1. Something can come from nothing. (Really? So why don't things pop into existence out of nothing in any of our experiences, since observational sense experience is supposed to be so key to the case against theism?)
2. Potentialities can actualize themselves, e.g. things can be self-caused. (In order for a thing to be self-caused, it would first have to exist in order to cause its existence, which means it both exists and does not-exist simultaneously. This is contradictory.)
3. There is no objective moral law, but it's wrong to torture children for fun. (Theistic response: huh?)
4. The universe's fine-tuning can be explained by infinitely-many universes. (Best case scenario? Pure speculation.)
5. The laws of logic are not reliable, so philosophy is useless and science alone can provide us with knowledge. (Granted this claim was made by Lawrence Krauss, and not any atheistic philosopher I'm aware of.)
6. Just because every contingent thing can possibly not-exist doesn't mean the sum total of all contingent things can possibly not-exist. (If every part of a mountain can not-exist, then the mountain as a whole can not-exist. The atheist is now grasping at straws.)
7. An actual infinite can be formed by successive addition. Between 1 and 2, there are infinitely-many fractions. (I've already had a lot to say about this gem. Whenever all of the fractions are added up, we get a finite sum. Moreover, 1 and 2 are the respective beginning and end of the interval. The atheist has unwittingly provided confirmation of the theist's claim, since the example presupposes something finite!)
8. God hasn't made his existence sufficiently evident to everyone which, if God existed, he would do. (Question-begging much?)
9. Even if a deity exists, it doesn't have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (So what? Besides, if the ontological argument is sound, then God must possess these additional attributes.)
10. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples can be explained as hallucinatory. (What about the Apostle Paul? And the lack of any evidence for uniformity among group hallucinations? How about the empty tomb?)
These are just ten examples of what I consider to be bad objections to theistic arguments. Yet, many of these aren't typically the arguments of the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett). Rather, we find professional (atheistic) philosophers of the likes of Quentin Smith asserting #1. Is it any wonder that Smith admits that theists win the vast majority of these debates?
Finally, we don't just find William Lane Craig winning these debates. J.P. Moreland is another. Then there's Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, and even the late Greg Bahnsen. To reiterate, my theory is that atheistic philosophers are somewhat embarrassed to say out loud what they've previously claimed in writing. Things become a little more real, a little more concrete, when you have to verbally communicate some rather absurd claims.
It should go without saying that I respect the intellects of atheistic philosophers, such as Quentin Smith, Austin Dacey, Graham Oppy, and J. Howard Sobel. Nevertheless, I think their objections to theism are simply too easy to expose as fallacious in the context of a formal debate.