The Debate- Can We Be Good Without God

I'm curious about what everyone thought about the debate. Was it helpful?

Here's my take. The question cannot be answered well without a view of God as sovereign to help us understand what it is to be good. Defining "being good," as "acting in a way to minimize harm, or intending to minimize harm," is a strange definition. The only word I can think of that describes how this makes me feel is -hopeless-. Is that the highest goal that a Humanist is striving for; to minimize harm? It seems like such a pitiful goal. I could sit in my house and never interact with anyone thereby causing as little harm as possible. Would this be considered a good life by this definition? It is such a passive definition. It denies the existence of virtue. Ironically, all kinds of virtues from charity to artistic beauty were discussed in the debate.
I think it would be hard to debate this idea from a Christian perspective without getting specific. I thought that D'Souza could have started from a simple definition of: being good = loving God and loving people. I think that may have at least provided a starting point so that he could discuss why Christianity is not just a "toddler mentality," where we do what daddy says so we don't get a spanking (although that is, I believe, a legitimate motivation) , but it is childlike in another way where we acknowledge that we are inferior, ignorant, dependent creatures who need daddy. Also, pointing out the big difference between the two Worldviews- Humans are Basically Good vs. Humans are Really Bad- would have clarified a lot.
Also, in my humble opinion, a simple NO would have been a better answer to the question rather than 'We can be good but we won't know why.'
I think for me the most helpful part of the debate was listening to Barker's definitons and reasoning. It is good to understand better what someone really believes and why they believe it if our goal is to help them see the truth.