William clearly won this debate.

 Don't you have any contrails to drool over?

Wow. I listened to an hour of it, and I feel I've been made dumber by listening to Craig shamble through mind-bendingly obvious assumptions and fallacies. The Cosmological Argument -- are you kidding? All he does is set up a straw-man (ex nihilo formation of the universe, which isn't what the big bang theory entails) and proceed to beg the question for his special deity.
 Of course, like all hucksters of his breed, he brushes off the problem of where his deity came from by
 asserting it's "necessary." How many more things was his deity "necessary" for when our ignorant ancestors were penning that abomination? He succeeds only in imagining a gap for his deity to hide in. There's more, but it's all, ALL idiotic. I can't believe he's invited to speak: it's embarrassing.

My guess is you never watched this video 

 If you wanna see William Craig get owned on more than one occasion here are 2 more Debates he was part of.

Here is the debate between Hector avalos and William Craig,

http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/isuaas/resources.shtml

Also here is a transcript of the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Craig

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm

I'm starting to wonder if debates really mean anything. I've listened to or read a few debates Craig was in. It seems that the theists always think Craig won, and the atheist always think Craig's opponent won.

I would only find Craig's arguments convincing if I already had a theist mindset. His argument for the resurrection take the Bible at face value and God existing as a given. Craig's faith ultimately comes down to personal religious experience. Combine that with almost flawless presentation skills, and Christians fall over for him.

Mr. Rage -- Maybe it's just good to hear the arguments articulated, and points addressed, even if it doesn't result in a definitive victory everyone can agree on.

 (I think he lost the every debate the moment he started believing in magic, but that's just me.)

You know, I have dialogued with many atheists, and I have to say I am sick of the condescending and arrogant attitude you people exhibit. Atheists talk a good talk. They argue that morals are possible without God, but I have yet to see a moral atheist. It is clear to me that if atheism had its way, and religious practice was removed from this planet, the world would inevitably self-destruct. The cause of this destruction would be complete immoral anarchy. Everyone would do what was right in his own eyes. You have to admit that on the whole, Christians, and members of other religions are much more ethical and moral then atheists. After hurricane Katrina, countless Christian organizations (Samaritans Purse, Opperation Blessing, etc) reached out to the homeless victims by rebuilding thousands of houses, feeding thousands, and paying for thousands of prescription medications, all for free! How may atheist organizations were there? "The Freedom from Religion Foundation" didn't lift one finger to help anyone! "American Atheists" weren't there! Atheists view humans as nothing but intelligent animals. In the atheist universe, there is no objective distinction between humans and amebas. The atheist cannot prove that humans have any superior value to that of the latter. In death, we are all equivolent and reduced to dust and ashes. Therefore, there is no reason permitted in the atheist worldview to care for anyone but themselves. Its all about "survival of the fittest."

As for  this debate between Craig and Tabash, either the posters here are blinded by their bias from seeing the obvious, or they simply do not have the intelligence to make an accurate analysis and appraisal of the logic and arguments.

They don't. Duckspeakers on both sides quack, the few who recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the argument wouldn't be caught dead in the audience.

There's no rational case for theism. Period. Those who either make the attempt or believe that it's possible are just not paying attention to reality.

I have attempted "dialogue" with you many times I can say that actual "arrogance" is attempting to argue about that which you obviously have no knowledge. In the few times I bothered to waste energy typing engaging in "debate" with you, it was in fields of endeavour in which I had inputted actual effort, years of it, and which you had no expertise whatsoever. That neuroscience debate consisted of me teaching you what you could have read in a library. The one about molecular biology was not so much of a debate as it was me Ctrl C+V my own essays into a post

Face it. True arrogance is attempting to argue about that which you know that you know nothing, and half the topics you attempt to conjecture on, you know nothing about. You never see me debating biblical errancy on ancient history, because I am not versed in such subjects. On the other hand, I will crush you in a scientific debate since I am versed in such subjects. Likewise, unless your position is the height of arrogant stupidity, you will not engage in arguments regarding which your knowledge could unfavourably be compared to that of an inanimate object, otherwise your right to call anyone else arrogant is nonexistent.

Again, do you know that or are you guessing? Have you ever studied sociology and the Theory of Secularization? Or is this unabashed rhetoric? You are simply conjecturing this. For example, I live in what is essentially the most irreligious society on Earth, and have been so for most of their history. Are they ready to self-destruct? No, they are springboarding to become the most powerful nation on Earth. You obviously know nothing about sociology or memetics. This piece has some good information:

Is The Evolutionary Advantage of Religion Coming To An End?

Again, your arrogance is brought out by spewing out rhetoric on topics regarding which you know absolutely nothing whatsoever. Please cease and desist.

We're sentient (well, some of us, I cannot really speak for you)

This is a basic philosophical error which constitutes a non sequitur. Again, with the arguing about subjects which your ignorance is obvious...you obviously need some basic understanding of the various arms of philosophy:

Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Materialism Refuted

Your arrogance continues to demonstrate itself by means you attempting (poorly) to argue about that which you know nothing. In this case, evolutionary cognitive neuroscience. There is a whole field of evolutionary biology and evolutionary cognitivie neuroscience dedicated to how it shapes Game Theory and Social functions and inbuilt morality. I am in possession of almost 100 scientific articles from 35 journals on the subject. Did you know anyhing about this? No. Could you, without running to an encyclopedia, tell me what Acetylcholine or N-Dimethyltriptamine is? No, you couldn't. Could you tell me what recipricoty of alruism is? No. Could you tell me about evolutionary game theory? No. Could you tell me about neuroetymology? No. So what gives you the right to make such statements based on fields of endeavour where your knowledge could unfavourably be compared to a pet rock?

I suggest you review this for more information on the matter:

ttp://www.rationalresponders.com/appears_designed_is_a_contradiction_in_terms_the_fundamentals_of_biological_evolution

I wrote I chink of it in such a way that even the simple could understand:

The brutal Darwinian picture hitherto painted may confuse the reader into thinking perhaps that evolution is solely about the brutal struggle of the individuals for resources. In fact, this is a naive and simplistic view. Groups and species are often if not nearly always forced to cooperate to survive, a process called symbiosis, whereby a reciprocal relationship is developed for the sustaining of both the organisms in question, for example, plants need to distribute seeds efficiently, and have developed many ways to do this, clever methods of wind distribution or animal distribution. Plant seeds are packaged in shells of food and nourishment for the seed called the ovary of the plant, better known as the fruit, which is often sweet and brightly coloured as to attract animals to eat it. The seed survives in the animals digestive tract and is dispersed at a faraway location, as a result of this mutual pact, both the animal and the plant benefit, the plant spreads its genetic material and the animal obtains nourishment. This reciprocal relationship of symbiotic coevolution is most common between plants and animals of this sort (eg bees obtaining pollen from the anther of a plant which needs pollen distribution for fertilization). Now, this relationship is also expressed for me much closer to my field of endeavor (cell biology), in the form of microscopic symbiosis which are not products of natural selection but still important cellular evolutionary processes all the same, that of endosymbiosis, the phenomenon of bacteria taking up refuge inside the phospholipid-choline-glycerol ampipathic bilayr of the proto-Eukaryota for sustenance and survival in exchange for powering their new homes such that the become incorporated into the cellular machinery and become the organelles of the Eukaryota, and in this case I was referring to mitochondria.

Reciprocal benefits of symbiosis are the foundation for a huge number of observed natural phenomenon, including our own highly social neurological instinct.

By the way, the social Darwinist application was personally refuted by TH Huxley a century before the creationist movement even existed. Anyone who ever thinks they have the right to comment on Social Darwinism as an applicable theory will have read his treatise on the matter, otherwise they will not be taken seriously.

So, may I inquire as to whether you have read T.H Huxley's refutation of your argument? It would be especially embarassing if he already dealt with your strawmen, you see, considering he lived century before you were born. You obviously know nothing about sociobiology.

The other book which is regarded as a specific counter to your claim long before you were born, which anyone who comments on Social Darwinist theory is The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin. Again, may I make the same inquiry?

Do you know that or are you guessing? (Isn't that such a fucking great phrase?). Need I remind you that you were the one who simply asserted that Craig won the debate without anything to back that up. Nobody else asserted that Tabash clearly won, and they certainly would not have done so as a single sentence unto itslef. Where did you learn to debate, with the National Attention Deficit Disorder Association?

Some people confuse the thoughts in their head, based on limited experiences, for an 'actual world' that really exists somewhere.

You are numbered amongst this select group.

Notice also that he never actually provides any examples of arguments from Craig that impressed him.

In other words, he ran from substantive discussion, searched for anything that might be insulting, and focused instead on being insulted.

Then, to top it off, he calls this inner experience of denial and rage "the world" and then feels comfortable in making judgements about this world, to wit: that there are no moral atheists.

 Some people wonder why I choose to work with people with developmental disabilities all day long. I do it so as to avoid  dealing with the true insanity of the world: internet theists.

You know, the phrase that comes up most for me in debate is: Do you know that or are you guessing? It has become a favourite phrase of mine. In the utterly vast majority of debates with internet theists, this phrase can so easily stand in for a full counterargument....It saves huge amounts of time! Actually, I keep it under a key shortcut, so whenever I press Ctrl+G, the phrase "Do you know that or are you guessing?" appears. It is the single most useful phrase you will ever come across in debate. It has saved me hours. 

LOL!  Yes, I wish I had thought of that years ago! 

Being rude is not necessarily the same as being immoral. There are plenty of good atheists. In fact, I'd be willing to be that almost all of them are very decent and upright people.

Lots of people on this forum---not excluding myself---can sometimes speak in a condescending tone to theists that come here though. But you have to keep in mind that this is an atheist site first and foremost. When theists come here to post their objections, they are basically welcoming us to say what we really think, which is that their ideas are insane and/or idiotic. Your only sanctuary from that treatment, if any exists here at all, is in the "kill them with kindness" board.

But just the same, if you repeatedly say things that we consider ignorant (especially making harsh generalizations about atheists), we're going to get annoyed.

If you persist in saying that atheism is a faith based position, we are going to get annoyed.

If you repeatedly offer up the same arguments over and over and over again when they've already been offered to us hundreds of times by other theists who were equally as unsuccessful when offering the arguments before you, we're going to get a bit tired of that, and perhaps a bit cranky as a result.

Here are some ignorant statements and/or generalizations in just this post:

I am certain that every atheist that reads those is going to be a little annoyed at you. Especially since we can explain how we do have morals and have done so on many occassions but are continually told that we have none and continually have our arguments on this topic ignored.

A few replies to a couple things you said in your post:

Atheists didn't help during with Hurricane Katrina? Here are just four of them that did:

American Humanist Association: http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/ActionAlerts/aaKatrina.php

Atheist Allegiance International:

http://atheistalliance.org/

Center for Inquiry:

https://secure.ga3.org/05/donate_to_help_katrina_victims

Hands on Humanity:

(no website)

There are also less atheists in the country than there are Christians, so arguing that Christians did more becomes a matter of numbers as well. We hope to change the difference in numbers though, so hopefully in a number of years things will be in reverse or at least even. =)

 In the atheist universe, there is no objective distinction between humans and amebas. The atheist cannot prove that humans have any superior value to that of the latter.

Oh wow, there are all kinds of objective distinctions. You can see that by simply looking at them.

You're slipping into that erroneous place that you consistently fall back into even in your "what faith you" topic, where you presuppose that all life is sacred or has some kind of value external to the value we ourselves put on it. Your inability to grasp/accept that position is probably yet another annoyance.

It's nothing personal against you as a person. Everyone here recognizes you as a human being with just as many rights as the rest of us. If we met you in person, we'd be just as courteous to you as we would to another atheist. But when it comes to this forum, if you say something we think is stupid, you're going to hear about it. That goes for atheists and theists alike. 

 As for  this debate between Craig and Tabash, either the posters here are blinded by their bias from seeing the obvious, or they simply do not have the intelligence to make an accurate analysis and appraisal of the logic and arguments.

I have a bias toward good, logical arguments, while you on the other hand seem to have a confirmation bias.

That's his goal, although he's probably unconscious of it.

He can't actually debate this issue.

And that bothers him. 

So he needs an 'out'

It also makes him angry.

And he needs to represes that. 

So he looks for an insult, any insult, to focus on while also tossing a few of his own. 

The reason? To repress these feelings of anger by projecting them out into you. You're supposed to get angry, and when you do, he can point at that as 'proof' that the problem lies within you, and not he...

It's called 'projective identification', and it's the key defense of the internet theist. 

Todangst:

Haha, the magic card parody is awesome. If only it were avatar sized. 

That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing called god is inconsequential and nugatory because nonexistence cannot be proven of anything.

How long have you been at this? One can prove nonexistence things don't exist in reality... Heard of a squared circle?

The length of time that I have been at this is irrelevant because one could be at this for 10 minutes and correctly observe that nonexistence cannot be proved of anything.

A squared circle is just that, ergo proving they do indeed exist.

In your haste to refute me you meant to make the claim that the oxymoronic locution "square circle" somehow proves that square circles do not exist, which is not correct, however, square circles can not logically exist. 

A "square circle" is a contradiction in terms and thus logically impossible, ergo it is not necessary to prove it.

You have to be joking. Craig presented ZERO evidence for the existence of his Christian god, the rape-condoning, slavery-loving Yahweh. Tabash did very well.