Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

Statler,

It's not my views that have thoroughly defeated your position, it's the views of Atheists in general. You did click on this thread, which I created, which contains some of my views. However, aside from that, you and I haven't discussed many of my views. You are more interested in definitions and examples of obvious terms. As I said, this is undoubtedly the result of years of logic and reason defeating your position. You like "mixing it up" with Atheists, but you've been reduced to nothing more than petty deflection and weak arguments that you cannot support as a result. Object to that conclusion all you want, but I did accuse you of having an imaginary friend, and you offered nothing more than a simple rejection of the notion as a counter. Pretty weak considering the fact that your delusionary state of mind fits the defintion:

Imaginary friends are made often in childhood, sometimes in adolescence, and rarely in adulthood. They often function as tutelaries when played with by a child. They reveal, according to several theories of psychology, a child's anxieties, fears, goals and perceptions of the world through that child's conversations. They are, according to some children, physically indistinguishable from real people, while others say they see their imaginary friends only in their heads. There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence.Imaginary friends are more often seen as abnormal in adults, whereas quite common in children.

Like it or, you got yourself an imaginary friend. Can't be seen, conveniently caters to all of your psychological insecurities, and acts as your own personal guardian (or tutelary).

The fact that you are delusional, however, does not bother me half as much as the fact that you seem to have no desire whatsoever to discuss meaningful subject matter.

Just look at the last few pages of our discussion: nothing! There's nothing there. We aren't discussing anything because you refused to.

I know, I know, it's because I can't explain myself when I use quite obvious language and terms. What is a magnificent claim? What does it mean to verify something?

[sarcasm]
What great questions! Here we are, talking about Christianity and the Bible, but we can't help wondering what's so magnificent about it and why it all needs to be verified. Can't we just accept it as a great and legitimate history book that's already met the burden of proof. Can't we just continue the debate with the agreed position that the Bible is the infallable word of god, which is 100 percent true? Is that really too much to ask?
[/sarcasm]

I will say this, in this discussion, I feel you have proven the existence of the supernatural. Your resolve to talk about absolutely nothing is nothing short of supernatural. It's a resolve that is well beyond anything I thought humanly possible.