Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

Like what?

Like the views that have you deflecting at every turn.

You asserted it, but that doesn’t prove anything. You simply used the term imaginary friend in the assertion rather than God. In logic that’s known as a question-begging epithet and it’s a logical fallacy. I was obligated to point that out to you.

In other words, I told a blind man that he was blind, and he simply denied it.

Thanks for validating my point.

Scripture says that you’re the one with the delusions, how do you know it’s wrong?

So many ways. The lies, the impossibilities, the improbabilities, the copies of the copies of the copies of the translations of the translations of the translations of the different denominations from the diferent interpretations.

It stands to reason that, if the word were actually god's infallable work, he'd be intensely protecting it from corruption.

As it is, there really is no clear Bible or view in Christianity. It's practically all up for debate.

Well you just refuted your own position with that. If believing in a deity is having an imaginary friend then the vast majority of adults would have imaginary friends, and according to that text- imaginary friends are rarely believed in by adults. Oops!

I guess you missed the part where you are all childish, huh? That's okay, it's not the only thing you missed.

There’s nothing imaginary about God’s existence.

That statement is just too vague for this subject. The Christian god is your imaginary friend. He doesn't exist, but the idea of him helps you cope.

When (or if) you ever become and adult, you will learn to accept reality. Until then, your imaginary friend will help you.

Not according to the text you cited; and how do you know God is imaginary?

Yes, according to the text I cited. You, and the rest of the people on this planet, who need a god to comfort them, are children until you all learn to face and deal with reality.

A lot of gods have been invented, and all but one of them are not your god. Billions and billions of people have believed in those gods.

Is it your take that those gods were not imaginary?

Do you ever even read the Bible? None of that applies to the Christian God at all.

I've read the Bible in it's entirety, and expositionally. And, yes, the Christian god fits all of the criteria for an imaginary friend.

I’ll discuss whatever subject matter you like (as long as you can coherently present me with the material). Scripture says you’re the one who is delusional.

No, you won't discuss meaningful subject matter, and it has nothing to do with presentation. You know that your position is weak so you deflect.

…and yet I have learned an awful lot about you from this discussion.

That's debatable, but was that your goal here, to learn about me?

Apparently they’re not that obvious considering how difficult it is for you to even define them.

It's not that difficult at all, it's just become evident that it will be an endless process with you. You are not interested in discussing the material, because all of the merits of that discussion weigh against you and your position.

So, with that, you've decided that you will simply argue against the method of presentation. Examples: What did you mean by this? How do you know it means what you say it means. If say you know it means what you say it means, how do you know you aren't wrong to be so sure in the first place?

That’s my question for you.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

I am still waiting for an answer to that one.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

Yes.

Yeah, because there are no super natural claims in the Bible. It doesn't say that Moses parted the Red Sea. It doesn't claim that a man survived in a fish for several days. It doesn't say that a virgin bore a child. It doesn't say that a man walked on water. It doesn't say that a man rose from his grave and then ascended into the heavens. And, most of all, it doesn't say that there is a magical and eternal kingdom awaiting anyone who simply loves Jesus.

So, we definitely do not need any verification of these events. And, if we do, the questionable and inconsistent testamonies of the people who wrote for the people who wrote for those people and then translated the translation of the translation and then disagreed and broke into different sections of different sections of different interpretations of the many varying interpretions of the infallable word of god, should suffice as adequate proof.

What burden of proof are you referring to? You seem to still be assuming that fictitious neutral ground exists.

You are either born deluded or you are not, is that your position?

Well that’s my position, why would you ask me to defend my position by giving up my position and taking up yours? That makes no sense at all.

No reason to doubt the Bible, that's for sure. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll run out and acquire me a slave or two, and turn a few homosexuals into the authorities for their rightful executions.

The existence of the supernatural was rather obvious before we even began this discussion.

No doubt. In fact, I just whipped up a batch of Dom Pérignon using nothing but my kitchen sink.
[/quote]