These religious arguments are always so classy. Almost as classy as Kaz!

A debate of God would only be complex to someone who doesn't choose to understand.  It all depends on our mindset.  It could be as short as a few sentances or as long as the Bible it self.  It's no oddity either.  Some people see enough proof in the contents of the bible and others don't.  Thus it's a subjective matter.   Even if God doesn't have any earthly relevance, that could also be viewed as a reason to follow it.

In respect to your post I'll respond in the same way you decided to use. 

1.  Firstly, I said in their own virtue.  A gospel truth is an "unquestionable truth".  Of course someone could question it, that doesn't change how people see it.   Even Bigfoot could be valid in the minds of some people. 

2.  Clearly.  I didn't say it did.  All I said was by majority rules logic, you'd be and will be wrong.  That is considered a logic.  One you may agree or disagree with.   Some do.

3.  When I said that, I was responding to when you said "because we cannot disprove their existence, unicorns, Bigfoot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and other absurdities would thus be true and we would have to believe them."  That implies that someone has to believe them.  Clearly, our views are subjective to the person.  And to debate the views and intentions of people who have been dead for several millennia would be ludacris.  

4.  No, I said Ra, the Egyptian god had a correlation to a earthly entity, so in theory, it could have been easily fabricated.  God doesn't have such a correlation.  I later explained that God might be the only completely abstract concept we've ever acquired.

5.   Well I said, that's your view.  Since we can't ascertain their intentions, we will never truly know.  So people are free to believe in God without actual 'proof' that demands they don't.  I argued by saying it seems far-fetched to believe that.   Of course that's your view.  Only way we'd be able to determine it, is by awakening such ancients, and forcing them to tell us their purposes, even then, it could be dishonest or a number of other factors that could disprove it's validity. 

7.  That's not the vibe I had of it when you first responded.  Though, I'll accept it anyway. 

8.  Okay then, replace what I said with Primates.  Lions do have societies.  Male lion's kill cubs that aren't theres and some that are theres.   They don't usually eat the cubs, they just kill them.  If a human was to do this, then he'd be deemed dispicable.   Thus their codes aren't on line with ours.

9. What I said was,  "Considering all people believe what they see, and they use that to determine how things work. " I expressed earlier in that post that we'd have no way to determine things without our senses to analyze and verify them.  As such a tree is nothing to a man who has no senses.  He can't smell it to determine what it smells like, he can't see it to decide what it looks like and so on.

10.  Exactly, it's "likely".  We can never know what went through their minds.  Be it that they adopted God by watching lightning or it was by the will of a super natural being, remains to be heard.  Our speculation would be a lot clearer if we were born into a society where principles weren't already established for us.   

11.  As I've said, we'll never know.  So going by this 'logic' science will never be able to disprove religion.  Though there is not enough proof for everyone,  people believe by the "Will of God", or the contents of their holy books, or by their parents and so on. 

12.  That was inculpating as to nonbelievers.  Not for people who don't have beliefs on the matter. 

I assume he means William Lane Craig.

Video

Dr. WIlliam Lane Craig. He is the most famous theistic/christian debater and without a doubt the best one. Even Dawkins is too scared to debate him

I would much rather have seen Christopher Hitchen go up against him - Dawkins is too polite and not as a good debater as Hitchens imo.

I posted that very debate just a few posts back.

He often takes the stance that atheists must prove that god doesn't exist.

The problem with this WLC guy is that is isn't quite clear whether he actually believes in the nonsense he spills out or whether he deliberatly lies. And Dawkins is certainly not afraid of WLC, he very probably is just sick and tired of these con-men guys.

Interesting. I'll probably look into it. Then again, I probably won't considering these debates are unnecessarily long and drown out for something that's essentially about who has the better debate skills rather than who's position is the most valid.

What? A debate between Hitchens and that christian dude?

That's actually quite a dumb argument... That's like me saying that I believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, and you can't disprove the Almighty Flying Spagetti Monsters existence, so therefore he must be real. And I really think that science already have disproven the existence of god as best it can; like how Noah's ark isn't possible, that Adam and Eve couldn't have happened, and a shit ton of other things....

That argument pisses me off. Firstly you can't disprove anything that in principle exists outside of the universe, but you can say whether beliefs of these entities are justified or not. Secondly, I think for most nonbelievers (whether they know it or not), mere belief in a God isn't a problem. It's asserting characteristics and implications of that God that's the most mind boggling. I could be wrong though; I know I feel this way. I also rarely encounter nonbelievers arguing with theists who believe in a nameless, unknown, potentially apathetic God. Arguments are usually with the religious.

Not saying you necessarily hold these beliefs as well, but I just wanted to get that out there.