So your arguement here demonstrates what many others above have posted about skeptics, in that you are not consistent in using christian concepts, and fallatious in your reasoning when you do argue against a proper concept.

Quite simply, we begin in the natural world, not supernatural. Theists say that there is an all powerful, invisible sky dad. This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to disprove extraordinary claims but on the theist to prove them. If I tell you I have a dragon in my garage it is not be up to you to disprove it. The burden of proof of this extraordinary claim is on me to prove it to you. So long as you default to a dusty old book written by ignorant ancestors about an imaginary friend, what is history, cosmology, biology and paleontology, you will see as insults.

The burden of proof is on the propounder of the assertion. Not all theists say that there exists a world beyond (normal theism), or that there exists a creator(s) in this world beyond. Those who do, I agree would have the burden of proof. The issue, here, is that none of us actually do.. with the exception of fundamentalist Christians and whatnot.

The burden of proof is on atheism, and in this very case, it’s on you. By stating, “There doesn’t need to be arguments against God or any deity.” you are prescribing the invalidity of theism. In doing this, you are maintaining your atheism (ironically, not aware), and hence it is YOUR job to prove that this is true – that there needn’t be an argument against any form of theism.

I really love to read comments, like your own, where the so called “non-believer” is preaching his “non-position”, and giving it attributes – which a non-position can’t have…. because it’s nothing.
Really goes to show your ability to reason, and most of all how you atheists do maintain good philosophy.. don’t get me started on the destruction of science. That’ll be for another comment.

My observations:

William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris
The God Debate II
U of Notre Dame

Sorry Sam, you blew it (first 40 min of debate). You didn’t engage Craig on the points he presented. His argument was, “If there is a god, there is an objective basis for morality; and conversely, if there is no god, there is no objective basis.” You let him slide on that where you could have whipped the rug from under his feet.

The fault is in the logic. He hasn’t presented the case that, if there is a god, that it has any interest in morality; or, if that it has an interest in morality, that we have any way of objectively knowing what that would be. Just having a god doesn’t satisfy his contention that it would be an interested, much less a benevolent, god. He hasn’t establish the premise on which he builds his argument and you didn’t call him on it. How are you going to win debates that way?

As to the second part, because of the unknowability of god, even if there is one, morality has to be a subjective agreement between all people. Because no one can establish that there god is any truer than anyone else’s god, we can’t use any god’s commandments as to how we should behave. We have to work out how to behave as an agreement between the members of the species as to how best to promote and maintain the species. The Golden Rule, which no one mentioned in the first forty minutes of the debate, is a pretty good objective/subjective way of basing morality without any god. You forgot to bring that up.

Follow up:

Craig: on flourishing as objective good. That depends, of course, on the definition of “flourishing,” but if we can assume in broad strokes it means the promotion and benefit of the species, then “objective good” encompasses “flourishing.” I think indices could be developed that could measure aspects of that in the same way we measure health of individuals and societies. We can develop scientific measurements of “good” and “bad.” It’s too bad that Harris didn’t demolish your argument, because you continue on with the assumptions about god being knowably good, which is demonstrably false. You can’t know anything about god; there is no mechanism for that knowledge to be transmitted.

I’ve got to stop watching now; too many errors have been made and left uncorrected to want to continue watching.

Oops. It doesn’t logically follow that, simply because there might be a god, that there would also be a concomitant moral law. Morality doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether or not there is a god. Even if there is a god, there’s no way of knowing what its moral will might be, or if it has a moral will. That may be a purely human level concept.

Conversely, natural law concepts such as the Golden Rule and doing what’s best for the species have no requirement for a god. The problem atheists have with believers is that they find believers to be immoral. We believe that each person is responsible for their own acts, not an imaginary and unknowable creature. Again, even if there is a god, there’s no way of knowing what that god thinks about anything, so we all have to come to our own moral judgements, anyway. The existence of a god doesn’t remove ones personal responsibility.

“Traditionally, atheists have claimed that the co-existence of God and evil is logically impossible.”

Oops again. Huh? That’s hardly an atheistic argument. Sure it’s easy to knock down an argument no one uses. Who says that? Where? Show me? Why would they? Au contraire, nothing says god can’t be evil. You can make god up to be whatever you want.

My first caution would be to rein in your self-assurance. It doesn’t become your arguments.

In the end, you resorted to the usual defense of a believers—which is, in the end, the only defense—“Faith, to me, is bigger than logic, bigger than reason. Proving the existence of God from logical arguments seems to me a lot like proving that I love my wife from logical arguments: the very exercise seems a bit inappropriate or even somewhat demeaning.” You aptly said that faith was a personal experience unaffected by the dictates of reason. Fair enough. Yet you went on to denounce the New Atheists’ deconstruction of religious reasoning, as if you were arguing from a point of reason; while you’ve already declared that you aren’t. Indeed, sir, you should hold to the unassailable position that faith is a personal revelation and not subject to logical scrutiny; other than, say, a neurological analysis. (By the way, doctorates of divinity don’t hold much water.)

I will note that you confuse belief in a god with a belief in a particular god. Your god. Beliefs in particular gods are easy to knock down because gods are, indeed, unknowable. Anyone claiming to know the will of god is, by definition, a charlatan. That’s where the necessity of proof comes in, and that’s what simply can’t be. The unknowable can be neither proved nor denied; hence it can’t be used in an argument. Do you want to argue about god, or do you want to argue about Christianity? There’s a big difference.

In any case, if you want to sit down at a table with me, I’ll take you on. Ought be a knock-out, right? After all, you’re the heavy-weight, I’m just a pipsqueak. One logical punch, that’s all it should take; I’ll be flat on my back.

You wanna piece of me? Come on.

You are
quite right to highlight this passing remark by Hutchinson. I have
listened to a few debates between creationists and scientists promoting
evolution, and the creationists have always acquitted themselves well.
They have given reasons for their belief to the extent that Dawkins will
not debate them; and also advises others against debate with them.

Surely commonsense would inform Dawkins that failure to confront this
'erroneous interpretation' will only be counter-productive. Dawkins had a
bad experience a few years ago when he was totally stumped by a request
for experimental evidence for an increase in complexity of evolving
life. Now he dismisses creationists as if they are beneath him; he has
evolved beyond that; he is the example of evidence of an increase in
complexity.
I studied anthropology at uni. and became a Christian
some time after. It was years before I abandoned the seductive, but
unfulfilling, theistic evolution twist for a faith grounded in a
childlike reception of Christ's teaching – 'Unless you repent and become
like a little child… 'Unless you receive it like a little child.. '
So if ultimately I am rebuked by Christ, for holding such a childlike
(note: not childish) interpretation, what response am I to make? Better
surely on that Day to be with the church of the little ones who stood around him than with
the church of the wise and learned. Matt.11:25.

It was the old timer’s birthday and the GM thought he would graciously let the birthday boy – who wasn’t really a very strong player, win. (Something to tell the grandkids.)

The game went on for ages and ages and in spite of the GM’s best efforts to lose, the old boy refused to cooperate and finally resigned, (conceding that no matter how good a player he was, he could never hope to beat a Grand Master of chess.)