Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Magic is magic no matter what name you give it. I did make that point very clear in noting most of the same tricks are still done today by preachers on god TV channels.

Magic is magic? That’s a meaningless statement. Sure, magic is magic, but that’s not what I said, I said that Biblical miracles were not magic. I have not seen anyone do the miracles Jesus did, I am not sure what channel you’re watching.

Upon what physical evidence, not your faith, not your argumentation do you believe the unknown people of unknown character and of unknown motivation recorded magical events? Any evidence the magics were not made up centuries later?

I do not believe people recorded magical events; I believed they recorded miraculous events. I am not logically obligated to respond to your question until you accurately represent my position.

It is clear by inspection the Genesis discredits itself in the manner of creation and the events following it. Ribs and naming animals come to mind quickly. When you have crap like that you know the author is either a liar or a whacko.

What? People cannot name animals? I wonder where you think animals got their names from if not from people.

It is sort of surprising that you, who apparently have spent some time with the material, have not realized there is no evidentiary basis for your opinions regarding the material.

No, the very notion of evidence assumes that my position is correct, so by asking for evidence you’re only demonstrating that you too assume my position is correct.

The default assumption is that stories which contain magic even if given a more impressive name of miracle which has the same meaning were written as fiction and were intended to be read as fiction.

According to whom is that the default position and why? So you assume ahead of time that supernatural events cannot happen and therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist? That’s rather self-serving.

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

Everyone is biased, so by admitting that I am biased (as are you) I am being intellectually honest. By not admitting that you too are biased even though you logically have to be means you’re not being intellectually honest.

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

I’ve never used any of those terms have I? You did use the terms “magnificent claim”, “magnificent proofs”, and “verify” didn’t you? So it’s completely appropriate for me to ask you to elaborate on what you mean when you use those terms is it not?

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.

Pathetic? I think that more accurately describes your ability to back up your own position.

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.

Asking someone to define their terms and standards is a philosophical and intellectual necessity, it has nothing to do with deflection; you’re just deflecting by bringing up deflection because you could not even explain what you meant.

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.

It’s something I enjoy doing, I am not sure I’d classify it as a hobby though.

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 now someone who claims they do not believe anything that they cannot verify is making claims about something as totally unverifiable as what someone else really thinks? I really wish you’d be more consistent, it’s hard to debate with someone who apparently doesn’t even know what they believe.

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.

How on Earth do you arrive at the conclusion that your views have ever remotely come close to defeating my position? You’d have to possess logically coherent views in order for that to even be a possibility and that is obviously not something you possess at this point in time.

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

No, you made a baseless assertion, I asked you to back it up with something. For all I know it was merely your opinion, which doesn’t prove anything.

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.

What facts and logic do you think you have presented? I do seem to recall demonstrating that the very few logical proofs you have provided were not even logically valid much less logically sound. If you think you have something actually logical to provide I’d be more than happy taking a look at it for you to examine it’s merit, but as of yet you haven’t provided me with anything more than mere conjecture and rhetoric.

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

Who here has an imaginary friend? I hope you were not being irrational yet again by referring to my God as an imaginary friend and therefore committing the fallacy of the question-begging epithet.

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)?

I am glad you spelled Santa Claus correctly this time; at least you learned something from our discussion. Simply because it is childish to believe in Santa doesn’t mean it’s childish to believe in God, that’s a false analogy and quite the logical non-sequitur.

It's equally childish to continue believing in mythological characters as an adult.

Sure, but we are talking about Christians here, not people who believe in mythological characters, so that’s another false analogy.

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.

How can I face subject matter that you have yet to define? Present a coherent and defensible view of reality by consistently defining your terms and standards and we can finally dance.