we are , of course going over the same old stuff that we debated [or in some cases, throw abuse around] as in past posts.
this does include what you say ,stringsinger also, albeit minus the foulmouthing of some.
for example providing proof of the existence of God has been often discussed, and it has been generally conceded that "proof" is not available in general. what the discussion really hinges on is where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
the traditional argument has ,I think, revolved around cause and effect, ie that everything THAT HAS A BEGINNING must have sufficient cause, and that the coming into being of natural things must have a supernatural cause greater than the things bought into being.
this is IMO seen most acutely in the creation/evolution debate.
What has atheism to offer to account for first things and first life ? - notwithstanding the unfounded assertion of steve that science is closing in on the problem. should the existence of a creator God be dismissed, unless it be a matter of philosophical objection.
as far as dawkins is concerned ,it seems that he refuses to debate creationists lest he lend creationism respectability, while there is plenty of footage where he does tackle creationists that don't have the academic achievement to debate him more effectively.
having said that, he wont debate w.l craig either, and he is not a YEC.