Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

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...

I just pointed out that the very notion of “evidence” proves that God exists and then you turn around and ask me for evidence proving that God exists?

Even if all of what he hold true today because of the scientific method was proved wrong it would not be evidence for god.

I never said it would be, but the fact that we can do science at all is proof that God exists.

There were atheists before there was science.

So?

One of the reasons for this is because the god idea is a stupid one.

Why is it a “stupid idea”?

I read the bible and wondered at the gullibility of people who believed it.

Why?

What science does that supports the contention that I was right in the first place is the demolishing of the idea that god did this or that.

How?

what evidence? Where is this evidence. And don't tell me the voices in your head. That doesn't count.

Anything and everything, give me any evidence or experience you like and I can show you how it proves that God exists.

There he goes, blathering on bout overwhelming evidence without presenting so much as a single tittle. This evidence comes prepackaged with an excuse for being incapable of/unwilling to provide it as well.....which is convenient.

Sometimes I seriously wonder whether you even read my posts or not. I will try this one more time. The very notion of evidence proves that God exists. The fact that we can do science at all proves that God exists; so when you appeal to scientific evidence, no matter what the evidence is you are proving that God exists because in an atheistic universe science would be impossible. So you can blather on about evidence all you want, but you’ve already lost the debate the instant you begin appealing to evidence.

I feel like we're back on the fossil thread.

Why? Is it because you all are missing the point here almost as badly as you did in that thread?

Science - the process of finding evidence –

That’s not the definition of science.

is a perfectly good reason not to believe in the existence of something that potentially wastes time and energy, as religion certainly does. No evidence for God, no reason for me to waste the brain space on it. There's other shit to do. When God provides repeatable evidence that bears up to scrutiny, then we'll talk.

Are you really suggesting that you only believe in the truth of claims that can be scientifically testable and repeatable?

A burning bush, man. That's all we need.

What does the story of the burning bush have to do with anything?