Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Esquilax]

This has nothing to do with whether I understand what the term overwhelming means or not and everything to do with you not understanding the nature of evidence. Evidence requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted, and the fact of the matter is that God must exist in order for a person to possess a logically coherent and defensible conceptual scheme. The entire notion and concept of “evidence” assumes that the God of scripture does in fact exist, so the debate was over before we even got to tossing around “evidences”. The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.

Why do you guys always feel like you can just say shit like that without providing any form of evidence for it? I mean, I know your barrier of entry for justification of your beliefs is ridiculously low, but come the fuck on...