Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Everything. The burning bush that talks, answers questions, and grants divine powers, is exactly the type of proof that one should requre before buying into the existence of something super natural.

Are you really suggesting that personal spiritual experiences are legitimate proof of God’s existence? If not, then exactly what are you suggesting?

In case it isn't clear enough, I will again quote Hitchens:

I assume you are referring to Christopher Hitchens here. I am sorry, but I reject your apparent notion that a writer for Vanity Fair magazine is a proper authority on the existence of God.

"The Bible makes magnificent claims, we should require magnificent proof."

This just proves my point above, Hitchens was nothing more than a clever rhetorist. In order for the above assertion to be anything more than a meaningless platitude you’re going to have to be a bit clearer. What makes something a magnificent claim? What’s a magnificent proof? How is it different than inductive support or deductive proof?

Yep, you haven't changed one bit, Stat.

Good. Neither have you; so you’re not going to address any of my points? Convenient.