This blogger has a few thoughts about this event:
Since the theists acknowledged at the beginning of the evening that the non-theists were good and moral , why did the discussion continue? Wasn't the question answered in the affirmative right there?
The non-theists presented the problem found in the Euthyphro dilemma, which essentially is: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The theists countered with a third option: God IS morality, as part of His nature. A question asked the theists to provide evidence for this assertion. The answer was an obfuscation, thus, the dilemma was not refuted.
The non-theists presented several examples of societies that had the most diverse opinions on morality were actually the most moral and flourishing. Conversely, those societies that were the most dogmatic and "certain" of morality were the least moral and flourishing. The theist were unable to refute these facts.
The theists repetitively stated that, without god, there can be no objective morality. This assertion without evidence was essentially a "red herring." In this blogger's experience, most atheists do believe in objective morality. The problem is that, even though there is an objectively moral answer to all moral questions, many situations contain many factors that make determining that right answer difficult and unclear. Francois Trembley presents a case for objective morality from a non-theist perspective here:
The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).
The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.In closing, it is this blogger's opinion that this discussion was "putting the cart in front of the horse." The existence of a god needs to be established before discussion of whether god is necessary for morality proceeds. The theists failed to establish that there is a god.
By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.