provocative titles. Being confident with his writings, he has accepted the invitation to defend them in this type of forum."
Gerian Sloetjes

"Dawkins makes assumptions and presents arguments based on his own assumptions. After listening to The God Delusion Debate I find it obvious Richard Dawkins does not understand true Christianity."
Tammy Turner

"Thank you Dr. Lennox, your witness has been rational and uplifting. Your arguments exposed atheism for what it is."
Michael Pretorius

"dawkins clearly won."
gil

"why would supposed moral intellectual want to include in his closing remarks "...any fool would want to believe there is a gardener...""
Dorin

"I really appreciated how gracious John Lennox was. Dawkins used some pretty insulting terms but Lennox remained a gentleman. I was so frustrated by Dawkins lumping together Muslims and Christians!"
Mary Nicosia

"Dawkins got owned. He got completely ripped on the morality issue and historical issues. He also got ripped on the celestial teapot stuff, which is a category mistake. Dawkins can't deal with God as He is explicitly revealed in Scripture. He has to create his own "created" idol."
Jason Bradfield

"Though my position is Christian, I felt like Professor Dawkins was short-changed by the overall structure of Dawkins first. And when Judge Pryer asked Lennox to stop he didn't and was allowed to continue. When Prof Dawkins was asked to stop, he did, to his own loss. I was impressed with both men."
Dr. Don McDonald

"Archive it! Please!!!!"
Ohio Man

"Mr. Dawkins sarcasam comes out when he can't defend his views. Atheistism is not something honorable or righteous. He means well but drives his argument into dead ends."
Virgil Ramirez

"Dawkins said that evolution was couter-intuitive until Darwin. Once Darwin, it then becomes common sense? That is counter-intuitive for one would believe that Darwin was deluded for ONLY him to come up with such a view."
Bill

"This was the most stimulating debate I've ever been exposed to. I learned a lot tonight, and I'm glad I skipped going to the gym to listen to it. "
Tom Rhodes

"I'm listening to moody right now, How awesome the debate was tonight, i saw God shining through the whole debate, you can never disprove such an amazing God."
Chris

"Just because Dawkins says "we don't know" doesn't mean we have to immediately turn to the conclusion, "well then God musta dunnit". "
Mark

"For Dr. Lennox to speak with such conviction is certaintly a gift. A gift given, not by the random reaction between bacteria-like particles, but from an all powerful God who inspires those willing to further his glorious kingdom. "
Owen

"Dawkins conceded much more in the debate than I expected. 1. That God cannot be disproved. 2. He had no explanation for morality. 3. That we don't know the origins of the universe. 4. That the staggeringly evident hypothesis would be creation. We have to transcend that more obvious view. The only thing Dawkins seemed sure of is that whatever the case, God can't be the cause of anything. It is a clear case of an "a priori" commitment to a philosophical commitment. Both men are great intellects. I thought that Lennox built up a premise, and Dawkins just tried to tear down."
Israel Wayne

"The funny thing about this is a simple fact: It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does, God created all things and by him they exist."
Jeff

" Great debate, both sides represented their positions with great skill. As for me, this was a great inspiration, and an encouragement to me as a Christian.---Jim S. "
Jim Sprague

"How can something (universe) come from nothing (presuming matter has not always existed)? "
platonic

"I am not intelligent enough to make any significant or wise comment, but God has done well in making Dr. John Lennox. I truly hope that I will be able to understand his books."
Geoff Hiner

"Isn't it interesting that Darwin's "lust for sex" has been so successful but the "lust to be good" such a failure."
Sandra McKay

"Dr. Lennox clearly was used by God to strengthen the Christian faith. Mr. Dawkins backpeddled, especially on his "Dancing to DNA' comments in his literature. There is no good or evil, Mr, Dawkins, claims, but there he was arguing for ethics, and other "Value" subjects. Mr. Dawkins believes in randomness, but believes his view is "organized." How does he know? I thought there was no pattern, order?"
alfredo

"I wanted more correction to Dawkins about what Jesus taught. Dr. Lennox touched on it some...Dawkins need more education in this before he attempts to dismiss it. I pray for him and all of us. Jesus is the way."
Jonathan Parker

"Thanks - give us more. I could not get away from the WCRF dial once the debate started."
Ron Green

"It's a saddens God's heart to see someone He has created to reject him so deeply. We need to just keep him in prayer. "
Kevin Barnes

"I want to say "thank you" to the organizations and the professors who presented this debate. I personally, did not hear anything from Professor Dawkins to make me want to believe that there is no god. I am so thankful to have a personal Savior and God Who loves me. I pray that God will reach out in His mercy and open Dr. Dawkins' eyes and save him."
Shirley Hackbart

"I find it interesting that Dawkins continues to argue that there is a logical move from religion to violence, but not a similar logical move from atheism to violence. I would consider the following quite logical given Dawkins's views: (1) Religion is a tremendous threat to the world. (2) Tremendous threats must be confronted. (3) Mere arguments against religion will not remove the threat. (4) A world campaign of violence against religion could (with a great amount of effort) remove the threat. (5) Therefore, as soon as there are enough atheists to confront religion by force, we should eliminate all religion. In other words, atheists used to confront theists with careful arguments. Now atheists are trying a new approach--namely, mocking theists and declaring that theism is bad for the world. What if this new approach fails? Why not move on to the next step? Why not move to actual physical force? As far as I can tell, nothing in the atheist's worldview would prevent such a move. Indeed, since there is no ultimate right and wrong, we can, at best, work towards whatever we feel will be best for the world. And Dawkins reminds his followers to imagine a world with no religion."
David Wood

"My faith was strengthened all the more that God IS real. It's good to know how atheists think but I feel sorry for them because the evidences are everywhere but they suppress the TRUTH."
Cathy Bernales

"It all comes down to the resurrection. Do you believe it? If you don't you are kept out of eternity and the realm of His Kingdom. Choose atheism if you want, you are free to make an error."
Jim Scott

"I immensly enjoyed this event. These two scholars created an exciting debate in which both sides were fairly represented and all issues covered. As a junior in high school, I am often questioned about my Christian beliefs by multiple people who don't believe the same things I do, and the arguements presented by Dr. Lennox were like a breath of fresh air. I would like to thank the Good News Network for many years of service to Christ and the public, and for putting this debate on the radio. God Bless You and please continue the good work."
Timothy Anthony Jr.

""That the staggeringly evident hypothesis would be creation." No, hypothesis are TESTABLE. "
Rich

"You can't distinguish between good and evil without a god? Are atheists all immoral? Believers can't even demonstrate that people who follow a god are more moral than atheists. Where is the evidence?"
Glenn

"Interesting little dig Dawkins made about Physics being simple compared to Biology. I wonder if he thinks he has a scientific superiority to mathematician Lennox."
Mary Nicosia

"At first, when God made claims to man, we had to take Him at His word, but then He went on to prove Himself."
Paul

"Sirs, I was raised in a christian home, I rebelled, I lived angry for long years, and in the mist of all the anger and fearlessness in the face of the God I did not see, He met me face to face and gave me a choice, serve Him or live without Him. I felt, heard and feared His voice. I felt what it was like for the first time in my life how it would feel to be without what I didn't know I already had....I choose Him, and for the first time in my life I seen not only the garden, but the Gardner. I seen color for the first time in my life, praise God! I can now walk in the garden, work in the garden and smell the garden of God's heart. Supernatural? Well I would surely say so! I prayed for Richard tonight. Thank you for Sir John, Both of them...lol, Rhonda Taylor"
Rhonda

"Great discussion. I think a format where John and Richard could engage (more) directly would have been even better. I think Richard and John represented their respective worldviews clearly and persuasivly. Brilliant men. "
Tom Moher

"A prophet once called Birmingham the "jewel of the south". Thanks for the sparkles."
james hall

"I must admit my bias before I say who I think one, I am very familiar with the atheistic arguments. I truly felt that Dawkins won, and for simply one reason Dr. lennox posed no argument that has not been refuted long before the debate. Although I will give the Dr. a point on the good samaritan argument, which was strong. Unfortunately he glossed over it and did not hammer or force Dr. Dawkins to answer. "
Ryan Hogan

"Great points from both; one of the best debates on the subject out there."
ASQ

"I'm surprised that your announcers found it so amazing that Dawkins "admitted" that Darwinism doesn't account for the origin of the universe. Darwinian evolution is a theory of the origin of biological diversity. It does not address the origin of life, the origin of the earth, or the origin of the universe. Those are the concerns of other disciplines -- chemistry and physics, among others."
RBH

"It's too bad they could not reply to one another, it was hard to see their differing views developed. This seems to have ended up favoring Lenox, and Dawkins conclusion was dissapointingly brief. I am a Christian seminary student currently taking apologetics."
Christopher Hill

"Interesting that Dawkins in his conclusion called Darwinism first counterintuitive and then said it made the most logical sense. Which is it, I wonder? I'd have to agree it is counterintutive - it makes no sense to me! And it has not been proven. Darwin himself stated that it would have to be supported by evidence that has not been produced to date. He departed from his so-called scientific position by referring to the theory of evolution as if it were fact. Finally, I was not of the opinion that Dawkins was especially friendly - he did a lot of name-calling and put downs. I, too, would love to hear more from both men. I enjoyed it very much."
Anne Velez

"Dawkins stated that there was no path from atheism to tyrrany. If life has no divine origin, nor divine accountability, then the way we ultimately treat each other has to have pragmatic causes. This leads to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.. They weren't really wrong. Dawkins postulates that "real morality" is just a matter of societal opinion. Right then, is motivated by external forces. Thank God that people can be motivated by internal forces - belief in the absolute morals we are accountable to."
dan

"I found it very interesting that Prof. Dawkins never answered the the well posed point of the origin of the universe. There must be an answer by the evolutionary world-view on wether MATTER is INFINITE or wether it is FINITE. This quandry is seamingly the topic that they don't want to touch, and for good reason. Either side poses huge negitive ramifications for darwinism."
Beau Hendrick

"Things got most interesting when they got to debating back and forth rather than following the format that had been set up."
Seth

"Mr. Dawkins falsely imported values from Christianity to support the supposed morality of atheistic naturalism. "
Mike Bailey

"WOW! That's all I can say. I have been writing an essay at Indiana University on intelligent design in the classroom, this has helped so much! Please set up more debates like this."
Will

"Very interesting to read the comments. Some think Dawkins clearly won and some think Lennox clearly won. The only thing that seems to be clear is that the "facts" don't speak for themselves. Everyone has presuppositions which filter and interpret the data presented to them. It is naive to think that we can just have an open mind and turn to pure reason and logic. "
JB

"it's always interesting that people listening the same debate and both sides think they've CLEARLY won. the power of belief..."
moonsung

"I thought Lennox came through very strong, and loved how he brought Scripture into the debate, finally leading Dawkins to admit that the veracity of Christianity comes down to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If anyone would like a recap of the debate, I've liveblogged it at GlobeLens.com"
Daniel Devine

"He just spoke it all, and us, into being! Wouldn't want to just ever cease to exist. Thanks to Jesus, it's all by Him and for Him!"
Steve O.

"I appreciated the opportunity of hearing your very professional, cordial discussion of your philosophical beliefs. I apreciated how Dr. Lennox was able to confront Richard Dawkins with the fact that he is holding on to a belief vs any other thing he could not name. I pray he will consider his own poor quality of investigation and analysis in his own theories. Faith requires actions & consequences. If one says they care about another and only injure the other, we conclude by our observations of their actions that the first is a liar. The consequence of course is we don't believe them. If they do demonstrate only care by helping, feeding, assisting, healing, etc., we believe they are telling the truth. Our belief is bassed on the consequence of actions. You see, it is BELIEF that is needed in all we see/hear or the lack of believing. Believing is based on results not purely on believing alone. Simply: poison I believe to not be poison will still provide the same result as poison I believed to be poison. Thank you again and again."
Phil Lambert

"It was amusing to hear Dawkins try to explain how his view didn't take faith...How can you say you don't have faith when you're riding on mutations over millions of years to provide an explain our existence. Mutations usually result in deformities and un-livable results, not a higher form of life. I still choose Creation. "
Lance Shreffler

"I've recently read two books by Lee Stroble where he interviewed several authorities on the basis for belief in Christ. I was very interested in Dr. Licona's explanations for the resurrection of Christ. He proved, in my opinion, that the resurrection did happen based on historical evidence and the actions of the Apostles. Richard Dawkins should read these books."
Glenn Henderson

"I find the argument that theism can lead to extremism in ways that non-theism can't, to be darned arbitrary. Inasmuch as the ostensibly most progressive century in history -- the 20th -- resulted in over 100 million illicit deaths from secular impetuses, one might as well pose that had only Jesus' teachings been in play in the minds of the architects of such secular horrors, the secular extremism might have abated. Dawkins has a blind spot, it seems to me. He sometimes speaks as if his opinions of Christianity were formed in an echo chamber where his sources only validated, and rarely challenged, his somewhat simplistic dismissals of faith. I suspect Dawkins' brief with faith is as much existential as rational. How else to explain his finding the incarnation to be a "petty" thing compared with a posited deism? One gains the impression that Dawkins is a priori embarrassed by bedtime stories of Jesus from simple folk, and derives much of his polemical energy -- if not compelling argument -- from this embarrassment. "
rasqual

"The debate showed many ideas on both sides but I felt that they just barely began to show the natural outcome of both viewpoints. What happens if the atheistic view is followed to the letter? and the Christian view is followed to the letter? The atheistic view would end like this: Through natural selection, the strongest would survive. We would all be like animals and devour each other to get to the top. There are no morals, no good or bad. Plain old "jungle law." How can anyone say this is a good thing?"
Greg Peterson

"As a Christian and a Scientist - I know I am far too critical, but it the show seemed to be a tad out of date in content. The defence on both sides seemed to be lacking something. I appreciate the attempt for both sides."
Liaison

"for in the end if you believe in Christ and He does exist You can rejioce and if you dont believe and you are wrong eternal condemnation is not appealing to me.Jhn3:16"
Adam Lewis

"One of the best parts of the evening debate for me was the comment about the historical viewpoint of the universe having a beginning. Dr. John Lennox mentioned that if the evolutionists had just used the bible as a historical reference they would have gotten it right a lot sooner. As a rebuttal, Dr. Richard Dawkins dismissed the 50/50 deduction as not being very impressive. At which point, Dr. John Lennox pointed out that at least the Bible got it right. Amen! "
Tracy Dickenson

"Lennox's arguments are on the level of a High School child. The idea that Atheists are immoral is silly. Hitler...was a Christofascist! Even if he personally didn't beleive it, his people did. They had the backing of the Catholic church..their belts had "Gott mit uns" inscribed on them. Translated it means "God with us". His inability to see what Dawkins actually meant by the faeries was very sad. I would hope that he doesn't have to debate anyone with such childish ideas about Atheism again. "
Ralt

"It is interesting to note that Christianity allows for debate. The World's religions many times do not allow their paradigms to be questioned without severe consequence. Christianity, based in truth has nothing to fear from debate and it should be welcomed. I appreciate you broadcasting this debate and would like to hear more like it."
E Hume

"I loved listening to this! Please archive this debate. "
Mary Laber

"I thank you for presenting our faith in such a way. For too long, misinformed, but well-meaning individuals have spoken for the Christian community. Tonight, once again was Faith in the LORD Jesus Christ proved to be not just a blind pursuit, but one which requires both childlike faith and intellectual prowess. As a former deist, who was raised Catholic and became searcher of religions, I thank you for putting the mental aspect of Christian faith up front tonight. I remember as I worshiped the words of Aristotle in lieu of God's Word, I appreciate the struggle of Prof. Dawkins. I will continue to pray for Christians in academic circles, to bring the message of the Gospel in terms that Academics can resist, but in terms they cannot deny. If Christ can take me and make me into a dedicated apologist, I know Prof. Dawkins can be found. Ironically, Prof. Dawkins brought the summary conclusion of everything in this world with is statement, "And there it is, it all comes down to the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Truly there is nothing else. Thank you to the champion of our faith who was as articulate in his argument as was Augustine, Aquinas and Lewis in their days. Keep up the courageous fight to bring the Gospel to all, even those deluded into believing God is not necessary."
Shannan Ross

"If atheism is so open-minded, why do they disregard scientific facts, history, and the Bible? "
Jim Mann

"Dawkins made a good point: The universe may indeed be a hideous place. It is within our powers to make it less hideous. Making the universe less hideous is something even atheists can agree is good. Even monkeys have a sense of fairness, although they have no bible, and no one has observed anything resembling religion in monkeys. "
M. LaJoie

"I appreciated the debate and thought it was very illuminating. I freely admit that my faith is so strong that I will not be moved. I know why I am hear , what I am to do while I am passing through, and where I am going. My foundation is in the solid rock of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. My prayers are that those who are confused and lost, will come to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ before it is eternfally too late."
Chris Downey

"I found it extremely frustrating to hear the commentators after the debate reinforce Professor Dawkins' right to free speech; where would this right have ever been violated? It takes an arrest or condemnation to qualify as suppression. Having to raise this point can come across as intimidating, as though the commentators, who also made a point to assert their religiosity, felt they were in a position to suppress Dawkins."
Dhat-Kwóng Chang

"Dawkins did have explanation for morality and i don't feel like hashing it all right now. Dawkins has never claimed to "know" the origins of the universe, and the fact that he doesn't know has no relevence whatsoever. I thought they both did well, but its hard to argue with "faith" and i dont think that one will ever be able to. "
Jason

" This was a very insightful debate.With all due respect to Professer Dawkins, I think that he is very mislead."
Andrew Miller

"I enjoyed the debate tonight. Both debaters presented strong arguments. It definitely was a clash of world views. Dave and Wayne did a great job in hosting the broadcast."
gregjaye

"Dr. Lennox A job well done I just don't get darwinism they say we fill in blanks with God but come on darwin was really reaching."
micheal lindsey

"This evening was a great evening for my husband and myself. Lennox & Dawkins represent an ancient art of debate. Pleasant, entertaining and MEANINGFUL. No 'major' darts were thrown but thoughtful interchange. No old fashioned, patriarchal, "drawing a line in the sand" and do not cross it, explanations. Modern thinking and movement in thought. Thank you, you have opened up my christianity even more with this experience. Thank You, Kathy Tiffin jktiffin@earthlink.net "
Kathy Tiffin

"Congratulations to both parties for a most respectful debate completely without rudeness or rancor. Sadly, perhaps only those founded with a British education can do this (i.e., witness our Congressional debates). In the end, I found the arguments by Dawkings simply compelling."
Robert Erikson

"The commenters at the end seem startled that evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Neither does the germ theory of disease. Neither does the associative property of addition. Shall we discard them as well?"
Glenn

"I would have liked to hear more from Dawkins on the trustworthiness of the convictions of man's mind as held by an evolutionist."
Kathy K.

"I heard Dr. Lennox and Prof Dawkins on the Rick and Bubba show. I agree with you: both are delightful men and, as far as I know, were treated with a great deal of respect. Prof Dawkins, however, is still living by faith, whether he knows it or not. As Rick and Bubba (rickandbubba.com) pointed out, correctly, it is quite a leap he is making that there is no God and all of this is NOT random. We can pray that God will draw him to Himself. That would be dandy! "
Linda - Decatur AL

"Ive already experienced the thought processing to 99% of the debate this evening. Pretty much what science has done is pushed the front back on what God has accomplished to just the initial creation of the universe. While the religious front consisting of "God did it" has been retracted all the way back to the same point. So pretty much once you get to where this line is drawn you cannot proceed further. Science cannot proceed before the first couple microseconds of the universe's birth and it cannot currently see outside of it,...nor will it in any of our lifetimes or are children's children. Making measurements outside of the universe would be the only way to proceed on with this debate, but can we ever be in a perspective to truly know whether God exists or not? I dont think so. Knowing that God can never realistically be disproven leaves room to believe (which I do)in existence. Whether you think there doesn't have to be a God...I guess that's up to you. As far as anyone is currently concerned that is as far as this argument will ever go and it is dead from the perspective of anyone who is alive. Sorry... "
Brett

""There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet (Act II, Sc. II). That we have evolved to think is what allows us to have ethics. "
Ken

"On a radio show today Mr.Dawkins was asked "what would it take for you to believe in God". His reply was "If he spoke to me". I think that his answer is somewhat interesting in that it would not be based on science or fact that can be proven to another human being. What a terrible thing to know there is a God but no way to prove him to others."
Tony Alldredge

"You made me miss O'Riley...I was glued to my pc. I want more. Totally awesome!"
Ray

"This debate allows the viewers to stimulate there psyche on the purpose and origin of existence.Diety of Jesus and question of the beginning of morality whether it started with knowing GOD or the rendom kindness of human brought by the coexistence of biological and environmental evidences."
William Mercado

"Tremendous debate and we need more like this. The best point of the night is faith in God is no differant than a non believers faith in random chance explaining life."
lou

"The rigid structure of the moderator's outline got in the way of a free exchange between the speakers. They seemed frustrated by it. I certainly was. Maybe next time you can get a more laid back moderator, i.e., Don Cole."
Chuck Spear

"Dawkins seems unable to understand or accept that atheism is a faith. John Lennox didn't say it in these words, but the same way you can't ultimately prove that God exists, you can't prove that He doesn't, which makes atheism a faith."
Jennifer Lee

"I'm am so happy to have heard this debate. I have little time to write much right now but I'm a Christian father of five children. My wife and I homeschool them using the Classical method which dramatically encourages skepticism as Dr. Dawkins encourages and which I encourage in my children and students. I have also taught Literature in the US public schools and Christian school and although some Christians are sadly very afraid to let their children think, we attend a creationist church where the pastor is a Biology professor at Indiana University. Both parties in this debate brought up great arguments - as for me, I was virtually an atheist growing up - my wife and I both met as pre-med students at Vanderbilt University - I loved darwinism but I just couldn't believe it when I realized that it took faith to believe as well, and my faith in God was undeniable. Too much to talk about on this forum but this debate was wonderful - so important to the world that all of us think and are challenged to defend our views."
Clint Mahoney

"Thank you for airing this debate. My 14 year old child and I listened to it together. We both enjoyed it."
K

"Prof. Dawkins commented on randon chance. If we coinsider the possibility of DNA, individual fingerprints, voices & eyes, in addition to the fact that no two snowflakes are the same, being random chance, we are deluding ourselves. One of these could be put down to random chance accident, but the probability of all of them coming into being by some collective accident is ridiculous. Common sense on this matter confirms the existance of a deistic creator. I also found it fascinating hearing Prof. Dawkins explanation for Darwnistic morality. He must live in a totally different world to me, I only have to watch the daily news to realise that Scriptures assertion that man's heart is continually evil, is a just & factual one."
Tony Hurd

"I found it interesting that Dr. Dawkins was most passionate in his rejection of the risen Christ near the end of his final comments. It goes to show that his religion "atheism" (as Dr. Lennox suggested) is no different than other world religions in their rejection of Christ. "
Rod L.

"In speaking of origins, it's interesting how little theories of personhood are discussed. How does the physical scientist begin to explain such non-physical phenomenon as self-consciousness? Where does it come from? Of what is it made? Science can describe a brain, but can molecules-to-man explain the mind? Science seeks to explain everything from a third-person perspective, but in my own experience, I find that I can only speak of that which I myself have experienced - a first-person perspective."
Kurt

"I would like to ask Dr. Lennox to consider a similar debate in Belfast, in his beloved Northern Ireland. Dr. Lennox and i have met during The European Forum in Hungary for several years and i would love to have him back in Northern Ireland for something similar. i am going to team up some Christian politicians and MPs to facilitate and together we'll be praying about it. i hope Dr. Lennox will consider my invitation. i will also discuss the posibility with Dr. Gregg Pritchard. we hope to meet again soon. Many blessings. we've been praying with the whole church last night for this debate. Praise God!"
Pastor Nick serb

"I'm am so proud of both Both Dr. Lennox and Dawkins. You both are extreme geniuses! This was a great debate and I could sense the frustration in both sides with the artificial limitations of the time constraints. I imagine that you both will become great friends after this, it would be a shame if you didn't. Can't you imagine how much fun you both would have? Having been a Christian/Atheist all my life (paradox not contradiction) I enjoyed this immensely! Thanks!"
Walter

"Ryan Hogan I just want you to know that Jesus loves you whether yuou believe in him or not. But it's up to you to make the step to love Jesus. "
Gerian

"Dawkins again shows that he can only sound convincing when he discusses with people who are out of their depth. Tonight, he sounded frustrated and limited as his strawman arguments get shot down again and again by an opponent who was able to disband the rhetoric. Well done Mr. Lennox. Next, lets hope McGrath does the same to Hitchens."
Graham

"Thank you so much for a well done discussion. This is the first time I have heard the Christian faith defended with fact and sound reasoning, rather than simply relying on the authority of the Bible as explanation for faith. Dawkins is a very intelligent man who makes some compelling arguments. It was a pleasure to hear Lennox counter with equally intelligent and compelling arguments. Finally we have an apollogetist who has read all of Dawkins works and is equally versed in the sciences. I will be purchasing the debate as well as Lennox's book. Any chance for a sequel? "
Domenc Caloia

"Iwas a biology major and graduated from Penn State University in 1962. I taught biology and then general science in public schools for several years with a theistic view of evolution which I had been taught exclusively in all my college work. I received the Lord Jesus as my Savior when I was 24 and still belived that evolution was the way God did it. My pastor and his wife took me to a Creation Research seminar in Vermont in the 70's and that is when The Lord showed me , scientifically, that I should choose between believing in Darwin or believing in the Living God and His word. I knew I had been accepting mrioux

"Dawkins and Lennox, being highly educated, tended to gloss over much of the basics, and also tended to put simple principles in very complex language. I hope that the theists and uninitiated atheists listening to this program were able to take the fundamental meaning of what Dawkins had to say. I hope that you read his books and that of Dennings, Hitchens, Harris, Spinoza, Democritus, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and all the other great atheist thinkers of the past 2500 years."
ChrisMcL

"Dawkins' treatment of sex and lust as evidence of rebelling against the injustice of the processes of nature was laughable. I could not see his reasoning as any more than desiring to justify sex without boundaries. Dawkins will never see deity because he does not want to see it. "If...you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 4:29"
Carol Thompson

"I want to thank all the organizations involved for giving us an ear in this debate.(Moody, and APRoundtable to name a few) Both men are of tremendous intellect. My thoughts are that Dr. Lennox "shined the light" of truth so to speak on the bold, and subjective assertions held by Dr. Dawkins, and written in his book. The subject of morality, it's genesis and purpose, exposed the false foundations of Darwinistic thinking, and the "delusion" was made quite evident as to which perspective is actually deluded to begin with."
Mark B.

"It all comes down to faith, and that itself is a gift from God. The Holy Spirit convicted me of my need for Jesus when I was only 10 years old, too young to understand very much of tonight's debate. But my life is a living testimony to the reality of the life-changing truth of the salvation God gives, as a gift, by grace, through faith (a gift from God) through precious, precious Jesus! Debbie McCrary "
Debbie McCrary

"Atheism leads to the killing of unborn human beings ... the so-called "blobs""
adriaan

"people need to Read "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strombel he was an Atheist that looked for the truth and could not deny the overwhelming evidence of Jesus and converted to christianity. Awesome!!!! "
maritza

"Richard Dawkins espouses metaphysical naturalism which is not a scientific proposition but is a philosophical position. However, Dawkins never makes any kind of philosophical arguments for the truth of philosophical naturalism but just simply assumes it. If Dawkins believes that the way to find knowledge is solely through empirical evidence, then what kind of empirical evidence does he espouse regarding the truth of the philosophical position that he simply assumes? The answer is absolutely none. Dawkins scientific project can not even account for the ideas that his scientific project is based on. Unless Dawkins comes out and argues for why philosophical naturalism is true or why it is preferable to other alternatives, anyone that takes issue with metaphysical naturalism as a philosophical proposition has reason to take issue with Dawkins' project. "
Jonathan Parsons

"This was an exciting exchange. Being a father of four, the part in which the two scholars spoke on kids questioning truth I fully agree with. I want my children to have the critical thinking skills, so they know why they believe in Jesus and live out their life of faith! Keep more of this coming, it was great!"
Edward Well

"Well, it definitley seems that Dr. Lennox was well read on Dawkins. It is hard to argue order of the universe when a philosophy professor keeps catching one in paradoxical statements. If one goes by the rules of Scientific theory/research then to rule out a creator is overlooking way too much evidence, which means faith in science, whoops you can't have faith in science :). "
Jody

"Dr. Lennox did an outstanding job of presenting his points and Dawkins was unable to keep up. Surely God's glory has shown through John Lennox's words tonight. It was very refreshing to listen to 2 gentlemen have a civilized debate without breaking down into emotionalism. I would have enjoyed listening to more. "
Lynn

"I have truly enjoyed the comments posted tonight. A good example of the theistic mind, I have seen some good reviews of the debate. However, it sadens me to see so many "blind", although I hate to use that word, arguments. To those faithful, what point is there to believing in facts that are demonstratably false? I assure you there are reasonas to believe, but I see so many arguments built on lies, on this board. This saddens me greatly, please do not cheer for "your side," but think. I assure you if there is a God he gave you reason, for a reason."
Ryan Hogan

"I found it tiresome that most of what Dr. Lennox could present as argument were ones that have long-since been debunked, forcing Dr. Dawkins to spend most his time correcting Lennox's misunderstandings. Arguing that atheism is a direct cause of communism or nazism or any other totalitarianism is ridiculous. This assertion is nothing more than simplistic non-sense that fails to account for specific ideologies that WERE the real reason behind the violence inherent in those systems. Dr. Lennox should be considered disqualified for choosing to argue and perpetuate such an outrageous falsehood. The same goes for his assertions about atheism being inherently amoral, as if it should have any inherent qualities at all. IT IS SIMPLY A LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY! No faith required for that, either, so Lennox loses by trying to argue that tack, too. In short, I thought this was a lost opportunity. The debate format left Dr. Dawkins completely on the defensive as he was given no chance to respond to Lennox's ridiculous non-sense without cutting into his own time. It would have been better to have the first question, allow one person to answer, then the other, with a short time allowed for the first person to respond, and switch the order every other question. That'll create more of a dialogue which is fair to both sides. "
Will Cowan

"When Professor Dawkins spoke of the innate desire to believe in a creator in the face of nature's beauty, I was reminded of Romans 1:20-23 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.""
Amy K

"Interesting in that Dawkins relates evil to "religions". Even if there were no "religions", evil would still exist. How does a young child know how to lie? Did anyone have to teach him/her? If God was created - I would not want to have faith in a God that was created. If one were to really examine the life of Jesus as chronicled in the New Testament, they would see his character - how he LOVED people and there was no evil in Him. On the other hand, the Bible does show man as he is, sinful and evil - it does not paint men/women as perfect beings. Every person has some faith in something - Dawkins has faith that there is no God - he cannot disprove it, therefore it takes faith to believe what he wants to believe. "
Nancy Jacques

"The Fixed Point web site is down. Server overload? I would love to have the video and hope you won't run out. By His Grace Anita"
Anita In Ga.

"I am puzzled by Prof. Dawkins justification for discounting the Christian faith with the statement regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ as being "so petty and local". This dodges the issue and gives that paradigm a pass from dealing with the resurrection itself. I can respect a more honest answer regarding the resurrection and even agree with a fair examination of the facts and say with the apostle Paul, if there is no resurrection then we are to be pitied above all men! But therein lies the glorious victory. He is risen. My sins were taken from me when he bore them on the cross for me! Hallelujah...what a Savior!!"
Mike Baber

"I find it hard to believe that Dr.Dawkins said that he saw no way that atheism could lead people to do something horrible because of that belief. What about abortion or physician assisted suicide? Either way I really enjoyed the debate and wish that they could have debated back and forth till they were satisfied with each question but that would take days :p"
Melanie

" "For Richard Dawkins....If I believe in God and I am wrong, what harm is done? What is the consequence? If you do not believe in God and YOU are wrong, what harm is done? What is the consequence? " Kimberly Williams Kimberly, let me ask you this: Is your view of religion really based on fear? Fear of being punished if you believe otherwise? Regardless if you're a moral, kind human being, if you don't think that you are that kind person because GOD made you into that person, then you're going to hell. You're going to burn eternally not because you are a bad person that does evil things, but because you didn't base your sense of morality from the "teachings" of God. Thats generally an atrocious statement you're making. That you are believing in god simply because if you don't, you will be punished, regardless of your actions. What if you are wrong for not believing in Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? What about the numerous Greek gods? What if all this time you've been worshiping the wrong god? Surely you cant believe in every religion at once, so what makes your god any more real than the others? The fact that you will be cast into hell for all eternity if you don't believe in the Christian god? Basically your whole argument is that a good, wonderful, brilliant, world changing, kind, and loving person will be cast into hell because he/she didn't believe in your particular god. Please tell me that this is not ridiculous."
Patrick Williams

"I was very sorry that the issuses seem to be hidden to those of us who are not familiar the literature of those speaking. I am greatly interested in the creation debate. I think a lot of people who listen missed the answers they are looking for.Wouldn't it be better to discuss one topic in more detail and not skip around so much. Thank you you're the only one who offered me a chance to ask you to try and set up a more " user friendly" discussion for us the one's trying with you to understand. would you plese give a copy of this to prof. Dawkins. I hope I spelled that right? sorry Thank you for your time!"
bob hostens

"LOGIC LEADS TO TELOS: Four things: 1. "There is no absolute truth" is in itself an absolute statement. 2. Good and Evil exist; we can think of instances at the drop of a hat. 3. Morality does not come from the ambition for gain; if it were logical in this way, people would not talk of good and evil if it did not pertain to their own benifit. 4. Alasdair MacIntyre writes in his book "After Virtue" that all logical explainations for morality in the last 400 years have failed. John Stewart Mill, Jermey Bentham, Immanuel Kant, all when pressed against the wall will say that morality is something that is not logical. Therefore, one cannot find a reason for being good without some sort of God. Waiting for st. Benedict, Peter Hans Bredemeier "
Peter Hans Bredemeier PHD

"Thank you for the debate. It was a fascinating opportunity to hear the different world views. I do believe that Mr. Dawkins was not able to adequately refute the facts of the reality of a living God. It would seem that he comes with a preponderance of the lack of a need and purpose of a transcendant God. Mr. Lennox was clear and able to speak to the 'holes' in the arguments of Mr. Dawkins. Again I greatly appreciate your service to many in our country. I can understand that there is an argument for the atheistic view, but there doesn't seem to be adequate evidence to support it. "
Gary Warrick

"I enjoyed the intelect of both. I would only hope that especally children can believe while they are chilren at least and even later in life,to calm our fears of "the boggy man, etc. My faith has calmed me many times in the face of uncertainty. People without faith in something like God, are very uncertain and can be dangerous to themselves and others. A carnal man or woman is pitiful,In my eyes because they are allways so unsure of themselves and it seems allways willing to hurt others to get what they want."
k. price

"Great Debate! - however Dawkins never addressed the subject of irreducible complexity! Natural selection can't answer this as Darwin himself stated. It is interesting to hear how many times he used the phrase, "you might be tempted to believe" he evidently has overcome his own personal temptations through denial of the TRUTH!"
Jim Sauers

"if atheism is the key to peace on earth than what dawkins said about us picking and choosing our moral beliefs only sounds confusing.the majority of people in this world agree they feel some sort of spiritual realm.the mere attempt of dawkins trying to prove god non-existant is his spirit crying out like a child would when it thinks it's been left alone by choice of thier father,only later to find out it was a "delusion". the fact that he thinks god doesnot exists only screems how much he truly wants to be proved wrong.oh let us pray for our friend dawkins.jesus christ the alpha and omega.please respond!thanks for your wonderful program. "
christy

"I grew up with a belief in evolution, as I was taught. Having a talent in math & science, I was educated in the sciences (engineering). Throughout my life, I have searched for and examined all scientific data I could digest. Based upon the my understanding of the principles of physics and mathematics, the facts lead me to intellectually conclude that God as the Creator is the only logical choice. In my spiritual life, I have seen things which cannot be explained by any physical principles; they can only be explained by the Living God of the Bible. To me, this debate seemed to major in philosophical points, and minor in scientific laws. I was hoping for more of a debate based more upon the laws of science, and how they validate the Bible."
Ed Arida

"I was enthralled with and throughly enjoyed the debate,although Dr. Dawkins is a man of great intellect to be sure, his comments just didn't measure up to the truths and claims expressed by Prof. Lennox he was brillant, and combated Dawkins assertians very well. Especially the claim that, belief is a matter of faith, to me Dr. Dawkins had no viable ground to refute this claim. It was clear to see whose side our great God was on! May our Creator continue to bless the work and ministry of Dr. Lennox, and implant the seed of faith in Dr. Dawkins if it would be his will...... TM "
Tony Miedema

"I see over and over in the comments that people find that Dawkins inability to explain the origin of the universe and morality is somehow proof of the existence of a god. No, it's evidence that there is no proof of the existence of a god. When does a lack of an explanation become the proof of the existence of something? No evidence=god?"
ChrisMcL

"Very interesting debate. It is ironic that Lennox, arguing the case for faith, religion, and God, actually used reason and logic to make his points, whereas Dawkins, arguing for reason and logic to supplant God, was much less able to make a reasoned and logical argument. It was obvious to me that Dawkins relied primarily on untested assumptions about religion, religious beliefs, and religious people then merely used what he claimed were reason and logic to negate the very assumptions that he himself conjured and imposed on religion and God. For one that claimed to be on the side of scientific evidence, very little evidence was presented by him - very unscientific. As a scientist for many years myself, I agree with Lennox that Dawkins arguments often violated what most scientists would consider good science - a fact that, as Lennox pointed out several times 'concerns me'. The truly skeptical among us would have to remain unconvinced by Dawkin's arguments."
Craig M. Zwickl, PhD

"I was surprised to hear Dawkin's paint all religious people with the same brush - what a one-sided analysis and evidence of ignorance of the history of God's influence through His people. Dawkins was greatly repulsed by Lennox's words about Jesus and his resurrection juxtaposed beside a brilliant display of scientific knowledge. Obviously for the Christian believer this is pivitol as it was to the apostle, Paul. I see no reason for this event not weighing heavily into the debate."
Bill Toews

"I felt the debate was entirely too short. Also, the structure hindered an ongoing exchange between the two men which is in essence what we all really wanted to hear. Otherwise, it is merely a restating of the ideas they include in their respective books. That being said, I did enjoy hearing Dawkins become agitated and begin to fumble over his words. I also found it so interesting that despite the fact that he was debating a Christian, he was much more likely to declare the name of Allah in an example than the name of Jesus. Could it be because there really is in fact power in that name? hmmm"
Richelle

"Philosophically and theologically I side with Dr. Lennox, and he presented his argment very well. However, the format did put Professor Dawkins at a disadvantage...as intelligent and experienced as he is, I'm shocked he agreed to it. I would like to hear more about the two scholars' definition of "faith" and hear Professor Dawkins fully explain his basis for what "good" is - accompanied by Dr. Lennox's expert commentary and the resulting debate, of course."
Kevin

"I felt Dr. Dawkins had a very distorted understanding of Christianity based soley upon experience. He has not thoroughly researched the Bible itself to know what the Bible truly states. Therefore many of his presumptions about Christianity were absolutely wrong, lumping all religions together. I will go out on a limb and challenge Dr. Dawkins that he is afraid to truly understand Christianity and the world view which proceeds from it or he might be persuaded that his current view is in error. He was incorrect when he denied Darwinian evolution was not based on change. No, natural selection may not be chance but the mutations that produce the change certainly are, according to Darwin not directed by any outside force and are therefore by chance. Thus evolution is a theory of origin that is founded on chance. Am I mistaken but the physical law of entropy is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution? "
Carroll Allen

"I wish that this type of debate could be available on national television. It definitely has more eternal value than our Presidential debates. Considering Professor Dawkins position I am convinced that, unless God grants us the faith to believe we are forever lost. As Jesus said “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” "
Carl Sealy

"I was most impressed with Dr. Lennox. He dealt with the empirical evidence pointing to the existence of God, namely the intricate order of the created universe, and the historicity of Jesus Christ. While Prof. Dawkins' verbal eloquence is admirable, I find his delivery to be more polemical than substantive. Arguing from the negative is not a persuasive defense of atheism. "
Ron

"Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the debate in total. Hearing the last 40 minutes of point and counter-point, I found myself amazed at the audience and so many clapping people - for I was profoundly saddened by Dawkins' sincere disbelief. Here is God's creation, with a mind rivaled by few, who is incapable of even knowing the thoroughness of his "lost-ness". I found myself holding my head in my hands and praying for him. If I were there, I would have been moved to tears - to witness such greatness and such lack of fulfillment in the same person. I see Dawkins as an enigma and a tragedy. Brothers and sisters, please put aside some time to pray that his unbelievable god, and our Savior, will make Himself known to Mr. Dawkins."
StevenS

"This debate was wonderful! How refreshing to hear civilized discussion instead of emotional & unsubstantiated claims & personal attacks like in political debates. I could honestly understand where Professor Dawkins was coming from and he had some very excellent points to think about. Very interesting that he was involved in the Anglican church until he went to Oxford. Thank you so much, Fixed Point Foundation, for hosting this and challenging my thinking!"
Judi Welsh

"The stage was set right with the 6 theses. The surprising outcome of this debate even though neither gave up an inch was the jump from delusion to reality. The reality of communist exterminations unsettled the pathological expectations of being delusional."
AJ, Wilmington, NC

"One of the great presuppositions that atheists and agnostics hold is that their position is the only one that is truly intellectually sound. However, Dr. Lennox’s performance tonight has had the effect of destroying that view. Even the most ardent of atheists must be laying their head down tonight with a greater sense doubt than when they awoke this morning. The alternative is a blind faith in atheism that itself is lacking in intellectual honesty. "
R. Ray

"Thank you for arranging for this debate to take place. I will be purchasing a CD for my son to listen to. He is a skeptic, which I agree is a good thing. It is my prayer that this debate will help him sort out what he believes....and I also pray that God will be glorified."
Mindy

"Darwin never explained where the “fundament of the garden” came from. It seems that Dawkins has not yet understood Darwin or Mayr. In “What Evolution is” Mayr writes on page 48: “It is not yet understood how the nucleus originated, in which the chromosomes are placed within the membrane. … The sequence of the process by which the first eukaryotes were put together and their nucleus was acquired is still controversial.” Does it really show that Darwinism is a reliable explanation for the origin of life?"
Roland Rossignol

"Dawkins made some excellent points. We do live in a cruel world. Let's quit pretending it's something it's not. Of course, we understand it's fallen nature. In my opinion, Dawkins was forced to concede ground to Lennox this evening. Both agreed with some of the others points, but Lennox spoke with much more authority. One of Dawkins flaws this evening is to lump all religions together. Christianity excludes all the others. I wish Dawkins had more time to discuss the resurrection of Christ. Lee Strobel articulates many compelling facts of why the resurrection was an event that actually happened and why the evidence is compelling and overwhelming that it actually occured as the Bible describes. I also found it amazing and offensive that Dawkins really doesnt know the Bible. Lennox flat out told him he was wrong and erroneous with some of his statements regarding the Bible. A point missed by the vast majority of those in the campus audience who don't know their Bible or have a clear understanding of the Christian faith. For those who felt Dawkins won tonight, they clearly gleaned information for their itching ears. They heard only what they wanted to hear. For any genuine fence sitters and those listening earnestly desiring to know the truth, ask God to show Himself to you in a real and profound way. A great resource is AnswersInGenesis.org If you ever get a chance to check out their museum south of Cincinnati, you will be blown away."
Mike in Medina OH

"It is most interesting that Prof Dawkins often appealed to values, justice, rightness. Indeed, he said that we can rise above evolution. Where do his notions of a preferred ethics come from? How could one rise above? I can understand how, in a utilitarian sense, one might decide to kill, to enslave, to use others for one's advantage. If ethics are artifacts of some tribal, evolutional advantage, then in what sense can one "rise above"? That we can not escape an absolute standard is an old argument for God . Is there any rebuttal that does not appeal to some absolute standard. Otherwise, is all allowed? is all the same? Maxwell's insight into electromagnetism resulted in much technology. (I did listen to the radio.) If Darwin has explained life, what is the corresponding technology? "
lester pieniazek

"I enjoyed listening to these impressive thinkers expound on there respective points of view. What is inked in my mind is the dialogue on the garden...yes, anyone with an inquisitive mind must ask "who is the gardener?" What evolutionary benefit is there for the brilliant colors there? And, yes this debate in all of its complexity and simplicity does, in the end, lead to the empty tomb. Prof. Dawkins couldn't be more right, "it all comes to this". Thank you for publicizing this debate and for presenting it. I would welcome much more of this in the near future. "
V. Coleman

"This was the most amazing one hour and 1/2 that I have ever heard on a radio broadcast. I only wish that it could have been for 8 hours and that I could have experienced it live. Thank you for standing up to the biggest falsehood ever sold to mankind! Our country has been damaged by its' doctrine (Darwinism) and you exposed it to the core. I want to get my hands on the recorded message to share with my adult children. How can I do that? Sincerely, Isa"
Isa Baca

"I was very glad to hear 2 very learned men, who knew their topics, what they wanted to say, and they could articulate their points well. They could also think as they spoke and respond well to the points being made. I thought the moderator did well also by allowing the men to debate some and still cover some new ground. Thanks to the organizers. I would like to see a debate where the moderator notes the major points and counter points to clearly show the "evidence" and argument each side is making. Some things came down to definitions. Hawkins definition of God was very different than the definitions of God defined by Muslims, Jews, or Christians. Lennox's definition of faith and evidence for believe was totally misunderstood by Dawkins (until he brought up his faith in his wife). I think then he clearly showed they were working with different definitions. I look forward to more such discussions. Dana"
Dana

"Amazingly strong Dr. Lennox. If a Atheist where a thinking person surely he/she could admit they don't know all there is to know and that God could exist in the part they have yet to know. "
VWPhillips

"I will never understand how Christians (and other theists) can consider God a satisfying explanation for anything. Yes, the universe is a wonderfully orderly place, containing the most wonderful and orderly thing of all, intelligence. So we ask ourselves how this wonderful order came to be. And the theists' "explanation" is... it came from an intelligent being. Why can't they see the pointlessness of such an "explanation"? "
Janus

"WOW!! Thank you for providing the opportunity to listen to this discussion. Truly we need to know why we believe what we believe. God is so good that He has made everything so simple that a even a child can understand. I loved it please do more!!!"
Lora

"This debate was very intriguing. Although the format could have been tweaked to allow Dawkins to respond to some of the issues brought up, the debate was very well done. I think that if Dawkins researches the topic(Chrisitanity and the Bible and not religion in general) he will come to some different conclusions"
Pratik

"Dawkins said that Jesus didn't even claim to be God; but what about when Pilot asked him if he claimed to be the Son of God? Jesus answered and said, "It is as you say." That is the exact reason Jesus was killed! I would like to hear a future debate between these two about the validity of scripture."
Jonathan

"Richard Dawkins made the statement that Darwinism does not depend on or is not chance. He sang the praises of the capability of natural selction. What was left absolutely as a dangling pariciple (and often is) was the following fact: Natural selection must, by definition, "select" from a population that already exists such that the best adapted continue to live and reproduce. What natural selection cannot do is create new varieties in the population. It is assumed that mutations occur from which to select. Positive mutations are astronomically rare and the mutant is usually ill-equipped to survive let alone reproduce. To the extent of my medical knowledge, the mutation is not carried through to the offspring in most cases but rather the gene pool brings things back to normalcy. This leaves the whole theory of evolution utterly without a mechanism with which to increase complexity. The fundamental question comes back to lacking what engineers call a "mechanism" which repeatedly creates the improvments or increases the complexity. Nothing happens by dumb luck and then continues to get better without a guiding hand of some kind of intelligence! This shouts for a creator! Not only did we have a very sophisticated creator but he cared about his creation enough to send his son so we might have a path to truly know him in eternity! It was a great debate and Dawkins opened his flank up for a broadside slam of which Dr. Lennox was kind enough to not take undue advantage. I was agast at the depravity of humanity that was demonstated by the last half of the debate on the part of Dawkins. A lust to be good??? Does he live on the same planet that we do??? I think it was a nice answer to prayer! Nice job on the part of Dave and Wayne in moderating the overall show and restraining themselves from too much editorializing. There will be time for that. Don "
Don Cochran

"I am that I am. There shall be no other before me (including my creation Mr. Darwin)."
GOD

"When one says "There is no God, just look at all the evil done by Christians". Are they saying "Just look at all the evil that Christians do ALSO, as do athiests" or "... that Christians do ONLY, while athiests don't". -- From the crusades to the inquisitions, and from Joseph Stallon to Kim Jong Il, one truth rings true and God's word is validated, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Jesus came to save the lost... that's you and me and theists and athiests. -Sin is not specific to one group! JU"
Jorge U

"Like a dunk in baptismal waters, my atheism is blossoming anew! Kudos, Richard. WE know you're not evil, even if that mean old Christian disagrees. "
George

"this is a very thought provoking debate especially at this time in our culture that have been very skeptical, it is good to be one and when confronted we need the humility to accept & not to continue in skepticism. How can we human beings with limited knowledge be able to explore the transcendent God, when our limited essence can just go so far. Reason in itself has its limitation and to apprehend the unapprehensible one we need a revelation and this revelation of God historically has records here on earth through Jesus Christ! thanks for Drs. Lennox & Dawkins for the exploration!"
Jino santos

"God helped John Lennox go for the jugular without being mean or offensive, and gave the moderator graciousness to enforce the time schedule and move the debaters from one thesis to the next. The exchanges were defining, clarifying, scintillating, revealing. The most important accomplishment was that the debater representing Christianity treated the resurrection of Jesus like the historic event it was, and acknowledged its monumental significance."
George Whitten

"Absence of full scientific explaination for morality means proof of God? Why must we jump to the conclusion of a God just because we can't 'yet' full explain something? "
Mark

" Unfortunately, Dawkins has yet to experience the change of attitude and renewal of the mind that comes with surrendering one's life to the Savior. I understand where he is because I too had similar thinking before giving my life to Christ. I wanted to give credit to everyone but God.. He began the forum stating his beliefs were based on facts, yet none proved God is a delusion. I will be praying that Dawkins is able to experience this peace and let down his walls to God before the end of his time."
april strawbridge

"If you subscribe to the idea that "God" is a Spirit-filled relationship and "god" is everything else the "counterfeiter" has created to keep man from God, and the title of the book was "The god Delusion", God Himself would agree with most everthing Mr. Dawkins wrote and said. Mr. Dawkins lumps God and god into the same single idea. He does not believe in god because he has not met God. He stated that children should be taught skeptisim, yet he, himself, is not skeptical, i.e. giving both sides of the question equal treatment. He attributes the evils done in the name of religion to God, not realizing by doing so he has fallen prey to the one who is represented in ALL forms of god. In the end he dodged the "garden" issue, implying that "nature" could produce a "garden" without an owner or gardener. The "life cycle" of nature ends ultimately in tall trees that block out the sunshine from getting to the floor of the forest, resulting in everything on the forest floor being . . . dead. A truly excellent exchange. Dr. Lennox is a delight - and Mr. Dawkins was a truly refreshing change, articulating his ideas clearly, and though somewhat condesending, civil and amusing, and really delightful in his frustration with the "structure", wanting real debate and dialog. Two tremendous representatives of each side of the coin. I'm glad I didn't miss it - and thank you so much for making it available. "
Kathy Ritenour

"I'm concern that if this debate was such good idea (I admit it was shocking and enjoyable), was the debate meant to witness or defend the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus asked us to go inform of the gospel to the world. He has also said the burden is his not ours. I wonder if we may have went beyond what was necessary by having the open live debate. Have we witness to Dr. Dawkins or drove him away from the salvation. I thank Dr. Lannox for his witnessing. "
Samuel Cho

"I think the MAIN thing that the science community as a whole (both sides) all NEED to understand is that the origin of the universe CANNOT be explained SCIENTIFICALLY!! In using the scientific method, one must be able to observe a hypothosis in a controlled enviroment and be reproduced time and again for said hypothosis to become a law. This is obviously not possible in the case of the begining of the universe. Therefore, the natural conclusion when science is limited in answering, leads to a philisophical one. The origin of the universe needs to be fought on that battle ground. If matter is infinte then the darwinists are trapped in a faith debate. If matter is finte, then darwinists are caught in an unexplainable causality debate. Yes it may sound SIMPLISTIC, but, what does the Bible say but that we tear down the arguments of men with the Word of God!! This argument is much EASIER to answer than most people think! We give them rope and they hang themselves. The majority of evolutionists ascribe to the latter argument. I find this very interesting because in Gen. 1:1, we see that "In the begining, God created the heavens and the Earth." But tranliterated, it reads, -In the begining, God created, out of nothing, the heavens and the Earth.- The word "ex-nilo" means out of NOTHING!! Now isn't it very interesting that the evolutionary world has left the "eternal matter" model, and moved to a "point of singularity" as Steve Hawking attests. A point of nothing (zero mass, zero weight) is disrupted into a BIG BANG. Come on!! All that is, is a clever way to disguise an eternal exsistance!!! And besides, what is the CAUSE of the disruption. Back to causality again. They are lost people, with lost arguments, posing lost truth. They are nothing to be afraid of. Their arguments hold no weight, or mass. In fact their arguments would well be called The Points of Singularity, with sigularity being ZERO. What they nedd is to see Jesus Christ, and Him preached, and Him LIVED OUT by every day Christians, in every day life. That is a powerful testimony. Show them the difference between us and all the Religions of man!!!!"
Beau Hendrick

"I don't even come close to the intelligence of either of these two men, but I could still recognize the insensible, gropings of Dawkin's theory, or yes, better said, faith. I was rather offended by his debasement of Jesus Christ and yet very encouraged that in summary; it was still obvious that it is GOD who reigns! Hallelujah!!"
Marcy G.

"What an amazing forum in which we got to hear two world views collide. It isn't often that we get to hear two intelligent men discuss such important issues as these. I think the entire evening centered around the statement Dr. Lennox made concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Not only his statement, but the reaction by Mr. Dawkins. As a Christian, we have no other hope than that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was the apostle Paul's foundation and it is ours still today. If Christ was not raised from the dead, then we (Christians) of all people should be pitied (1 Cor. 15). We can use the study of the cosmos, philosophy, ethics, mathmatics, etc. but the truth remains, if Christ was not raised from the dead, our intelligence in all of these areas is of no use. We heard a great example of how the story of Christ and His work is foolishness to those who are perishing. Christians who heard this debate should thank a loving, heavenly Father for His saving grace and now be energized to take this message of hope to a world who so desperately needs a Savior. "
Chad - Cleveland

"I got to listen to the last end of the debate, and what really stuck out to me is Charles Dawkin's constant usage of evolution and Darwanism to support his view. It was said that he will not debate Creationist's, or those that believe the Bible and science come together fine. He can't, because he does not want to deal with truth. This is the real root. Check out Answersingenesis.org The Bible is true, from the first verse. Evolution is a lie, and we as Christians need to argue at the root of modern atheism, which is evolution. "
Jason Fawks

"Read Dawkin's book. It's impossible to provide in depth responses to some of the issues raised by Lennox in the forum of a short, multi-issue debate. Read the book, and you'll find the answers that Dawkins did not have time for today. Read the book. And then I would say to most of the commenters, take a course in evolutionary biology. Please, please, please learn some science before you comment on science. "
Steve

"I really enjoyed the debate this evening (while driving home in the rain.) Both guest made some very good points. I liked the way Dr Lennox addressed each situation with thoughtfulness and insight. I would like to hear more discussions of Christianity on an intellectual forum like this. Christianity is the only religion that actually makes sense. All other religions fall apart when they are examined as closely as Christianity has been and continues to be."
Gerald Wellborn

"I enjoyed the debate .I always get something new from listening to those who have evidently studied aspects of the question---"IS THERE A GOD " . I would like to see more active debate on any level (regarding this subject) in the future.My personal opinion is that atheism is not a threat to religion , as some suppose. I think open minded debate just might help all of us settle the severity of the differences between atheists and religionists. Peace"
Thad Thad

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. "
No One Important

"I thought it was interesting that each time Dr. Lenox talked about God or Jesus that Prof. Dawkins would respond by referring to it by the very general term "religion". I noticed an unwillingness on Prof. Dawkins part to attribute truth to any religion, and in fact an unwillingness to differentiate between the multitude of religions. He just kept lumping them all in the "false" pot. I am confused that Prof. Dawkins rejects the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. It is my understanding that there were more eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ than there were to the march of Alexander the Great, and there is certainly no debate as to the historicity of that."
Jana Dorn

"1) Some read from Dawkins' book. 2) Dawkins says that he wrote that. 3) Lennox pitches a McGrathian fit. 4) Goto 1. Dawkins is suppose to do what in step 2? Agree with himself? Poorly structured detracted a lot from the debate."
David

"all the debate showed is that you either believe or not. as someone pointed out below, the mechanism of creation of the universe will not be unlocked anytime in the near future. so you either accept that god did it because "god always was (eternal)" like lennox said or you don't. i cannot accept the supposition that an all powerful complex entity has existed forever (wasn't created) and then created the universe. with that logic it is just as plausible that the universe always existed and wasn't created either? "
fuchini

"I was disappointed in Dawkins’ insistence on lumping all religions into a category of unthinking acquiescence leading to dangerous extremism. Surely, a genuine belief can motivate people to do extreme things. However, Dawkins doesn't seem to think it necessary to differentiate between faith that inspires people to extreme acts of love, sacrifice, and forgiveness and faith that motivates people to extreme acts of hatred, violence, and oppression. Instead, he persists in simplistic notions about the danger and evil of religion in general. I expect more thoughtfulness from someone hailed to be one of the most important intellectuals of our time."
Jacob Anderson

"Thank you so much for the debate. I hope more of this nature will be hosted in the future."
A. Turner

"Dr. Dawkins seems to be someone who could make a great teacher for Christ someday. Last December God granted me the gift of a near death experience. For those who do not believe there is a God, you do not have to wait for death, to find out what many have already experienced. Discover this website, full of accounts of people who have experienced death to some degree. Amazing how so many are the same. http://www.near-death.com/ritch.html"
Bruce

"One of Richard Dawkin's points was that there is no logical path ...from atheism ... to evil. And as he explained this, he asked "is it something horrible within a person" which makes them do evil? His question is striking. The Bible sufficiently answers this question as it tells us that all people are sinful and the human heart is evil. There is much evidence in today's world that man is evil and capable of doing evil. Even if mankind has a "lust for good" as Professor Dawkins says, it doesn't explain away man's evil nature. A MOST serious error is for one to see themselves as basically "good". For all who think like this, when you go to bed tonight, you should sincerely ask yourself, "Is it possible that there is someone perfect within the universe (I.e., God), or am I as good as they come?""
Mr. Uhrlass

"Dave and Wayne, Thank you very much for coordinating this great event. I found the debate fascinating and thought the time went by too quickly. They clearly respected each other, which really made the debate very entertaining and lively. I would have liked to hear Dr. Lennox mention the fact that Jesus said to "...make disciples of all nations...", which states clearly that the message of salvation is for all, whether it be Muslims, Jews, or atheists."
Jeff Howell - Marshallville, Ohio

"It was a very stimulating debate, I enjoyed it very much. It is interesting that the basic questions "Who am I?" "Why am I here?", etc. which science wants to answer came up in the discussion of morals (Dr. Lennox quoting David Hume that "facts does not give values") which is in the realm of religion and not science. Furthermore, Prof. Dawkins' answer to those questions has already been echoed by Dr. Crick that we are nothing more than genes and chemicals and therefore impersonal and amoral."
Rolando Bartolome

"May God of all Creation, Wisdom and Knowledge, have mercy on the souls who think they will not have to bow their knees to the King of Kings. Oh Lord Christ Jesus, may the eyes of the blind be opened to see your True Light. May it pierce the dark recesses of the minds of man. With eyes, but does not see. With ears, but does not hear. With senses, but does not feel the Love you have for him. May he choose wisely one day before eternity sets in, for it is still available to him."
Anastasios

" I enjoyed the debate and felt both speakers did an excellent job representing their side. I felt however Dr. Dawkings comment in stating that the resurrection of Christ localizes or lessons the rational or thinking behind one's decision to place belief in evolution vs creation a serious flaw, my opinion. I think it's central to look at the historical facts behind Christs death and resurrection that helps one choose sides on the matter. Christ's resurrection reinforces the existance of our belief in a supernatural God whom created and loves us. These two positions, Atheism, vs Creationism are but just that. Physical science will only give us a deeper understaning of the physical universe in which we live nothing more, but never answering questions such as the reason or purpose of our existance. This is were I think creationism is a much better answer. I feel that we as humans given the intellect for creating, must have also a creator behind our existance. Couple this with the fact of how a child is brought into existance, you have nothing short of an intelligent designer. "
Frank Aiello

"Tonight’s debate was very informative to me. I could not help but notice how Prof. Dawkins kept using radical Islam as the preferred/typical example of religion. This is one of the disadvantages that Christians have to deal with, of course, in this kind of setting. In a sense, it is a low blow and betrays that fact that Prof. Dawkins is hard pressed find a good argument for what he calls the evils of religion—and by extension, Christianity. Funny thing to talk of the evils of religion when he does not really believe that there is any such thing as evil. He denies a basis to call any action evil—except faith. It is interesting that Prof. Dawkins spoke of how he believed morality may have originated in people groups. There is no scientific evidence of that. It is a big deal because it takes a lot of faith to believe that—he kept saying “I believe” and it is not because it is very credible but obviously because he wants to believe it’s true. Of course, he denies that he has faith. Also, he obviously has a lot of faith in Darwin who never explained the origin of the universe. Also obvious was Prof. Dawkins value of what he considers good in a world view that also denies the existence of good and evil. So much for referring to people like Hitler as evil. "
julius

"It was a wonderful debate. I found it interesting that Mr. Dawkins diatribe on the evolution of morality was a delusion only those who believe in a fantasy world could accept. I loved the way that Dr. Lennox pointed out that the universally accepted "Golden Rule" was revelation directly from the scriptures, both old and new testaments. Mr. Dawkins also said that there was no atheistic philosophy that could be used to promote violence, but I believe his glorified godlike hero Charles Darwin’s subtitle to his bankrupt "Origin of Species" states the premise of the concept of “Survival of the Fittest" I believe this is a more dangerous philosophy than anything Jesus ever preached. If one determines they can only survive by making sure that no person, or beast, is more fit than they are, thus threatening their own survival, could justify the extermination of this, their perceived threat. That sounds like a potentially dangerous philosophy -- sounds a lot like Nazi Germany."
Brett A. Keyes

"Thank you for a great debate! I thoroughly enjoyed listening and taking copious notes in the process. As a teacher at a classical Christian school my students and I have discussed many of the points brought up in this debate during class. Thank you for providing an avenue where my students and I could listen. I believe that tonight's debate will spur some good discussion in class tomorrow!"
Julie McGuffey

"Good job in broadcasting. I found it interesting on Dr. Dawkins subject of blind faith being dangerous,which is actually quite true. There are 2 different world views of what faith means. 1 is to belive in something external without having the inner experience to witness it as truth. 2 is simply to be aware of the relationship you have based on the experiences of trust you have in that relationship. The latter one is the definition of faith, simply a state of being!! Unfortunately Dawkins only sees the [so called faith] that religions promote which is actually the building block of atheism. Also very interesting was that Dawkins said they don't know the origins of the universe and they are looking for the theroy of everything. I was hoping Professor Lennox would explain to him the omnipotent and omniscient of God existing of all and through all which is a usable instrument to expand the hoizon of science into the very thing they are searching for. The ultimate particle. "
Mahlon A.

"This is very simple. It is not complicated. The argument is: What ever begins to exist has a cause. Also, one must understand that you cannot have an infinite regression of causes. This is just plain common sense. Scientists have proven that there was a Big Bang - but what caused that bang? There had to be something in the beginning that goes beyond space, beyond time and that is immaterial rather than physical in nature. This is a description of GOD. This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against atheism. Praise the Lord."
Chris

"Okay, so doesn't it all come down to what you believe in? For example, The government believes it is right when it orders a war. Terrorists believe they are right when they kill people. Family members believe they are right when they ignore family functions they consider beneath them. The Catholic church believed they were right when they told a child it is a sin to eat meat on Friday. And, I believed that apples were good for you, until I was told they might contain carcinogens. What do we believe in? Should we put our newborn baby on its side, back or tummy? Do we eat meat because of it's beneficial protein, or reject it because of unspeakable inhumane abuse? Do we kick homosexuals out of our churches because we don't like what they do, or accept them for their love of God? Do I listen to what was taught to me and take it for what it's worth, or do I try to figure the whole thing out on my own? What DO I BELIEVE IN? I went through years of trying to figure it out. I don't know what made me to it, but I really started studying the life of Jesus Christ. I was raised a Catholic and never really knew who he was - he was this unapproachable "God" as far as I knew. As I learned more about him and his life, he made more sense to me than anyone or anything I have ever talked to or listened to since. What an incredible man - knowing the answers profoundly at all questions STILL being asked 2 thousand years later. My church is in him and him alone. I loved that you had this discussion, by the way."
Judy

"Delusion is a strong word, a psychiatric term which might be a clue on our search for the origin of the universe. My Dad, a Tuskegee Airman often said, "The Universe is mental." I hold a Master's degree in Philosophy and have tutored Logic. Yet, I am not convinced of the merit of atheism as an answer to the world problems. Solving the MIND-Body problem will fare more lucid for humanity. When we know the correct order of 'curing' the body, curing the mind, then we are making headway of 'fixing' MAN.And fixing the sysfunctions which plague us in terms of mental illnesses and physical complaints.On the argument of not teaching the children FAITH; children come here full of faith. Jesus said we must come to Him as faithfilled people like the children. "
Beryl Khabeer, MA

"To those who say that we just need to grasp Darwin to see the light of atheism, or get into the lab and study our science to understand where we come from, why we are here and where we are going: I say, "I have done all of that and not a one of those things gave me the proof as eloquently and definitively as the Word of God (passed throughout civilizations) whereby I have true appreciation for how AWESOME God is. I can't make something out of nothing; God can. He, not my own endeavors, deserves the praise. It is not as a result of blind acceptance, but of a driving search for knowledge that has brought me to the conclusion that everyone has faith in something. Each person has foundational truths that they hold steadfastly to and build upon. Thank you for this forum; it has greatly contributed to the solidification of my basic core beliefs AND it has allowed me to vicariously debate by thinking about how I would answer those questions if asked of me. Let's do it some more . . . peoples eternal lives are riding on getting this right."
Ellen

"You want Dawkins' view on Christianity, specificially? Read the book. He has plenty to say. More eyewitnesses to a single execution than to the march of a large army over thousands of miles through numerous countries? Huh? "
Steve

"Great to hear this debate live so that one can feel the passions of both Prof Dawkins and Lennox about their beliefs from their voices, with charming British accents of course. One thing I feel quite disappointed is the knowledge of Dr. Dawkins about Jesus and Bible in general. Even my six year-old daughter understands what Jesus meant from the famous good Samaritan story. To qualify as an author writing about faith and religion, he truly needs to study Judea-Christian theology a lot more earnestly as he studies Darwin's evolution theory. I hope this debate also make Dr. Dawkins realize the very least that his atheist world view is also a faith as Dr. Lennox pointed out. Science alone cannot prove God exist or not. If an atheist is intellectually honest, then he must admit atheism is a faith just like any other faith or religions. "
Keith Zhang

"I was really surprised by Mr. Dawkins lack of really getting his points across. I felt that he was not the winner of this particular debate. I was really proud of Mr. Lennox. I felt that he did a good job defending the faith issue and had some really good points to show the convaluted thesis of Mr. Dawkins book."
Nancy Spirek

"I found this "debate" to be very intriguing, and very encouraging. I listened on WMBI-FM in Chicago, and hope more programming such as this might follow. Admittedly, though, it so saddens me that Professor Dawkins does not know the true God, the God of the Bible, the Triune God...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It frightens me for Professor Dawkins that to whom so much is given, much is expected (paraphrasing Luke 12:48)."
Thomas Magers

"I would have liked to have seen them more quickly push though the fundamental principles of belief, faith, and "religion". Dawkins was right when he said it was semantics, but he himself was using language according to his own position. He calls all non-atheism "religion". I call all non-Christianity and false Christianity "paganism" and "apostacy" respectively. In that regard all those words are useless. What we're talking about is what we believe to be true, and obviously we believe things because of evidence we think proves those beliefs. Any beliefs not based on evidence is non-rational and sometimes irrational. Productive debate depends on the assumption that both debaters are rational, otherwise there's no point in the discussion. In addition, it's insulting to your opponent to assume he believes things without evidence that is at least convincing to himself."
Kurt

"Tremendous debate. That could be listened to for days to catch the full measure of what was said. I respect the decorum of both men but I am very thankful for John Lennox. I am currently debating with a friend, an atheist, on many things. This debate this evening has given me greater inspiration to continue the discourse with my fallen brother in the hopes of helping him find what I have found. Thanks to Mister Lennox!"
John Shingler

"the 'debate' really showed that you either believe in god or not. as someone below said, the mystery of the universe will not be unlocked anytime soon. so lenox says god did it and he is eternal (wasn't created). lenox explanation is convenient and comforting. dawkins said the origin is not yet known which is honest but discomforting. i personally cannot accept the supposition that an eternal, all-powerful entity has always existed and created everything. if you believe that, why isn't it just as plausible that the universe is eternal and always existed without the hand of a creator? isn't also interesting that the evidence for all religion's gods occurred at a time when man was relatively primitive and cannot be verified except faith in the writings of a few? and now that man are sophisticated and could fully appreciate a visit by a god, no gods come around anymore or make new proclamations through mediums to help us out? "
non-believer

"Well debated. An intriguing debate too. Definatly something special. Dr. Lenox spoke with heavy filling words to Professor Dawkins empty dialect. Strong conviction was also convayed during the debate. God backs himself up through history, as demonstrated in the debate with the mention of Nazi Germany's Hitler's motives along with Stallen's motives also. Demonstrating what happens in an "atheist state" even though Hitler was known to be in contact with old religions mirroring the Free Masons. I hope Professor Dawkins releases his pride and feels that he hasn't lost in somthing, but gained. As dug deeper, when dealing with Darwin: Darwin was thought to have recieved knowlege from a spiritual sorce; which side was this on, perhaps demonic? The garden analogy ended Dr. Lenox's side of the argument nicely as Professor Dawkins said it best himself as God cannot be disproven. CLOWNIN."
Austin P. Jorgensen

"I enjoyed the debate. Both men, I could listen to for three or fours hours easy…both men where considerate of each other. I have a suggestion about debates for the future. I think that a freer, one on one exchange with out the tight time rules, would have aloud for a more transparent debate. Example: Professor Dawkins at one point asked Dr. Lennox ‘How can you say that atheism is a faith?’ When Dr Lennox was just about to answer him, the moderator interrupted by saying; ‘there was not enough time to answer’ and wanted to go on to the next reading out of Dawkins, God Delusion book. That was a perfect time for both men to go in depth for many in the audience to hear, (a very large audience!) about atheism being a faith. That would have shed some light on that point of the God delusion debate. This is the kind of stuff that our society needs to hear more of, so that more of the truth of God can be chewed on by a large audience. Next time, make it a three or even four-hour debate, so that the two men have time to debate each other and not give capsule answers for the sake of controlled time. I hope you invite these to men again for a debate in the near future. I understand some of Professor Dawkins concerns about religion. I also enjoyed Dr Lennox answers, to Professor Dawkins religious concerns. Ty "
Ty

"Truthfully I find much error in setting a scholarly basis for Mr Dawkins remarks (Book). Obvious GAPS in his education, show in his understanding of Communism and Facicism. True as Toynbee said.:ALL we need for tyrany to win is for a few good people(Christians) to remain silent, in the face of tyrants. (par) Chamberlin and many did not, thousands of german pastors and christian laymen, priests and monks were tortured and martyred in Germany by the 3rd Reich (Hitler) and his christofacscists as Dawkins labels them. Ten's of thousands in fact over 125,000 Christians have been martyred since the milenium. Were they killed in the last few years by christofascists. Try Islamofascists. and Hindufascists. As far as athestic philosophies destroying man. (Read Voice of the Marytrs.org) Most tyrants are worshipers of gods. I wonder where these non-believers acquired their "sense of right and wrong. Dawkins is Hardly one to debate or even postulate with such GAPS in his education, to overlook the holicaust as an atheistic act! This lack of investigation and schooling in History AND the Bible as well as GAPS in other knowledge of the 18th century philosophers denies any credibility to his assumptions nor his deductions, and is endemic in the lack of education of many "academics" who teach in our universities. ". If all you believe is the quantum THEORY , 4-5 BRANDS OF EVOLUTION and a few facts about sub-atomic physics discovered as well as DNA genetic codes and see no pattern of a gardner, you are dangerous to be teaching or investigating anything around you. In other words: There is nothing new under the sun.(Ecclestiaces) Even Professors (Eclsiastes); in Human Nature nor in theology. Dawkins lack of knowledge is however outweighed by his closing statement that is right on the button. It is ALL about the Resurection of Jesus Christ. Gnostics and Jews trapped in the Torrah have been trying to deny this FACT since the event occured. Despite Hawkins and the denyers, there will be 100 - 150 million believing Christians in China by 2030 and mostly Muslems attending Oxford and the Soborne. How is that for a miracle! Persia and Russia will hardly be able to mount a military effort, one last gasp. The mighty armys of the world powers will bleed to death on the plains of Jessrael. Most of the world will disapear as we know it. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and 144000 believing Jews get a new Heaven and a New Earth. Harrah! Source -Holy Bible. It has been said well: " It takes far more faith to become an athiest than to believe God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ!" Oh you of little faith" Jesus addresed his followers, (they were soon to have the Holy Spirit to fan their ember of faith). Do you want to witness a "great" FAITH : With all the GAPS in just Bio-evolution, it takes a GREAT faith or belief to believe Darwins' theories, based on what has been truthfully investigated & published in bi-ology since then. In years afterward, to catch up, "scientists" tried to "out Darwin" Darwin. Scientific American magazine in 1967 (?) identifeid 12 "theories" of evolution, many overlapping, in 4 disciplines and changing from time to time to suit man's still imperfect view of himself and his surroundings. "
John Beardsley

"I Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. This verse came to mind tonight as I listened to the debate. Dr Lennox was a wonderful example of preparedness, gentleness and respect. as he spoke of the REASON for his hope. Thanks for sharing this debate with those of us beyond the walls of the auditorium listening on radios and computers."
Sheri

"Thank you-I listened intently on Christian radio to every word. I felt, probably along with my favorite Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, that Darwinism was dealt yet another huge blow. Dawkins came off much as a sheltered schoolboy, whose theories and ideas seemed often to be without real reasoning and substance. His lack of knowledge and understanding of history was shocking. Either his powers of reasoning have diminished greatly since I taped him many years ago or I have just gotten a lot smarter! Dr. Lennox was brilliant! We should pray for Richard and his wife that they may "yet See". Susannah Elvington in SC, homeschool mother of five"
Susannah Elvington

"I hope to see and hear more debates like this in the future because I believe that as the truth is given an audience, the authentic christian life cannot help but be declared the winner to all who truly hear. I think that one of the most important topics mentioned tonight was the point of trusting "rational" thinking which is born of and is sustained in a universe of random chance. If what we call the rational mind is nothing more than a collection of randomly formed atoms, how can one truely know that one can trust the results of the thinking of such a mind? By default the notion of the correct use of the intellect becomes a joke, because the reality of meaning has been erased. While relative meaning would exist, relative meaning is absurd. It is absurd, to think that energy and matter which in and of themselves have no meaning, when randomly arranged would somehow become dissatisfied with the reality of a meaningless universe and try to impose meaning onto it. And even if that is somehow admitted, would that be trustworthy and rational? Ex. Hi! I'm an atom. I just exist. I have no awareness, and no meaning. Whatever happens or does not happen is fine by me. But now a word from a few billion atoms who all hang out together. Hi! we are a few billion atoms. We like to call ourselves a human. We now are aware of ourselves. We like to impose meaning on our existence, and the existence of all atoms. We also like to feel intellectually superior to other groups of atoms. NOT!!! From a truly atheistic point of view, the human condition of rational thinking, would be from the universe's perspective, a period of time in which a set of atoms behaved contrary to the nature of their reality. Only death would "free" these atoms from their rebellious,"meaning imposing", "rational thinking" state. Hmmm.... "
Mark Struble

"For all the comments of people who say they do not believe in God, I say that from your point of view you are absolutely right ….you cannot see God or evidence of his existence. Even the Bible says that you cannot see the things the way we Christians do. The WORD of God can not be understood by an unbeliever. I myself have had “Faith” for a long time now but I can say that the evidence God’s existence is overwhelming. I am not talking about evidence of faith or belief but hard core physical evidence. One only has to do is to search for it themselves, but of course that would mean that one would have to become a student of the bible and understand thoroughly to be able to discern what where and how to look for it. By the time you invest in studying the Bible and I mean study & research you would probably come to faith in Christ before you can see the evidence for your self anyway, then you would not need the evidence. But even Thomas would not believe until he saw Jesus himself after the resurrection. But be patient all we see God and all will one day bow down and confess that he is the great “I AM”. The debate was great hope to see more. At the end of the debate Dawkins really slammed Jesus and that makes perfect sense….. the enemy must attack the one thing that will ultimately be their demise. Jesus is coming soon so please look to the Lord give him a chance to come into you heart, there will be only gains in doing so, if you do not it is your choice only you can make it. Just consider the alternatives if you are right when you are dead you are just that dead….. but if you are wrong……eternity means that time never ends for where you will be. May God grant us all understanding and wisdom to discern the signs of the times."
Danny S. Georgia

"i pray to God that atheism is true"
Richard Dawkins

"I praise the gods of all the religions that exist and thank them that Richard Dawkins is the most consistent and logically coherent speaker on the issues of the religiosity of ethics and his views on the non-existence of god(s). Actually, Dawkins was about as logical and consistent as the sentence above. Dr. Lennox is a stud and could not have spoken any clearer or have made more sense. I never heard of the guy until tonight, but anyone with half a brain could see that what he said made "at least" more sense than Dawkins' own claims. I have nothing against Dawkins, but it is clear that he seems to misinterpret anything that is both biblically true and sound even basic principles of logic and reason that are tangible in everyday life (e.g. you see a house, you know there is a builder that has more intelligence than the building itself cf. Heb. 3:3-4, "A builder is more valuable than a building any day. Every house has a builder, but the Builder behind them all is God.") "
Truth seeker

"I am thankful that this debate was even permitted in this day and time. This was eye opening for those of us who dont spend a lot of time studying out not only our beliefs but the way others come to believe the way they do. My entire body was covered in chills and I was almost emotional when I heard Pro. Dawkins minimize and degrade the resurection the way he did. I just couldnt believe it! It is saddening to know how many not only dont believe in Jesus but can be so cold towards His sacrifice. I look forward to getting the DVD and being able to absorbe the content of the debate even more. "OUR SAVIOR LIVES" "
Katie

"Dawkins was more eloquent and elegant in his assertions by far. Why is it that Dawkins must automatically bow down to the god of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac? If it's a creator you're looking for, why not choose Allah? Oh, wait, Allah is the god of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. "
tihson

"Ugh. it was just a sad debate all around. as an atheist on the front row, i have to say dawkins was not on his game. that having been said, he did a much better job than lennox. i was surprised that lennox had such a hard time grasping the true meaning of dawkins' arguments. he constantly failed to grasp what dawkins was saying and if, by miracle, he did - he tried to find flaws with his logic with metaphors that were poor parallels to dawkins' original statement. dawkins really dropped the ball on some of lennox's facile questions. when lennox tried to assert that stalin, hitler, mao, and polpot had athiest regimes, he didnt' do a good job batting down that like hitchens usually did. he started by pointing out how the czar was almost divine and stalin would be a fool not to exploit that (setting up a marxist state that exploited the peasants in the same way the church/czar did), but he really didn't go into the difference between atheism and marxism. that is to say, the governments those men had were marxist, not athiest. while a marxist MUST be athiest, and athiest does not have to be a marxist. they are two separate ideologies (imagine a venn diagram). i must say, i absolutely lost it and died out laughing when this happened: dawkins was saying that you don't have 'faith' to be an athiest. you don't have 'faith' that there is no zeus or apollo on mount olympus or a thor swinging his hammer around. just as you don't have to have 'faith' that there is no judeo-christian god. it's a matter of evidence making it highly improbable (as you cannot disprove non-existence). lennox replies 'well yeah...but there's no such thing as zeus!' i lol'd. i just thought it was a shame dawkins didn't get a chance to clarify/correct lennox's misconceptions about his book/comments/arguments and have enough time to move to the next subject. the time limit stifled the debate between the two men and and education of the audience (and lennox, who missed a few of the points). it was also a shame that there was no q&a session, as i had a question to pose to mr. lennox. he said we recognize 'morality' because god made us moral creatures...well. my question is did god make other social creatures (virtually all primates) like the macaque monkey moral creatures as well as the exhibit behavior we could call moral (e.g. starving themselves in experiments where they had to choose to shock another of their species in order to have food pellets given to them, etc.). are those monkeys moral creatures who have to live by their moral choices? do they have souls? lennox just had sloppy theological arguments that fail even the most amateur inquiries (such as mine)."
Jackson

"My remarks are not intended to demean or belittle. They are presented in the context of the truth demanded by charity. To call a spade anything other than a spade is both dishonest and a disservice to the Christian world view. Concerning Professor Dawkins: I find it both amazing and not a little upsetting to observe that a man who relies so heavily on Darwinian evolutionary theory can be so highly respected in academic circles. Is there a scientist in the world worthy of the title not familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? With no need of help it demonstrates the absurdity of Dawrinian evlution. I believe Professor Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion" to promote a socio-political agenda. In doing so he has discredited and devalued both his academic and personal integrity in much the same way as Richard Leakey, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and others did in promoting their "ape-men." Western civilization has witnessed the supplanting of conclusions reached and decisions made through the simple use of common sense with the opinions and declarations of both "the expert" and "the multi-lettered academic" which are said to have been reached through exhaustive research. Is there a God? Give me a break! His existence is common sense. Are there really atheists? There never have been and never will be. Those who call themselves atheists can be reasonablly categorized in two ways: 1. those who deny the existence of God so they can play god themselves either for their own lives or in the lives of others 2. those who are bereft of reason Concerning Dr. Lenox: I wish the perceved academic giants of the Christian world take another look at authentic history and not be so quick to characterize the Crusades and Inquisitions as blights on our past. Notwithstanding Pope John Paul II's formal apology of a few years ago, the transgressions which occurred during the Crusades have been grossly exaggerated by less-than-honest historians whose agenda was the slander of the Roman Catholic Church. Not only have the transgressions been exaggerated, but the context in which these events took place has been skewed. There are important lessons to be learned from the authentic history of the Crusades which would serve us well today in determining how to deal with the resurgence of militant Muslimism. Other than that I thought Dr. Lenox did an admirable job. "
Dcn. Bob Ellis

" Many thanks for hosting and broadcasting this debate! It kept me wide awake driving my truck home this evening. Prof. Dawkins did a good job of refuting religion, but not Christianity. As Dr. Lennox pointed out, Christianity is the only religion that can be truly supported with facts, even though facts cannot lead one to the purpose or end of Christianity. Only faith can do that. And a faith in a Creator who could create a complex universe would seem more sensible than faith in "random chance", which seems mostly to be destructive (ie. the laws of entropy), to explain the world we live in."
M. Coy

"Atheism is the absence of belief in any and all gods (and there are 1000s of them). It does not require faith to believe in something which has no evidence. I am no worse off for not believing in the Christian god, than you are of any of the Ancient gods of the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. Please do some research into the early history of the Christian religion, 0-300 AD. Also compare the Jesus character of the Bible to god men from other religions such as Mithras, Dionysus and Osiris. The Jesus character "lived" around 0-30 AD, but you will not find a single historian from that time period that wrote about such a god man performing miracles for thousands. It would not be until a few decades later that his story was told."
Kurt

"One major frustration that I felt was that Lennox did not "close the loop" when Dawkins apparently claimed that atheism cannot logically lead to taking human life (I am paraphrasing) - as he claims religion can. In reality, atheism can lead very logically to mass-murder - as it did under Stalin, Mao and Pohl Pot - because it opens the door to simply dismissing any innate value in others and to "might (or philosophical principle) makes right". Such mass cruelty and murder are not an aberration of an atheist world-view, they are a perfectly reasonable result."
TheKris

"The glaring problem that Mr Dawkins has is that, if he is right, the whole debate was meaningless babble between two absurd products of chance and time. Thank God for Mr Lennox's brilliant refutation of Mr Dawkin's less brilliant attempt to justify a universe without meaning. Thank God that there is much more to Truth than Mr Darwin's nonsense! Thank God for God and that He sent His Son to show us Who He is and to how we are to relate to Him Who is our Creator. I pray that Mr Dawkins humble himself before God and realize the joy of knowing that there is much more to life than we can find in a test tube. "
William S Anderson

"The debate was spellbinding,and I felt that Dawkins was no match for Lennox. The quotes from Dawkins' book were much more mean-spirited and unfounded than he seemed to want to appear in the debate. His comments on the morality of atheism were ludicrous. His denial of atheism's bearing on the the atrocities of the most famous atheists of the 20th century, history's bloodiest century, was irrational. The fact that Dawkins refused to differentiate between religions, as though they were all alike and advocated the same behaviors, was either ignorance or a deliberate misconstruing of the facts, neither of which is scholarly. "
Joy Peebles

"I listened to the debate via kkht.com. I enjoyed the lively exchange. I found it interesting that Prof. Dawkins was willing to make concessions for atheism that he would not make for religion - an inconsistency that Dr. Lennox quickly addressed. I also felt Prof. Dawkins frustration with the format. This was advertised as a debate; however a typical debate format was not used. I thought it was odd that you did not alternate which candidate addressed the topics first and that you were not prepared to allow a short rebuttal by the lead candidate. I think this put Prof. Dawkins at a distinct disadvantage. I thought he handled himself admirably under that duress."
Kevin Melcher

"GOOD - GOD = 0"
Bill Gassett

"The Book of Romans gives us three reasons to believe in God: CREATION....CONSCIENCE....CHRIST Romans 1:20 "...men are without excuse." Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever blessed. Amen." Romans 1 teaches us that INGRATITUDE LEADS TO IDOLATRY. (Romans 1:21-25) "They worship "Mother Earth" rather than "Father God." "
Bill Gassett

"How does Prof. Dawkins explain the divine peace that dwells within my heart since giving it over to Christ? (John 14:27) Dawkins cannot disprove this by his beloved science, as John Lennox so elequently pointed out by trying to explain his wife's love to Dawkins. How can a man (with such an intelligent mind) conceive that the cell sprang from nothing, after considering it's intricate complexity? Dawkins also spoke of the scientific proof of evolution...what absolute proof does he have? There is no transitional proof in the fossil records, which Darwin himself admitted, stating "we just haven't found it yet". Well, we're still looking & we'll be still looking when the Lord returns! I truly believe that the discovery of DNA was the death nail into the heart of Darwinism and that God Himself is revealing His existance through the very avenue that Prof. Dawkins excels in."
Tony Hurd

"Thank you for providing a rational, thought-provoking discussion on this emotional issue. The freedom to express these opposing viewpoints surely makes Atheists thankful to the Christian progenitors who secured that right for us all."
Nikki

"Take 2 Is this a "Christians only" site? Y'know, no truth permitted? The true-believers who have flocked to this site may now, like Odysseus' crew, pull the wax from their ears: they need no longer fear the siren's song that would lead them to shipwreak upon the Isle of Rationality! A pity, someone not myself will likely feel, when te simple facts of mortality visit you - you live wrapped in veritable burkas of self-righteousness narrowmindedness, yet preen before your fellows with gut-busting vanity! I know very, very few Christians, and they are defiantly sheepish about the silliness of their beliefs - which we can leave aside in our conversation together. However, I see not even one Christian, or admirable believer in god(s) in these comments, just a bunch of Xian swine unable to value what pearls there are in that mostly absurd, anthropologically-intriguing, cobbled-together American nativist religion best referred to as Xianity. Many of you are very, very silly, but deathly dull, increadibly pompous self-deceiving bores. The rest of the god-backers here are simply to be pitied. May you find the strength to live a life without breathing through a gauze of lies."
piginlipstick

"I thought that Lennox responded very well to Dawkins' assertion that religion motivates people to do bad things. Lennox was right to jump on this and point out that the global cost of atheism has been much worse. In one sense, however, he let Dawkins off the hook with an incomplete answer (time constraints, perhaps). This is my question to Dawkins: why do you not mention any of religion's postive contributions to humanity? What about the abolitionist movement? Slavery was not extinguished by morally outraged ahteists and agnostics. It was denounced, fought against, and put to an end by people with profound theological convictions (see John Newton and William Wilberforce). What about groups like the Salvation Army, or Compassion International, or Prison Fellowship? Are there any atheist groups reaching out to incarcerated people, helping to turn their lives around so they don't wind up back in prison once they get out? Perhaps they are there, leading study groups with Nietzche or Origen of Species as their texts, but somehow I doubt it. Yes, some Christians have in some cases done awful things in the name of God, but other Christians have been motivated by their faith to feed the poor, visit prisoners, etc. That Dawkins fails to mention this, even for the purpose of explaining it away, exposes a deeply flawed argument on his part. "
Kevin

"I have only read excerpts from the debate, but it is truly amazing that this event ever happened! Lennox answered good, and Dawkins' position was exposed as a theory with a lot of holes and misunderstanding about religion. Actually, his own childhood is contraevidence to his own theory. He was brougt up in a christian home, but was free to become an atheist! Can the idea of God be more free than that? I accept evolution as an explanation of creation. So Darwin's ideas are not a destroyer to my faith, but rather encouraging. We who are christians, do not have to defend six-days creation to be faithful to the bible. The bible may not say that after all! The universe itself cries out: I have a creator!"
dagbjerk

"It was clear that Prof. Dawkins knows less about Biblical Christianity than Dr. Lenox knows about biological evolution. I do not understand the hostility atheists have for those who believe in something greater than themselves. It would be one thing if every religion turned out homicide bombers like the religion of peace does. It was well pointed out that awful things done in the name of Christ go against how He lived and what He taught. Rom 3:23 makes it clear what the problem is."
Just me

"ChrisMcL Dawkins inability to explain the origin of the universe is not what proves the existence of God. In fact, God doesn't need anyone to prove his existence. I want to challenge you to ask Jesus Christ to show himself to you. Its only then that YOU will be truly convinced. You do not have to be afraid or alone anymore... just ask Him. I want you to experience the peace and satisfaction that I have, and only Jesus Christ can offer. "
april strawbridge

"piginlipstick Your harshness and criticism is only a true testimony of the hatred you have for yourself. You do not have to continue living this way. Allow Jesus Christ to renew your mind and take your hurt away."
april strawbridge

"Praise God for Dr Lennox, You really made Prof. Dawkins think twice when he said faith is harmful not realizing that he too has a 'faith' about something too. If he had no faith that he could get his idea accros, he would not had appreared on the debate last night. Even though he did not admit it, but I sure, he will struggle with what he said. I prayed in the name of Jesus, that Richard Dawkins will be transformed to our modern day Paul. Amen. I could hear his sincerity in his voice in finding an answer. He was conviced this world did not come from a big 'bang'. I would like to urge people to pray that God of the universe will open his heart and his spitual eyes. I truly, enjoyed the debate. Thank you,"
Ruby

"Some thoughts: 1)The universe is wonderfully glorious and complex, this leaves me to believe it was created by God not chance. 2) A few centuries back religious authorities claimed earth was flat, based on the Bible. I feel those who insist on a 7 thousand year old earth are making the same mistake today. Sorry to the 6 day creationists, the evidence is just too overwhelming against you. 3)Atheism, without a doubt, has created the worst monsters in history, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc. 4)We are told to pray, but how can expect God to grant my simple requests when he was silent when the Jews (His people!) prayed (very fervently I'm sure!) for deliverance as the SS knocked in the middle of the night?? They, in millions, still went to the gas chambers. I can't help but cynically ask: Was God on Holiday from 1935 to 1945? 5)I find the best comfort, peace and consolation knowing God exists 6) When 98% of our DNA is the same as a chimpanzee it is rather hard to deny that we are at least in some way related?!? 7) Most of the charitable, compassionate, anti slavery movements etc in history have a Christian origin 8) Give Darwin a break please! He was a scientist with a theory. His theory DOES explain a lot. Let's not make him into an anti-christ for documented scientific observations! So after 50 plus years of relecting on the above mysteries I am a Christain but please folks lets not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to science or common sense!"
Bruce Vanderveen

"With athiesm it's hard to build off a foundation of a vacuum, (which is what it is), and know what the 'true' context and perspective is, relative to a blind provincial position. At least in this debate which was staged by Christians, we give opposing viewpoints equal time and free speech. I notice that liberals, unlike conservative Christians, often try to stifle the opposition; while misleading the public with slanted, biased, deceitful, incomplete half-truths or lies. Maybe they do it because they're shown up too often, in an honest debate. Blind faith is not the case according to some Christians who claim that they've actually experienced encounters with the real God, or who have witnessed miracles. Their "faith" is knowing, not merely believing. A miracle happened in Africa at a Christian crusade, a few years ago, where a dead and embalmed man rose from the dead. Now there are uncharismatic Christians who think these miracles are not from God, perhaps, or something; but they can't deny that some phenomenon has happened; even if they don't agree with other Christians on it's explanation. There are also those who claim miracle healings. If these things happen today, why then could not the miracles recorded in the Bible have happened. What is the atheist or Dawkins' explanation for these phenomena (for lack of better terms) that happen today (and some have been captured on videotape)? Why do the atheists deny miracles in the Bible, if phenomena like that happen, now, regardless what you believe causes them? What is Dawkins' "scientific" explanation for these, and why then does he deny miracles recorded in the Bible? Should we wait 3 millenia with our minds closed until science can come up with an explanation for this? If God exists, He can make himself known. He does, to whomever He chooses; not the general public, for His good reasons. Dawkins says that accepting something as true without scientific evidence, keeps people from finding out facts about it. You can accept truths even if you don't yet fully understand why and or how they're true; and still later find out why and or how they're true later on with evidence. It's not true that accepting that 2 + 2 = 4, without knowing why and how this is so, keeps people ignorant, and prevents them from ever being able to find out (unless they are truths that only God and not humans are capable of understanding). If the Bible is untrue, how did prophesies, in the Bible, made many years before they came true, come true? Many people who profess atheism have never read the Bible, and don't know other things like archeological evidence for the Christian faith; and yet think that they are qualified enough to rashly declare the Christian faith false. Having faith in God, is an acknowlegement of truth. Not having faith in the real God, is denying truth."
Anonymous

"What a horrible world it would be if Professor Dawkins is correct. Imagine a world where right or wrong is irrelevant. "Survival of the fittest" would rule. The Lord of the Flies wouldn't be just a story. I cannot conceive of a true scientist really arguing that there can be a garden without a gardener, a design without a designer. Furthermore, at the risk of sounding redundant, where did the ability to appreciate the beauty of the garden originate? To agree with Richard Dawkins, to quote a famous politician, "would require a willing suspension of disbelief!""
Ruth F.

"According to Dawkins, we shouldn't believe in something until science proves it. Evolution and the big bang, has not been scientifically proven."
anonymous

"Excellent debate. Join me in praying for salvation through Jesus Christ to come to Richard Dawkins. Also,that God will raise up an army of Christian scholars like Dr. John Lennox."
Teresa - Tn

"Lennox, like many other Christians, brought up Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as self-described atheists who committed atrocities. The difference between infamous purported atheist despots and religious despots is that no one ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism, while religious people *have* committed atrocities in the names of their religions. That is, no one ever waded into a massacre yelling, "Die in the name of no-god!" Many have waded into a massacre yelling, "Die, infidel, in the name of my god!" As Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.""
Glenn

"Some commenters here, as elsewhere, ebrace the the thought-free assertion that atheists "presuppose" or "have faith" there is no god. Not true. We only presuppose that the natural world, the world we can observe, is all we have to go on. If someone showed me convincing real-world evidence there's a god, I'd change my position. And evolution, natural selection and geological stratigraphy are explanations developed by *Christians* trying honestly to explain the evidence they observed. They are not atheist conspiracies or *anyone's* presuppositions."
Glenn

"Richard Dawkins is delusional. He is not convinced himself that there is no Jesus Christ. In fact, the name itself, Jesus Christ is so powerful that he could not say there is no Jesus Christ. He instead uses names like allah, foo foo, and the spaghetti monster to refer to our Father Jesus Christ."
april strawbridge

"Dawkins arguments weren't as strong as I'd like, but Lennox's were frequently incredibly weak I'm afraid, especially when he referred to aspects of physics and cosmology which I'd expect a mathematician to have a far better understanding of. His descriptions of relativity being more complex than simple ideas of apples falling to the ground were astonishingly ill-founded. As Dawkins I believe said, that something is hard to understand does not mean it is not simple, especially when simplicity in this context is balanced against predictive power and the vastly greater array of phenomena described by Einstein's equations compared to the 'simple' idea that things fall to the ground. At many other points I was similarly aggravated by him using arguments that are easily dismantled, and that he should well know are easily dismantled."
david

"Last I checked, rape can also lead to reproduction, i.e. the propagation of the species. Dawkins suggested that a desire to do what is good and moral is conducive to the lust, and hence, reproductive states of a small group/clan. This may be true, but reproduction can also be achieved by rape, which I believe most cultures consider to be immoral and spawning from evil desires. To me, this presents a hole in his argument that our understanding of right and wrong is simply a function of the survival of the fittest. I am a Christian and a scientist and a person with liberal social views, and I am happy to see this dialog occurring regardless of who "wins" the debate."
epidemiologystudent

"I listened to the debate on Moody Radio last night and was very impressed by the quality of the discussion by both parties. As Dr. Dawkins pointed out a couple of times, it wasn't really a debate, since there was limited ability to rebute the other's comments. I would suggest that future events allow for each party to have 2 minutes to rebut the other's 5 minute presentation. At the end of the broadcast Dr. Lennox gave a good testimony of the foundation for his faith; the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ is not risen, then life really has no meaning since once we are gone, its over. But, He IS risen, and He continues to give meaning to all of life. In his reply, Dr. Dawkins dismissed this foundation as being unworthy and too earthly, preferring to debate about "God" in the abstract, as a distant creator (deism ?). He then went on to talk about how Darwinism shows that there is a natural impetus for evolution that explains how we got to where we are, without the need for a god to explain it all. In effect, he seems to "believe" in an impersonal, unknowables life force that is pushing life to higher levels of development. Dr. Lennox had earlier pointed out that Dr. Dawkins' position as an evolutionist was in fact a faith proposition (faith in "natural" causes or forces) as opposed to the Christian's faith in God as creator. Dr. Dawkins strongly dismissed this assertion saying that science was not a matter of faith. However, his final comments showed that Dr. Lennox was correct. Evolutionists say they are drawn to Darwinism because of the "evidence" of natural selection and the "scientific" explanation of why we are here. But the reality is that the earliest proponents of evolution (Huxley, etc) were drawn to Darwin because he gave them a reason to dismiss God and advance their amoral world views (nothing is intrinsically evil or good, its all relative). [Chuck Colsen has a very good discussion on this issue in his book "The Good Life"] Dr. Lennox rightly pointed out that Western science originated from the premise that our world was rational, ordered by laws and knowable BECAUSE it was created by God, the Law-giver, who has revealed Himself to us. This world has not aways existed, it was created at a certain point in time. It will not always exist in the future either, it WILL end one day (maybe sooner than we expect), when God brings this "Age" to an end and judges the world in Righteousness. What we do and what we believe will matter in the end. As Christians, we live in hope that there will be a New Heaven and Earth where we will live with God face to face, and then we will know the Truth forever. Hallelujah. "
Kirk

"I would second the comment made by Mr. Kevin Melcher below. The implementation of the debate was hindered because of the format. Dawkins spent most of the time contextualizing the quotes read and Lennox then had the time to attack his position with little to no rebuttal from Dawkins. Also, given that both are scholars whose views are at least somewhat nuanced, it might have been more helpful to concentrate only three or so question and actually let them dialogue about them. Oftentimes it seemed that they were finally getting to the point of the argument when the moderator cut them both off to move on to the next question. "
robbie

"Dear pig in lipstick. You have obviously had some very bad experiences with people who "call" themselves christians. Either that or you are deeply convicted about your own lost state and therefore you lash out with sarcasm, anger and a healthy dose of self righteousness. You condemn people that you do not even know on this site. I will pray for you ( This is not a self righteous, narrow minded statement. It comes from my heart.)"
Love conquers all

" Throughout the debate, Mr. Dawkins kept referring to Darwinism as a given, a proven theory, not debatable. Excuse me? Where is the fossil evidence? One hundred and fifty years ago there was nowhere near the evidence there is today on the microbiological, cellular or quantum physics level. If anything, except for a few, we are moving farther away from any Darwinian evidence. Mr. Dawkins WHOLE worldview seems to flow from the given acceptance of this, which is less and less "given" daily. Also, has anyone looked at a world map lately of Israel and the countries surrounding it? The numerous countries that want to see it cease to exist, from the middle east, into Africa and parts of Russia? Would you explain to me how the Bible predicted this over 2500 years ago? A nation of roughly 5 million people surrounded by approximately 250 million people that are her sworn enemies. Was this a lucky guess by the writers of the Bible? Did they put the information into some ancient "computer" and extrapolate out a projected answer? Or is the Bible the TRUE word of God and we are seeing it played out right in front of our eyes. We weren't there for the Resurrection, but there is some pretty hard evidence today for the accuracy of Bible prophecy."
jack ditsch

"Praise be to God that He has provided in His purpose, this nation, in this time, where men can come and "reason together" the deep principles behind the driving motivations of civilization. I consider myself most honored to have had a front row seat and been witness to such an eloquent exposition of contemporary spiritual warfare. I applaud all those whose tireless efforts have brought this "moment in history" to so many at one time. I eagerly look forward to acquiring and sharing the DVD. One must be called by God before he can know Him. It is nonsense to anyone else. I can imagine a most wonderful thing; Prof. Richard Dawkins "on the road to Damascus........" Oh, and yes, I totally believe in the "Big Bang" theory; God spoke it and BANG! it happened. "
Bob Blackburn

"Piginlipstick, Please explain this statement you made - "No truth permitted". Truth is relative. Why are you condemning others' relative truth? You are not helping our fight. Your statements mirror the bigotry of which you are accusing believers. If they experience fear of their god, let them live with it. Admittedly, Existentialists also have fear. Most times it is masked in the cloak of anger. If the believers experience some type of perceived happiness/peace, good for them. Why must you portray Atheists so poorly? Too many emotions. All they need is another unhappy Atheist to fuel their fire. If nothing else, we must be intelligent. In other words, please evolve. Isn't this the point - that we seek real answers, and not opinion? Investigation is key. Evidently, respect is optional. I expect more from someone claiming to be rational. Keep digging. As you correctly mentioned, but poorly defended, the Isle of Rationality calls."
PhZzzzzzzzz

"It's interesting how much of his life Richard Dawkins devotes to refuting creation. Why? If it really is a myth, why waste your time on people who are stupid enough to have been duped by the biggest lie of all time? Why not just focus on your "science", and let all of the stupid religious folk be on their merry way? Why? Because he knows there is something more than what he personally believes. There is a conviction in his heart, and it breeds a discontentment. As a result, he spends countless hours writing, researching and debating with those who seem to have something that he is missing. Dr. Lennox debates to share a message of hope. Mr. Dawkins debates to attempt to prove that anyone who disagrees with him is, in his own words "delusional". "
Anna

"There's no way that one might be expected to lend credence to a debate by a human of this planet who believes what he believes because his daddy believed it -- In the spectrum of time, earthlings have occupied this planet for a period of only nano-seconds -- In the spectrum of space(volume), this planet and its Milky Way galaxy is but the size of a needlepoint head within the universe -- Earthlings didn't discover the above until just recently (200 years after the after America was discovered) -- Until then, earthlings believed that the Earth was the center of the universe -- So, why is this planet of such miniscule significance in the scheme of things universal, considered of such importance? -- Earthlings(human and animal) have no clue as to the reason for their being but tend to continue to exist on the basis "survival of the fittest" which includes looking to a higher power for their protection, such as paternal, maternal, pack leader and/or in the case of humans, mythical -- Non-believer humans look to all but the mythical for protection - they don't have a clue and they know it -- To a non-believer, the personal consequences of believing or not believing are none after death - for all -- To a believer, the personal consequences of not believing are dire before and after death -- The consequences to humanity of believing or not believing are proportional to the lack of tolerance exhibited by each for each -- Eternity? Not to wury -- "
SiSim

""Praise God for Dr Lennox, You really made Prof. Dawkins think twice when he said faith is harmful not realizing that he too has a 'faith' about something too." what exactly does dawkins have faith in?"
Jackson

"I shared Dawkins' frustration at the format of the debate, it would have been better if they could have continued without the constant changes of topic. I was unimpressed with Lennox - he clearly did not understand Dawkins' arguments, and did not understand evolution. As for his claim that the fine-tuning of the universe can be explained scientifically by the god-hypothesis, what is his evidence that god is the correct explanation? In science a hypothesis must be tested before it can be accepted, but what tests has the god-hypothesis been subjected to? What predictions does it make that cannot be explained any other way?"
Alan

"(This is a correction of part of my previous comment.) I thought it was interesting that each time Dr. Lenox talked about God or Jesus that he would repond by using the very general term "religion". It is unfortunate that Prof. Dawkins has missed that God is a person, and that people can have a relationship with Him. It is even more unfortunate that Prof. Dawkins does not recognize how God would delight to have a relationship with him. "
Jana Dorn

"Are these comments from real people? My God (pun intended) we're in bad shape... So many misunderstandings of what Dawkins said that it seems completely ludicrous to undertake correcting any of them... But I have to do something, and the "Argument From Stalin" is too embarrassing for me to let any of my fellow human beings go on using it. Listen up, people - it's really simple: Religions contain INSTRUCTIONS. These can make people do horrible things. Atheism contains NO instructions and therefore can NOT be the cause of any actions. As simple as that, and besides the argument if completely irrelevant to this discussion, as Dawkins also mentioned. Apart from this, I realize that your personal relationships with God can seem very real, and therefore are extremely difficult to "deconvince" you of. Doesn't change the fact that it's anecdotal evidence, and most likely it's just your mind playing tricks on you. What evidence can you provide that it isn't? I would have loved to hear Lennox elaborate on how he gets from "there must be a first cause" and then to "Jesus and the Abrahamic God". Man, is he in trouble when he'll be standing before Zeus on the final day..."
Frederik Rosenkjaer

"If God can do anything, then He can create things in the way the book of Genesis says He did. He can do things in a way that may seem like fairy tales (according to fallable human logic); or in ANY way. The Christians who hosted this debate gave freedom of speech and dissent to the opposition. But time and time again Christian free speech is stifled in public places, or sued against by the A.C.L.U. in this country. The liberal media under-reports these things (for those of you who rely solely on them for your news source.)Christian and conservative radio is one source of stories unreported by the "mainstream" media; but it's been coming under fire lately, by seemingly innocuously-named bills in Congress. If one of these radical, 1960's, baby-boomer, counterculture, McGovernic, "NEW", democrats takes the White House; total free speech and freedom of religion in America will be in jeopardy, unless there is a strong counter reaction from the people. The people will only hear one side; and not necessarily the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and they may become thoughtless, brainwashed puppets who are fooled into electing those who would threaten our freedoms. I think some of the American people are already affected by this spell on their minds. They won't be able to hear all sides, so how can they make up their own minds for themselves. Ronald Reagan kept talking about freedom of speech, while he was president; maybe because he saw that these types of radicals might try for the White House and Congress, after he leaves office. Often the people who think that they're the wisest and who are the most outspoken, are the ones who are fooled the most and are the most ignorant."
anonymous

"Perhaps when comments regarding evolution are made it might be useful to understand them first and apply them appropriately. For example, "survival of the fittest" does not in any way shape or form refer to the fact that I am stronger than you and therefore can beat you up and survive while you do not. It refers to the ability of an organism to survive in his local environment because he "fits" better in it than another. A fish "fits" better in the the water than I do. Think of a key fitting a lock. The key that fits the lock best wins. "
Saynt Peetur

"We're constantly told that there are heaps of intelligent, educated Christians, and I'm sure it's true. But from listening to this debate and reading the comments, it's as if you people throw your brains away at the door of the church. Or at least you are very selective in your application of logic. Some of the posts seem to come from intelligent, articulate people, which makes the basic ignorance all the more breathtaking. "
Tom

"I think that the main problem with the atheistic-beloved multiverse theory is that, in essence, the fact that the atheists equate the different universes with different physical laws and rational, which is contrary to their argument for rationality. Because these different universes have different laws, for example, they don't have to function according to our logic, hence an uncreated being could very easily exist in one of them, and that being could be in contact with our universe. There's the gap in the thinking. Also, I'm surprised that no one mentioned during the debate that naturalists themselves face the dilemna of where the stuff that the universe is made out of came from. When you put it on that level, God is just as likely to exist as the elements that make up our world, and even more so, sice the elements must have been made at one time, then they obviously needed a creator or something equatable to that status."
JE

"One point missed. All matter subject to ime (unchanging) must have a begining to have a present. Therefore the universe had a begining. The God of scriptures is not subject to time (again therefore unchanging), and needs no begining."
Stew

"It's amazing to me to see here how rigid [or fragile?] are the beliefs of the religious. As a young atheist I was puzzled by religious belief. So I set out to understand it better. I found books on the subject, and I read the religious texts recommended to me by the faithful [including New and Old Testament]. It is only recently (since 2002) that a wide variety of very readable atheist literature has become available. For those who dare to understand, I recommend Dr. Dawkins most recent book, along with those of Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Chris Hitchens (all are best sellers available at your nearest library or book store). Listening to under 2 hours of debate does not give one much of an insight into the true nature of our universe."
ChrisMcL

"Tyrants use undemocratic means to unconditionally get their way, and impose it on the people, whether the people want it or not. The constitution doesn't give us our freedoms; it prevents government from obstructing our God-given freedoms."
followup

"The format of the debate was grossly unfair to Dawkins, and was a disgrace. First, a quotation from Dawkins book was read out by the chairman, and Dawkins was invited to comment on it. But since the book has been published 12 months earlier, Lennox had had all that time to prepare, hone and practice his attack on the quotation. Surely, at that point, Dawkins should have been given an opportunity to deal with Lennox's points; but astonishingly, the chairman moved on to the next quotation! This absurd way of proceeding continued throughout, and the result was that Dawkins was repeatedly frustrated by having to backtrack to Lennox's previous points before he could answer the new question. Even after Dawkins had pointed out the unfairness of this, the chairman persisted in continuing in the same format. Dawkins was clearly unsettled and disadvantaged by this, as it prevented the natural flow of questions and answer. (I will be charitable, and assume that this was accidental, and not deliberately rigged). Fortunately, Richard Dawkins still managed to dismantle Lennox's arguments, but not always with his customary facility. This had nothing to do with the any real challenge contained in Lennox's arguments, but simply a direct result of the ridiculous format employed. Lennox's closing comments were a revealing admission that he believes in miracles, and sees no problems with superstitious beliefs, miracles and magical thinking, which he obviously prefers to reason. His gratuitous preaching was against all debating conventions, and though it will, no doubt, endear him to Christian Fundies, it will also surely confirm to rationalists everywhere, their conviction that religious faith severely disables certain parts of otherwise normally functioning minds."
John Tate

"""It's interesting how much of his life Richard Dawkins devotes to refuting creation. Why? If it really is a myth, why waste your time on people who are stupid enough to have been duped by the biggest lie of all time? Why not just focus on your "science"" Tripe. You open up any newspaper in the country, and you'll find another story about a dead doctor, an exploded baseball game, a failing nuclear peace treaty, a vaccine getting opposed, or creationism getting shoved into the secular school system. And you ask why oppose it if you don't believe it? Are you HIGH? Dawkins absolutely trounced his opponent in this, though quite frankly that's damning with faint praise. A child could have taken this man's speech-afying. They weren't even arguments, as he refused to address anything that Dawkins said. He just waited for his turn to speak, then got up and spewed his nonsense, completely ignoring any points made by Dawkins in the excerpts or in person."
Graham

"This is not a debate. If this is called a debate then God is really a mere delusion. There is no proof of God, Dog or else..."
Zeratul

"First, a big, big THANK YOU for the debate. The only criticism I have pertains to the format. The moderator was minimally inobtrusive, to be sure. Still, I would have preferred that Dawkins and Lennox speak to each other directly, with more sponteneity than what the format permitted. In our daily conversations, neither our comments nor our responses are formally structured. We discuss, we argue, we address each other, but we don't make speeches. Two scholars similarly can have a civilized discussion free of emotion, rancor and excessive interruptions. "
m

"Darwinism dealt a blow!? Are you kidding!? Lennox believes in evolution himself, which is why they didn't debate it! I think some people here are really confused and think that evolution and atheism are the same thing."
Bendra

" PhZzzzzzzzz, If truth is relative, why should I have any reason to accept your position that truth is relative? Is that not in itself a truth? Why do you say, "Right and wrong depends on your perspective" and yet when something happens not in your favor, you say, "I have been done wrong?" "
Austin4oghs

"I was suprised at how many time Prof Dawkins agreed with Dr Lenox. They both made good points which were thought provoking. However being a christian and taking the Bible at face value "if" the Bible is the final word (which I believe is) at the end of my time here on earth it is just my beginning. But for Mr Dawkins his life will be pure hell. If he is correct then life just ends. I choose to believe in God and I believe what it says in Romans 1:18 - Romans 2:16 rather than me explain I will let you look it up. Blessings "
Wayne Wooldridge

"To me, to believe that there is some universe-making machine where billions of universes spit out takes just as much faith as to believe in a God that created it. Dawkins is not devoid of faith, he simply has it in the wrong direction. He said it was silly to believe in a god, but does it not sound silly to also believe in a universe bubble that we have never detected with instruments, never done calculations upon, and never have had eyewitnesses accounts of its existence? "
Austin4oghs

"Prof. Dawkins says that people should not believe in anything for which they have no evidence(although I’m not sure what he requires for evidence), hence his disbelief in the spiritual realm or God. However, most people will never step into a laboratory, will never see DNA, will never see an atom, will never see a virus. Many of us lack the genius to understand higher mathematics and complex sciences. And even if we had the privilege of entering their realm, we would still depend on their explication to appreciate even the fundamentals. My point is that Dawkins is requiring all people to trust in scientists because we will never ever see any evidence first hand that there is such a thing as DNA. Hence, he’s asking us to believe not in evidence, but in him. So what does it mean that millions of people rely on the few? It means to have faith in the witness of the few. Now how about the New Testament Gospels concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? The apostle John wrote in his letter, “We declare to you…what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands…and we have seen it and testify to it…we declare to you what we have seen and heard…” (I John 1:1-3a).[By the way, there are at least 9 ancient non-Christian sources that confirm the gospels] No one today was a witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – we rely on the testimony of those who were there. Such is the case with science: most of humanity are not eye witnesses; we will never see the “evidence” – we rely on those who do. As for the “evidence” of the New Testament documents: those who honestly research current scholarship will be blown away at the reliability and accuracy of what we have in the bible today. Anyone who scoffs has never honestly taken the time to find out (apx. 80% of historical scholars are neither for nor against Christianity, and they affirm the reliability of the New Testament documents). Have a small look (there’s much more out there): “Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings [source: “Is the Bible Intolerant?” Amy Orr-Ewing] Plato: written 100-44 B.C.; earliest fragment/copy 900A.D; time span 1200 yrs; number of manuscripts=10… Tacitus: written 100 AD; earliest fragment/copy 1100 AD; time span 1000 yrs; number of manuscripts=8…Homer: written 900 B.C.; earliest fragment/copy 400 B.C.; time span 500 yrs; number of manuscripts=643…New Testament: written 40-100 AD; earliest fragment/copy 125 AD; time span 25-50 yrs; number of manuscripts=24,000". It requires trust and faith to believe in the testimony of another person in any area of life when we have not engaged first hand in an experience: in the courtroom; in the day to day accounting of our life experiences with friends and family; and in the laboratory. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” A blind man may not believe that there is such a thing as a sun in the sky – but it does not vanish because of it. Likewise, people may not believe that there is a God, but that does not make Him cease to exist either. "
Jennifer DiCesare

"Lennox's moral arguments were sadly deficient. He posited that morals originate in god. How can they originate in god if we also have free will and can choose, not only whether to follow the rules we have, but also which rules to follow, from the smorgasbord of religions in existence and long dead? Clearly the fact is that humans are in charge of writing, interpreting, and following moral rules, whatever their imagined origin in some theological or ancestral mist of time and space. Morals are how humans decide how to treat each other, and as we learn through time how to take care of each other better, these rules change, as Dawkins especially pointed out. It is clearly a good thing to make of humans something sacred and inviolable, codified in the form of human rights, for instance. That is surely progress in any one's book, but it does not depend on god, since, being inscrutable, she has not been telling us what to do- certainly not recently. The religious attitude towards fellow humans can be a good thing, except when it is a bad thing, (see Islam and sharia). What is certainly good, in the end, is not an absolute religious criterion, but the human criterion- are we happy, communally and individually? "
Burk

"I skimmed many of the comments. They are full of logical fallacies. The argument from design, The argument from scripture, etc., etc. Also the criticism of Dawkin's knowledge of the Bible is misplaced. He can quote huge amounts of the Bible from memory. He also knows vast amounts of the background of its writers. Of course he is not a Biblical scholar, but his knowledge of the Bible is far greater than the average church goer. Lastly, on evolution: Evolution is a fact, Darwin began the explanation of how it works. Modern genetic discoveries have modified and extended it, but his basic thesis still stands. Thanks for posting the audio."
Jim Thompson

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998. Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator most likely does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion...The true is that Dawkins's conclusion that there is no God or any purpose in the universe is "naive" and not based on science but on a hatred for religion. Dr. Lennox also seemed to be very familiar with Dawkins' literature, as well as the people Dawkins would quote.. i like what professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at University College, London said : The theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special Creation, which is clearly incredible". Watson, D.M.S. “Adaptation,” Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol.124, 3119, pages: 231 - 233"
canada-toronto

"John Lennox will be a guest on Premier Christian Radio www.premier.org.uk Sat 13th Oct 2pm (GMT) to talk about his debate with Dawkins. He will also debate an atheist evolutionary biologist on science and religion on the same programme. Catch the podcast from Mon 15th at http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=1266"
Justin Brierley