The debate is over

[fr0d0]

Exactly what aspect is Dawkins ignorant of?

Potentially everything out of the scope of science. Wouldn't you agree?

You might insist (without any empirical support) that everything has to empirically proven. Reality is on my side though.

Its specious claim to hold ultimate truth?
Is that truth scientific in nature? If so, on what grounds does Dawkins challenge it?

Its self assumed mantle of divine authority?
Ditto.

Its unsubstantiated ownership of objective morality?
Morality being rooted in God, who offers, like you correctly state, not an ounce of empirical claim?

Or its unverifiable claim for a unobservable deity?
Now there's a funny statement!

You know I'd go along with that 100%: (empirically) unobservable deity. Yet you don't seem to be able to grasp what faith means: belief without empirical proof. With good reason, but without the logically impossible... sure.

Since Dawkin's main claim to fame(in this case anyway) is the falsehood of religion, all Frodo needs to do is produce evidence for god.

Yes. Dawkins wants proof that circles aren't squares. He's that fucking ignorant.

---

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. Scientists find you embarrasasing.

Frods, as always, you come out with the classic lines

Which scientists would they be? Jason Lisle? Kent Hovind?

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable. Sure there are those who call themselves scientists who go chasing evidence of fairies, celestial teapots and the like. What they don't also do is follow the scientific method, which sadly for your case is defined.