Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

A person either has to assume that scripture is the infallible word of God ahead of time or assume it is not, I am just intellectually honest enough to admit I am in the former group. Anyone who claims it is not the infallible word of God is in the latter group.

Funny how you consider yourself intellectually honest and yet, in the same sentence, declare that you are completely and uncontrollably biased.

I think what’s apparent is your reluctance or inability to properly define your terms and standards. I ask you for a standard for determining what a magnificent claim is, you provide me with none. I ask you for the difference between a magnificent proof and inductive/deductive proofs and you provide me with an example of an inductive proof. I ask you for clarification on exactly what you mean by verify (since you apparently do not mean firsthand experience/observation) and you are unable to clarify. I just do not think you have properly thought a lot of these things through.

Define round? What is your definition of hair? Give me examples of the word bald?

That's how pathetic your attempts at deflection have been here. And, at first, I gave you the benefit of fhe doubt, and provided you with reasonable expansion. But then you just got even further from the subject and further into semantics.

Deflection and getting into semantics = I have nothing, so I'm going to be as petty as possible now to try and draw attention away from the obvious subject matter.

Quite the contrary, I feel very strongly about my position, and the fact that no atheist seems to be able to even present a logically coherent challenge to my position only makes me feel more strongly about the consistency and coherency of the Biblical view of reality.

I think I get all of the petty defense tactics now. You have, for whatever reason, decided to make a hobby of sorts of debating Atheists about your various religious views. And, although you claim this has strengthened your belief and position, it's actually caused you see that your views are baseless and without any real merit. So what's left? Well, either you face the reality that you dred so much, which is you not existing at some point, or you can make a petty mockery of the views which have so thoroughly defeated your position.

Case in point:

And, while that may sound good to you, it's a useless piece of gibberish to anyone with any sense of objective logic.

Why?

Again you need clarification on a matter that couldn't be any more clear.

So now we are debating again? If you’re interested in the Christian perspective I’d be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. However, it appears you were more interested in taking personal jabs at me, which is why I had to point out your misspellings because they detracted from your insults.

Not at all. You have nothing of value to offer the debate, so you resort to being petty, a practice I'm quite sure Atheists have forced you to develop. And you claim you've been "mixing it up". LOL. More like being mixed up by facts and logic, as you try and reconcile them with your blind faith.

You’ve yet to make a clear point, you merely produced a multitude of the typical atheistic assertions and when you were challenged to define or clarify what you were even referring to you seemed unable to do so. I’d love to continue the discussion but if you continue to behave irrationally I am going to have to point it out to you, what’s the point of having a conversation if we are allowed to be irrational?

I can't help but laugh at the irony of someone who has an imaginary friend promoting rationale.

You see, it’s these sorts of comments that make it very hard to take you seriously. Implying that all Christians are somehow childish or ignorant is itself a ridiculous and rather childish position to adhere to.

I'm not implying anything, I'm flat out saying that Christians are childish. Is it childish to believe in Santa Claus (spelled it that way on purpose)?

It's equally childish to continue believing in mythological characters as an adult. That's why I said I finally grew up.

You jumped into this discussion assuming that I was some sort of buffoon who didn’t possess any philosophical sophistication or knowledge of epistemology. This is not my first rodeo, I have heard everything you’ve presented to this pint at least five times before on here and I am well aware of how to poke holes in all of it. I like you (almost as much as I like Queen and Shell B, but not quite :-P), I think you’re a decent enough fellow, but I think you’d be well-served by being bit more respectful of your opponent at times, but that’s just my opinion.

I didn't jump into this discussion, I created this thread. Duh!

And, as for having respect, I'm more than happy to give it when I get it. As I said, try facing the subject matter and we might find some meaningful dialogue here. Short of that, however, we are where we are.