Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

You think you've gotten to know me? Wow have I gotten to know you. The above response typifies your response to just about everything, and I've seen you use the same pattern with other posters.

How is this relevant (even though you have called me delusional so your objection above could just as easily be turned around on you)? I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class. Are you going to answer my question or do you not know the answer?

I presented a brief, yet compelling, case that scripture is, in the very least, significantly flawed. And what do you do? You question whether or not I have a deep enough grasp of reality to even consider such matters! LOL.

Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.

If you can't beat em, question their perception, that's what I say.

You’re being irrational, that’s easy enough to beat.

What's that, the Earth is spherical, you say? How do you know aren't just deluding yourself into believing that? How do you the billions of other people who think the same thing aren't deluding themselves? Hell, how do you know that you aren't deluding yourself about others thinking that when in reality is just you alone who thinks the Earth is round.

The shape of the Earth is not relevant to this discussion, even though people in those times were well aware of the Earth’s shape due to ships disappearing beyond the horizon. Additionally, “what everyone else thinks is true” is irrelevant to what is actually true. You of all people should know that, especially considering you’re one of the few people on Earth who doesn’t believe in the supernatural (everyone else must be delusional eh?).

And people wonder where Joseph Smith got the idea for magic glasses!

Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.

There is no clear truth in Christianity. It's so open that a new Christian religion practically develops on a bi-weekly basis.

A new Christian religion? I think you’re confusing the term denomination with the term religion.

It's a childish mentality, and we are talking about psychology here. Try and keep up.

Why is it a childish mentality? Because you say so? I reject that standard.

No one said it was. Then again, believing that your parents love you isn't exactly a supernatural claim now is it?

I never said that it was. Try and keep up. Believing in the supernatural is not childish at all, most people believe in it.

Believing in a friend that does not appear, does not speak, or make himself universally and undeniably evident, is a supernatural claim.

You have friends who have made themselves universally evident? How?

Children believe in Santa Claus but eventually stop because their parents admit to them that it was a lie just to get them to bahave.

And yet most adults still believe in God, therefore that’s a fallacious analogy.

Adults believe in thousands of different types of gods.

That’s irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these same adults do not have an authority such as their parents to tell them that it's a lie to bring them under control.

…because it’s not a lie to bring them under control. You’re awfully long on assertions and rather short on support for those assertions.

It's the same childish condition, it just doesn't have an end.

Prove that it’s the same condition.

Wow! You just convinced me. All this time I've been trying to get you to tackle subject matter, and you were holding back undeniable proof such as this.

Arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade; many people such as yourself are not persuaded by logically sound arguments.

"He does exist". I don't know why, but that's just so much more compelling than the same argument all other religions are making!

I do not think you’ve figured out the rules of this game yet, which is kind of amusing. Every time you make a baseless assertion (such as God does not exist) I have been merely making the opposite assertion back at you since they both hold the same amount of merit. I find it funny that you object to my assertions but you seem to see no problem with yours (even though they are logically identical). Keep making assertions, it makes my job easier.

Mentally, yes.

Proof?

Convenient.

Rationality can be rather convenient at times.

I think those other religions would say the same thing about yours.

Irrelevant.

Only, most of the gods that have ever been invented, predate yours. In fact, your god, in many ways, is the accumulation of many of those gods.

No, He’s the one true God, all others are false gods.

And yet Christians make up over 30 percent of the world. Couldn't have discredited scripture better myself, thank you.

What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Not at all. Christians do believe in god so that he will protect them from eternal torment.

No, they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Pretty obvious, dude! Are you okay? I feel a little bad having to teach you the basic fundamentals of your own faith.

All you have taught me is that you never properly understood the faith to begin with, it’s no wonder you left it.

I'm sure many Atheists have done a better job than me,

Replace “many” with “nearly all”.

That said, I don't think that is why you have failed to get to the subject matter in this case.

Sure it is, I was able to get to it with them, seems that you’re the only variable in the scenario that has changed.

For one thing, I won't allow you to dictate the terms of our discussion.

So far we’ve discussed exactly what I wanted to discuss…

You want to draw me into an endless discussion about what I mean about everything.

No, I want you to back up your position, that’s not too much to ask of someone.

That may have worked with others, but it will not work with me.

So far it’s working perfectly.

Another thing that I suspect you are avoiding is dealing with the fact that I know your religion as well as you do, which puts you at a significant disadvantage in this case.

That’s the most absurd claim you’ve made to date. You didn’t even know that Christianity teaches that neutrality is impossible.

This explains why you are completely resolved to avoid the subject matter in this case.

We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.

The suggestion itself is redundant.

So you cannot present the subject matter you’d like to discuss?

I've explained myself fine. You just don't want the explanation to lead anywhere, so you refuse to let it.

You have done nothing of the sort! You cannot provide me with a standard for what makes something a magnificent claim other than your arbitrary opinion. You cannot explain to me why a magnificent claim would logically necessitate a magnificent proof. You cannot even explain what a magnificent proof is and how it is different from regular proofs accepted by logicians. You cannot tell me what you mean by the word verify because you obviously do not mean firsthand experience. You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable. You’re nothing more than a poorly thought out rhetorist.

I mean, let's face it, anyone who thinks he's sporting a special pair of glasses that give him a clearer understanding of things is going to be quite difficult to effectively communicate with.

I am easy to communicate with, but difficult to debate with.

It's like trying to break down the walls of communication with an autistic, it's damn near impossible.

That doesn’t stop me from trying to break down those walls with you though!

As often as I possibly can, I try to avoid wasting peoples time by creating my own set of special meanings for words and terms.

Ok, well fine then, since you cannot give me a standard, atheism is a magnificent claim, where’s your magnificent proof to support atheism?

And I won't. Either you are just stupid enough to not understand the supernatural implications, or, as I've made a case for, you are just trying to create an endless series of meaningless Q and As in order to deflect away from the subject matter.

You cannot tell me how you know those are magnificent claims? Well then I reject your assertion that they are and I therefore do not need to provide any magnificent proof.

You say you usually get farther by now. Why do I get the distinct feeling that you usually succeed in sucking others into this trap of yours?

Defining your terms and explaining how you know what you claim to know is a “trap”?

Man, that is some sound logic there!

Yes, it is.

And yet human's managed without it for well over a 150000 years.

That’s amusing. That’s like saying, “Humans do not need air to breathe! I do not believe in air and I breathe just fine!” If the God of scripture didn’t exist you’d be unable to know anything at all.

You think you've gotten to know me? Wow have I gotten to know you. The above response typifies your response to just about everything, and I've seen you use the same pattern with other posters.

How is this relevant (even though you have called me delusional so your objection above could just as easily be turned around on you)? I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class. Are you going to answer my question or do you not know the answer?

I presented a brief, yet compelling, case that scripture is, in the very least, significantly flawed. And what do you do? You question whether or not I have a deep enough grasp of reality to even consider such matters! LOL.

Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.

If you can't beat em, question their perception, that's what I say.

You’re being irrational, that’s easy enough to beat.

What's that, the Earth is spherical, you say? How do you know aren't just deluding yourself into believing that? How do you the billions of other people who think the same thing aren't deluding themselves? Hell, how do you know that you aren't deluding yourself about others thinking that when in reality is just you alone who thinks the Earth is round.

The shape of the Earth is not relevant to this discussion, even though people in those times were well aware of the Earth’s shape due to ships disappearing beyond the horizon. Additionally, “what everyone else thinks is true” is irrelevant to what is actually true. You of all people should know that, especially considering you’re one of the few people on Earth who doesn’t believe in the supernatural (everyone else must be delusional eh?).

And people wonder where Joseph Smith got the idea for magic glasses!

Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.

There is no clear truth in Christianity. It's so open that a new Christian religion practically develops on a bi-weekly basis.

A new Christian religion? I think you’re confusing the term denomination with the tem religion.

It's a childish mentality, and we are talking about psychology here. Try and keep up.

Why is it a childish mentality? Because you say so? I reject that standard.

No one said it was. Then again, believing that your parents love you isn't exactly a supernatural claim now is it?

I never said that it was. Try and keep up. Believing in the supernatural is not childish at all, most people believe in it.

Believing in a friend that does not appear, does not speak, or make himself universally and undeniably evident, is a supernatural claim.

You have friends who have made themselves universally evident? How?

Children believe in Santa Claus but eventually stop because their parents admit to them that it was a lie just to get them to bahave.

And yet most adults still believe in God, therefore that’s a fallacious analogy.

Adults believe in thousands of different types of gods.

That’s irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these same adults do not have an authority such as their parents to tell them that it's a lie to bring them under control.

…because it’s not a lie to bring them under control. You’re awfully long on assertions and rather short on support for those assertions.

It's the same childish condition, it just doesn't have an end.

Prove that it’s the same condition.

Wow! You just convinced me. All this time I've been trying to get you to tackle subject matter, and you were holding back undeniable proof such as this.

Arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade; many people such as yourself are not persuaded by logically sound arguments.

"He does exist". I don't know why, but that's just so much more compelling than the same argument all other religions are making!

I do not think you’ve figured out the rules of this game yet, which is kind of amusing. Every time you make a baseless assertion (such as God does not exist) I have been merely making the opposite assertion back at you since they both hold the same amount of merit. I find it funny that you object to my assertions but you seem to see no problem with yours (even though they are logically identical). Keep making assertions, it makes my job easier.

Mentally, yes.

Proof?

Convenient.

Rationality can be rather convenient at times.

I think those other religions would say the same thing about yours.

Irrelevant.

Only, most of the gods that have ever been invented, predate yours. In fact, your god, in many ways, is the accumulation of many of those gods.

No, He’s the one true God, all others are false gods.

And yet Christians make up over 30 percent of the world. Couldn't have discredited scripture better myself, thank you.

What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Not at all. Christians do believe in god so that he will protect them from eternal torment.

No, they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Pretty obvious, dude! Are you okay? I feel a little bad having to teach you the basic fundamentals of your own faith.

All you have taught me is that you never properly understood the faith to begin with, it’s no wonder you left it.

I'm sure many Atheists have done a better job than me,

Replace “many” with “nearly all”.

That said, I don't think that is why you have failed to get to the subject matter in this case.

Sure it is, I was able to get to it with them, seems that you’re the only variable in the scenario that has changed.

For one thing, I won't allow you to dictate the terms of our discussion.

So far we’ve discussed exactly what I wanted to discuss…

You want to draw me into an endless discussion about what I mean about everything.

No, I want you to back up your position, that’s not too much to ask of someone.

That may have worked with others, but it will not work with me.

So far it’s working perfectly.

Another thing that I suspect you are avoiding is dealing with the fact that I know your religion as well as you do, which puts you at a significant disadvantage in this case.

That’s the most absurd claim you’ve made to date. You didn’t even know that Christianity teaches that neutrality is impossible.

This explains why you are completely resolved to avoid the subject matter in this case.

We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.

The suggestion itself is redundant.

So you cannot present the subject matter you’d like to discuss?

I've explained myself fine. You just don't want the explanation to lead anywhere, so you refuse to let it.

You have done nothing of the sort! You cannot provide me with a standard for what makes something a magnificent claim other than your arbitrary opinion. You cannot explain to me why a magnificent claim would logically necessitate a magnificent proof. You cannot even explain what a magnificent proof is and how it is different from regular proofs accepted by logicians. You cannot tell me what you mean by the word verify because you obviously do not mean firsthand experience. You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable. You’re nothing more than a poorly thought out rhetorist.

I mean, let's face it, anyone who thinks he's sporting a special pair of glasses that give him a clearer understanding of things is going to be quite difficult to effectively communicate with.

I am easy to communicate with, but difficult to debate with.

It's like trying to break down the walls of communication with an autistic, it's damn near impossible.

That doesn’t stop me from trying to break down those walls with you though!

As often as I possibly can, I try to avoid wasting peoples time by creating my own set of special meanings for words and terms.

Ok, well fine then, since you cannot give me a standard, atheism is a magnificent claim, where’s your magnificent proof to support atheism?

And I won't. Either you are just stupid enough to not understand the supernatural implications, or, as I've made a case for, you are just trying to create an endless series of meaningless Q and As in order to deflect away from the subject matter.

You cannot tell me how you know those are magnificent claims? Well then I reject your assertion that they are and I therefore do not need to provide any magnificent proof.

You say you usually get farther by now. Why do I get the distinct feeling that you usually succeed in sucking others into this trap of yours?

Defining your terms and explaining how you know what you claim to know is a “trap”?

Man, that is some sound logic there!

Yes, it is.

And yet human's managed without it for well over a 150000 years.

That’s amusing. That’s like saying, “Humans do not need air to breathe! I do not believe in air and I breathe just fine!” If the God of scripture didn’t exist you’d be unable to know anything at all.

I have two questions for you to answer though, where did the first Human come from and what did he or she mate with?