Heard it... you do realize it is a 15 year old debate right? I am pretty sure many here have heard it.

 I have an idea for you, visit a children's cancer ward, that refutes your 'god' pretty easily. "All loving" does not allow children to feel such pain. Oh, yes, please tell me about how it is his "will" and we cannot understand such things or how it is because of original sin which the all knowing deity couldn't see coming a mere 24 hours earlier.

 Try looking at your religious text critically and understand that it was writtin in caves and huts by men who hardly understood the world. It was re-interpreted and re-translated by various men who commisioned the work so the text could fit their agenda. It is still being interpreted daily by religious leaders across the globe to maintain control of the flock and hinder true progress.

Open your eyes, the true intelligence comes when you look at such things critically and without blinders to keep you worrying about your 'eternal soul'.

Magic and illusion is what religion is selling to those who fear the concept of thinking for oneself. 

You know, I think a lot of the time the "if gods exist" discussion is a bit of a red herring that masks a bigger systemic problem of people just believing what's spoonfed to them.  "Hey look, here's something from 1985, but don't pay attention to any criticism of it."  This sounds familiar, where have I heard this one before...

How about: "Hey look, check out this really crazy book from 300 CE, it's probably true so don't listen to any critical reviews of it. Make sure to live your live by it." 

 Or hmm..  "Phlogiston theories work for me, don't pay attention to any revisions of it."

Is it just me, or if you want to make a case on critical thinking, you might want to use some when it comes to counter-arguments, follow-up debates and theory revisions?

Only 6 posts into your stay, do you have to be wrong about so much, so fast?  http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/ 

Fixed. 

The Great Debate? Who the hell gave this debate that name? Please stop lying theist, you dishonest turd.

I encourage all atheists to listen to it and pick out every absurd argument.

The debate was on the question "does god exit?" right? But then (in part 1 at 7:10) Bahnsen opens by stating the need to define terms, but he seems to have missed 'god'. He says, "I shall make it clear by what I mean by the term 'god'". But he cleverly and completely avoids defining 'god' and defines 'christian theism' instead; then he pleads intellectual bankruptcy with the transcendental argument for the existence of a god (TAG).

Gordon Stein then defines (why did he do this? Bahnsen has the burden of definition) 'god' as "a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world" which Bertrand Russell and a priest agreed on in their debate. And this definition tells no one anything.

An example of the futility of formal timed debate is when Stein asked Bahnsen if god was material or immaterial. Bahnsen said god was immaterial. Then Stein ask Bahnsen to give an example of something that was immaterial. Bahnsen equivocated that logic was immaterial meaning logic was irrelevant. The audience (the majority of whom must have been christians) went wild. They weren't there to learn anything. They were there to cheer for their team. The christians were/are trapped in the sociopsychological phenomenon known as collective hysteria.

What would be MORE interesting than coming in here and laying down a 23 year old TAG debate might be to pick some more recent interpretations of it and give us some new spins or poke holes in newer refutations.

Maybe have a look at Michael Martin's papers on it, like this one: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

 Or even Matt Slick's response, who seems to be the current TAG torch-holder.  http://www.carm.org/atheism/trans_refuted.htm

That guy thumps TAG Christianity on his show almost every episode, and couldn't keep himself calm enough to prevent Brian and Kelly from feeding him his own balls this year. 

To me, it comes down to never having the link.  Asserting logic comes from god and proving it comes from god are different things.  Also, I would like to see how under the condition that Christianity is false, how logic would no longer function.  If the Christian god is required, it would seem to me that there would be a case where logic would unravel without it.  Even if it turns out a DIFFERENT god is true (FSM, for example), what proof do we have that we still could not make use of logical tools?

I suppose one could view laws of logic as universal and worship THEM as god, but what's the point? 

Hahahaha.......you serious?

That's because we're a bunch of ignoramuses with our heads stuck up our butts. Am I right?

He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him - Proverbs 18:17 (RSV)

I guess that rules us out. We're just stupid atheist, right?

I have no bones with saying that Christians have won debates. William Craig Lane is a fantastic debater. But, I've yet to hear a debate that has persuaded me. If there is a truly cogent argument for Christianity, then it should be written down. That way I can check all the references myself. Only a fool completely trusts a smooth talker.

So, a question to consider: Why do so many Christian apologist equate "So-and-so won this debate." with "So-and-so's position is true."?

 Jesus wouldn't even bother to exist.  The nerve! 

He would have got kicked off of many forums for preaching. 

Call all modern xians, especially those in the US, wrong.

Honestly, I think Jesus would see all these new guys as a bunch of lieing, whiny, power-hungry, warmongers. 

You mean if he ever existed?

He'd get nailed to a piece of wood. Then he'd die. Then he'd rot. 

he obviously wasn't that good at it, he got his dumb ass nailed up

seriously though, what makes you say that

Depending on the month, that debate could be older than I am.