Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

Christians are creationists.

I can see where this thread started to go wrong. Indeed not all Christians are creationists. If that were the case, all the videos of Dawkins debating Christians makes this irrelevant. I think you've started a thread with a sort of shaky premise. If all Christians are creationists and Dawkins won't debate them, explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4oMfY7q-Uo

There's is nothing wrong with the premise of this thread. Richard Dawkins refused to debate Mr. Craig and then offered a number of excuses why.

The fact that there may be contradictions to his reasoning is hardly anything of my doing and, therefore, isn't my responsibility.

The actual point of this thread was to evaluate the merits of debating Christians, and where Atheists can improve on their efforts.

Richard Dawkins refusal to engage in certain debates was simply used as a starting point for a much larger and more important discussion.

I'm sorry if the mere mention of his name caused you to miss the much larger point that was being made.

By the way, I have a ton of respect for Richard Dawkins. I just disagree with some of the reasons he's offered up for not engaging in certain debates.

Oh, and one other thing, yes, all Christians are Creationists. That is a fundamental necessity.

---

...but I'm always ready to be wrong. Please, feel free to toss loads of evidence on the table - or any evidence at all.

I think you missed Waldorf's point. If you believe that the physical universe is the whole of reality then you will not accept any evidence other than physical evidence. It's not logical to demand physical evidence for things that are not physical. It's like demanding evidence for the existence of an experience like joy.

In short, this "overwhelming evidence" being spoken of is really nothing tangible at all.