Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

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?

Experience wouldn't even necessarily do it. Experiences can, and often are, delussions. I have no doubt that many of these charasmatic Christians experience the supernatural all the time, just like acid droppers do.

No, the supernatural must be verifiable to be held with any regard.

I believe in the supernatural because it necessarily has to exist.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't merit wild speculation about the supernatural, which brings us back to verification.

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.

You are right. Both are inventions, but the creator invention is much more far fetched.

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

I believe in what I can verify. So should you.

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

Not at all. I quoted him, but the merit is in the material itself, not the man.

With that, allow me to further educate you. When you quote someone, it's common courtesy to properly credit the quote instead of passsing it off as your own, which is plagiarism.

Sorry the name prevented the point from penetrating your skull.

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.

Deflect much?

Here:

1. Splendid in appearance; grand:
2. Grand or noble in thought or deed; exalted.
3. Outstanding of its kind; superlative:

Hey, I got an idea, let's talk about Christopher Hitchens some more!

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.

I understood perfectly what you were doing. You were faced with the harsh reality of a valid point, and you used a petty method of deflection to avoid actually addressing it.

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.

Here lies the dead carcass of Big Foot. Study it, preserve it, put it in a musseum, do what you will. But this nearly century old legend is now a documentable part of history.

Inductive reasoning has it's place, as does deductive reasoning. Unfortunately for you, that kind of reasoning whiped your god out a long time ago.

Can't wait to dive a little more into this one.

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?

Well, I've carefully considered both sides of the argument, so I consider my conclusions to have a much greater degree of merit. I can tell by your rather naive perspective that you've given no consideration to the possibility that you may be wrong about this.

With that, allow me to warn you: when (or if) you do, your faith will progressively diminish until you eventually have none left. But that's a good thing. Reality is a good thing. The world needs more realists.

I can't wait for you to join us.

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.

I'd like to think this discussion is more than just a debate. I'd like to think that we are actually trying to accomplish something here. If that is the case, then obviously a closed mind is useless to the discussion.