Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

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

I'm stating the obvious. For something to be supernatural, it must be SUPERNATURAL. And it's unreasonable to believe in something supernatural unless it is verifiable. Is that really hard to understand?

I realize that you've grown accustomed to believing in the supernatural merely because other people told you it exists, but at some point you have to grow up and challenge the existence of Santa Clause.

Make the man show himself, and prove his power. Not to much to ask, unless you've been conveniently brain washed into believing that such a logical challenge is somehow "evil".

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.

Wouldn't matter if he was a high school drop out working at McDonald's. Logic and reason do not discriminate.

Which brings us to:

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

And your response:

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?

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you really require clarification of what is magnificent? Would it be too much to ask that you merely look the word the up, being that you evidently lack the basic education it would have taken to know it in the first place?

I'm really not trying to be condescending, but come on!

A word of advice, and it's really the best advice anyone can offer you. Stop assuming you've got this subject right, and stop rejecting some of the most important and critical questions that should have to be answered in order to justify your faith.

If you can't do that, what good are you really in discussions like this?