Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

-Sir, you are wrong, our one clear and common goal should be to serve and worship our creator.
egment of the audience erupts in cheer - game, set, match:

Let me ask you this, is that a compelling point for you? I know it isn't for me, and it wasn't much more compelling even when I was a Christian. And a number of Christians I have associations with find it equally non-compelling.

There is nothing appealing about eternal and obligatory servitude.

---

I'm not sure what your objection is exactly, since what I said to start with is that Dawkins will debate Christians but not Creationists.

Christians are creationists.

---

Dawkins is a biologist. Craig is a fucking asshole. They have no common ground to debate.

The fact that they have no common ground is the most compellng reason to debate.

---

I don't see why we'd want to use public debates to settle such issues. Let science and reason continue their inexorable march forward. Bread and circuses don't really work, IMO. Science does. Reason does.

You are correct that science and progress are the best tools of persuasion.

They aren't the ony ones though.

---

I agree, although that just furthers my point that this thread is based on an inaccurate principle anyway. I don't think Dawkins is a great debater. Who cares though, debate is so overrated as a method for establishing truth. Truth is truth, not who is the best at presenting their ideas.

Debate is not overrated. Debate is the source of many social, political, and legal developments in society.

That's why we need an effective approach to dealing with religious fanatics in debate.

---

The thing about Dawkin's not debating Craig was because Dawkins mistakenly thought he was a creationist. Or so I heard.

Craig is a creationist. But that isn't why Dawkins refused to debate him. In addition to Dawkins many objections to validating certain religious views by engaging in public debate, Dawkins also finds Craig to be a dispicable individual.

However, I don't think you have to like someone, or feel their views are credible, in order to justify debating them.

---

I always think that the problem lies in the fact some of the times the person in the atheist corner is often a scientist or specialist in some way and is usually (not in a bad way) a bit of a geek, and not always very good in expressing their opinions in a crowd pleasing way.
Where as the christians and muslims seem to have guys who their ONLY talent is being crowd pleasing.

Take for example Hamza tzortzis he takes on Richard Dawkins (a biologist) in an argument on biology and loses, PZ myers in an argument on embyology and loses, he debates Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated. But in every instance the opinion of Muslims and probably of a few neutral people will be that Hamza won just because he was relaxed and told a few jokes, gelled his hair back to look like the fonz and did an impressive smile.

The situation is basically you get a guy who's been locked in a room all his life studying fossils and animals vs a guy who trains everyday studying his body language and tone and how to please crowds and the timing of his jokes, and the people who get to decide who wins the argument are a crowd of a few builders and people who work in mcdonals or whatever (basically laymen like me).

You can always tell by Richards tone he doesn't give a shit if he impresses the crowd, a lot of the time he looks as if he hates the crowd, which is actually one of the reasons I like Richard Dawkins.
I liked it when he quoted the editor of the new scientist magazine and said “Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

Just wanted to say great points, all of them.

---

No change of heart, the desire for God’s existence is overwhelming.

Fixed it for ya.