I just listened to a debate between agnostic philosopher Paul Draper and William Lane Craig. It is a must listen! It is by far one of the best debates about theism and atheism I have heard. Draper defends naturalism with intellect, intelligibility, and honesty. You can listen to it here. The best part of it was Draper's evolutionary argument for naturalism: Evolution is necessary on naturalism but not necessary on theism. Therefore, naturalism is more likely than naturalism (Click here if you want to see this argument done justice). Craig responded to this by pulling out Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument and citing some old, long debunked calculations that allegedly showed it was next to impossible for the human race to evolve. The funniest thing about this is Craig's inconsistency: He wants us to accept the empty tomb and other such nonsense because "most scholars agree" it's history, but when a lone biologist and a couple of weird physicists argue against evolution (against the vast majority of biologists), he has no trouble siding with them. I think he just couldn't let himself admit that the evolutionary argument is sound (I'm not claiming it disproces God, it just makes him less likely).
Also, I recently had a discussion with Apologist J.P. Holding about the "Inner Witness" of the Holy Spirit. You may read it here.
P.S. If you want to see more posts like this (about atheist-theist debates) please leave a comment saying so.