Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

I'll just admit I haven't been following all these walls of text...
You guys seem to be having fun by yourselves... enjoy.

Yes…a blast.

Am I the only one who notices a pattern?

No, you’re not the only one, there’s a definite method and pattern to my reasoning.

You base this god's existence of a book.

Well partially off of His direct revelation, but also by the things He has made. Scripture is the ultimate authority though.

It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.

Yes, that’s a straw-man argument. Another alleged holy text would have been a better analogy.

This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.

I do not care how atheists view scripture.

Without the book, you have nothing on the character.

Not quite, we could still learn of His attributes through the things He has made, but we have His direct revelation so that’s not a very relevant hypothetical to consider.

The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.

First of all, millions of people claim to have such supernatural experiences and atheists simply write them off as mistaken perception, so why would it all of a sudden be a valid proof if those atheists experienced the same phenomena? Secondly, you know as well as I do that atheists would simply postulate a naturalistic explanation for such events, or simply say there must be one that we do not understand yet. The proof for God’s existence is far more fundamental than that.

If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps

This assumes there is some neutral position a person can reason from in order to “put the Book aside” and then reason back to the Book being what it claims to be. There is no neutrality, you either have to assume that the Book is the word of God or you have to assume that it is not. You cannot say you are being any more rational by assuming it’s not the word of God than I am by assuming it is. The bigger question is; which view of reality is logically consistent and coherent and which one is not, and in that arena the Biblical view of reality trumps the anti-Biblical view in every which way, which means it must also be the true view of reality.

Here are my final thoughts on our discussion:

Final? Leaving so soon?

This entire time I didn't realize I was dealing with a Calvanist.

Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what your opponent actually believes, just a thought.

And, while I feel Reformed Theology is the most scripturally accurate,

Yes.

it's also the least logical from a world view.

How?

So it comes as no surprise to me that your strongest arguments are merely dogmatic references to scripture and basic Christian principles.

My ultimate authority is infallible, it’d be illogical for me not to appeal to it.

With that, I must admit a high level of disappointment.

With that, I must admit I am happy to disappoint someone like you.

At the beginning of our discussion, I thought we might actually engage in a meaningful and challenging debate about the validity of the Christian claims.

The offer to do so is still out there, you’re just going to have to engage me in a manner that is rational, that’s all.

and you see scripture as the most valid point of reference.

Yes, that’s the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy and authority of scripture in a nutshell; did you not know you were debating with a Christian?

This dynamic makes any meaningful debate with you impossible, as I'm sure I'm not the first to find out.

It’s not impossible at all; you just have to know how to do it! If you want to have a debate about whose view of reality provides a coherent and consistent framework for human experience and knowledge itself then I’d love to have that debate! However, trying to attack my central doctrines by assuming they are false ahead of time (begging the question) is not going to get you anywhere with me; and shame on any Christian who actually falls for that ruse. You wanted to have a debate where I gave up my position and allowed you to keep yours; I have learned never to play when the deck has been unfairly stacked like that.

Still, some part of your brain seems to understand the obvious contradictions that are at play with your perspective, which is why you deflect so much.

What contradictions are you referring to?

When addressing other religions, to you it's "irrelevant".

Yes, you’re an atheist, and I am a Christian, therefore only atheism and Christianity are relevant to this discussion. Appeals to other religions are nothing more than fallacious red herrings.

When addressing divisions and errors within your own religions, it's "irrelevant".

The validity and soundness of a truth claim is non-contingent upon what anyone else thinks about it, therefore Christians disagreeing on scripture is irrelevant to whether scripture is infallible or not.

Ofcourse, you have maintained throughout the course of the conversation that you are not deflecting, but rather asking for greater clarification.

Yes, of which I am still waiting for.

But we both know that isn't true.

It is true.

Clarification has been provided, and did not satisy you.

That is simply because I was asking for logically coherent clarification, and I have yet to receive it.

With regard to "magnificent claims", I intentionally made reference to a burning vehicle speeding through the neighborhood.

A burning car? I do not consider that to be magnificent at all, so which one of us is right?

With regard to verification, I gave the example of a dead sasquatch being given over to science for study.

Yes you did. So are you waiting for the body of a immaterial, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent God to be given over to science for study? If not, then your example was not clarifying what you are looking for at all. Not to mention, science studying a body is not a magnificent proof but merely an inductive inquiry.

After that failed to satisfy you, I realized that we would never tackle the subject matter. We would be stuck in an endless, and meaningless debate about what everything means.

Not my fault.

I refused to engage, and decided, for no better reason than my own personal amusement, to focus more on your own personal struggle with menal illness.

Menal illness? What’s that? I think a better and definitely more humorous use of our time would be to focus on your personal struggle with basic grammar and spelling.

Rationalization #1. Everyone's doing it!

I never used that one.

Rationalization #2. You only think I'm crazy because you didn't get the special glasses!

Well because you suppress the truth. Self-deception is a very real phenomenon.

Rationalization #3. I know I'm right because I feel it

I never used that one either.

Anyway, despite all your deflecting and loopy comments, I actually enjoyed this unexpected development in this thread.

As did I.

I only wish I had realized your specific religious angle earlier on in the conversation.

I wish you were intellectually honest enough to learn about your opponent’s position before trying to debate him too. Perhaps you should have taken the time to ask me for clarification.

It would have drastically changed my approach.

Doubtful.

There's always next time, and I'm quite sure now that there will be one.

I sure hope so.