Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

It's not a magnificent claim at all. It's a really simple premise the way I understand the meaning.

Holy monkey balls! Cinjin! I haven’t talked to you in ages, how have you been? I hope you are doing well.

That rainbow is beautiful - many would consider that "proof" of god.

I wouldn’t. But for the sake of discussion, Queen’s claim was that science disproves the proofs for God’s existence, so specifically how does science disprove that a rainbow is beautiful? I am not following you on that one.

That volcano erupted and destroyed that wicked city ... "proof" of god.
The ocean tides rise and fall like clockwork. We later discovered the moon takes the credit ... "proof" of god.

Those are not deductive proofs for God’s existence, so I don’t think either of them is relevant to Queen’s claim.

I could go on and on Stat. What she said is a true statement when you realize any tangible "proof" that you christards offer up as evidence has been proven not so by science.

You’re not even in the same ball park; please specifically explain to me how science disproves the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence, the Ontological argument for God’s existence and so on. Those are all deductive proves that science (which operates using the principle of induction) has nothing to do with. Science cannot disprove that necessary existence is a necessary property of God in all possible worlds, or that everything that has a beginning must also have a cause (especially considering the fact that science assumes causation is Universally true).

Furthermore, stop being such a dick.

Perhaps you’re just being overly sensitive.

There's no proof your god exists, let it the fuck go already.

The proof for God’s existence is overwhelming, let it go already.

You can't just believe and let it be can you ... you have to come here and be a prick to everyone.

I haven’t been mean to anyone, I have merely pointed out the errors they are committing, if that is your definition of “being a prick” then why are you trying to point out my errors to me? Oops, caught you.

I’ve really missed you!

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?

It’s not hard to understand, it’s just not an accurate statement, that’s all. So you are saying that the only way you’ll believe in something supernatural is if you experience it first hand?

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.

I believe in the supernatural because it necessarily has to exist. Santa Clause? I am not sure what that is. However, comparing Santa CLAUS to an immaterial, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, creator God is a false analogy.

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".

So you only believe in that which you have seen? Seriously?

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

You didn’t appeal to logic or reason, you appealed to Christopher Hitchens.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you really require clarification of what is magnificent?

No, I require clarification on what makes a claim magnificent. Your own personal opinion? Christopher Hitchens’s opinion? I reject that standard because it’s arbitrary.

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?

There’s no need to be condescending, especially considering the fact that you didn’t even understand what I clearly asked for. I asked what made a claim magnificent, not what the definition of the word magnificent was.
You also conveniently avoided my other question, what’s a magnificent proof? How is that different from inductive supports and deductive proofs? I am not aware of that classification of proof. Perhaps I am just not educated enough and you can enlighten me.

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

You’re just naturally that way? That’s even worse.

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.

Thanks for the advice, but I will remain confident in my position and continue to defend it, after all that’s what you seem to be doing as well, or do you not think you’re right?

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

I hold my own, I am not sure why you seem to think that the definition of a good debater is someone who doesn’t think they are right; that’s ridiculous.