Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

And I pointed out these miracles are the same as and indistinguishable from magic. If you are unaware healing the sick is commonly done on god TV it is unclear where you are coming from.

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.

Unknown people of unknown character of unknown motivation. Do you paper over the obvious issues with faith?

Passing on faith in the stories of the original unknown people from their beginnings to the present still has all those unknowns you must paper over with something.

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.

The manner of creation is discredited. That ALL the animals were paraded through Eden to be named is absurd, particularly for the penguins. That female humans did not exist until the rib event is absurd by inspection.

Two out of three if you are going to stick with the march of the penguins.

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.

I have yet to read you posting any physical evidence in support of your position. Perhaps you could repeat it just for me?

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.

By all the other stories which contain magic why would one presume one collection of unknown authorship to be authentic while other stories of known and unknown authorship are not correct.

The default position regarding all claims is against the claim. That is only modified in favor of the claim based upon the physical evidence presented by the claimant.

When I claim the OT stories were all written in the 2nd c. BC I back it up with mountains of evidence and also point out why alternate older dates are excluded. That claims like yours are common does not make them the default as they are in the same category as a flat earth and Genesis.