Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Like the views that have you deflecting at every turn.

Well like what? Give me an example…

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

No, you merely used biased language rather than proving your point.

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.

You didn’t answer my question though, if you are indeed the one with the delusions how on Earth do you know that you are accurately perceiving anything that you just mentioned above? It seems like you are assuming you’re not delusional (so assuming scripture is wrong again) and then arguing that you’re not delusional. I thought you were open-minded.

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

He is protecting it; those whom He desires to come to the knowledge of the truth have no difficulties coming to the knowledge of the truth. There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables (Matthew 13).

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

Christians do debate, and that’s a very good thing, that however does not mean the truth is unobtainable.

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

Being childish is not the same thing as “being a child”. Not only this, but if the vast majority of adults do believe in a deity (which is undeniable), then believing in a deity would not be childish at all but rather something both children and adults believe in, which is like many beliefs. It’s not childish to believe that your parents love you, even though both children and adults share that belief.

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.

No, he does exist, and His existence is the only reason either of us cope.

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

You took another personal jab at me so I could point out your misspellings here to make you look dumb, but I won’t. What is reality? How do you know what reality is? You’re going to have to answer those questions before you can appeal to reality my friend.

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.

They are physically children?

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.

That’s irrelevant.

Is it your take that those gods were not imaginary?

I would not necessarily use the word imaginary; falsely named, falsely conceived of, or falsely identified would be more accurate.

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.

Good! Then you should know that God never promises to protect His elect, in fact He tells them they will experience more trial, suffering, and tribulation simply because they believe in Him than they will if they didn’t. So your assertions that Christians believe in God so He will protect them is absurd.

No, you won't discuss meaningful subject matter, and it has nothing to do with presentation.

It has everything to do with presentation, I usually make it past this point with most atheists, you’re just struggling more than most do.

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

Nope, but it’s not a bad result.

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.

I have no problem discussing the material. Present it.

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?

Since you have read the Bible and claim to be quite familiar with it, I am sure you are aware that scripture claims that unbelievers are not able to formulate a coherent view of reality. They essentially become futile in their reasoning. So when I ask you to back up what you are saying and you are unable to do so I am essentially adding credibility to scripture because you are doing exactly what it says you will do. There’s a method to my madness.

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 asked you how you determine whether a claim fits your definition, that’s completely different.

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.

We’re supposed to be talking about verification here, not magnificent claims, that was the question above.

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.

Sure it makes those claims (although they are rather roughly stated). You still haven’t told me how you know those are indeed magnificent claims though.

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.

I never said that’s what suffices as adequate proof.

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

No, everyone is born deluded; the elect overcome it through God’s grace.

No reason to doubt the Bible,

You’re right; there is no reason to doubt the Bible. In fact, without the Bible there’d be no ability to reason.