Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Whateverist]

What does the story of the burning bush have to do with anything?

Exactly! The same goes for the rest of the bible. Packed full of irrelevance.

Welcome to the AF. What brand of ancient worship did you engage in before you became an atheist? Looking forward to more pithy retorts.

[Statler Waldorf]

Exactly! The same goes for the rest of the bible. Packed full of irrelevance.

Obviously, I was asking how bringing up the story of the burning bush was relevant to the current conversation. However, I have a sneaking suspicion you already knew that.

[smax]

What does the story of the burning bush have to do with anything?

Everything. The burning bush that talks, answers questions, and grants divine powers, is exactly the type of proof that one should requre before buying into the existence of something super natural.

In case it isn't clear enough, I will again quote Hitchens:

"The Bible makes magnificent claims, we should require magnificent proof."

[Minimalist]

Christianity is an intricate and deep philosophical system that was not made to win an election or a popularity contest, it was made to enlighten the earnest soul who will seek of it on its own terms.

Xtianity is pious bullshit meant for a deteriorating empire to control a population of ignorant bastards.

You know the type, strudel. You look at one in the mirror every morning.

[thesummerqueen]

Yep, you haven't changed one bit, Stat.

[Statler Waldorf]

Everything. The burning bush that talks, answers questions, and grants divine powers, is exactly the type of proof that one should requre before buying into the existence of something super natural.

Are you really suggesting that personal spiritual experiences are legitimate proof of God’s existence? If not, then exactly what are you suggesting?

In case it isn't clear enough, I will again quote Hitchens:

I assume you are referring to Christopher Hitchens here. I am sorry, but I reject your apparent notion that a writer for Vanity Fair magazine is a proper authority on the existence of God.

"The Bible makes magnificent claims, we should require magnificent proof."

This just proves my point above, Hitchens was nothing more than a clever rhetorist. In order for the above assertion to be anything more than a meaningless platitude you’re going to have to be a bit clearer. What makes something a magnificent claim? What’s a magnificent proof? How is it different than inductive support or deductive proof?

Yep, you haven't changed one bit, Stat.

Good. Neither have you; so you’re not going to address any of my points? Convenient.

[thesummerqueen]

No, since you side step all of ours.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, since you side step all of ours.

What point have I side stepped? Please be specific so I can directly address it. I still don’t see how that justifies you ignoring my points though, especially after you made such a bold claim as “science has disproven all of the proofs for God’s existence”, which of course is a claim that I am very interested in seeing you demonstrate. Science disproving deductive proofs is itself a rather magnificent claim. I am becoming a bit suspicious that you have realized that now and that is the real reason for you ignoring my points, you realized you “made a boo-boo”.

[Cinjin]

What point have I side stepped? Please be specific so I can directly address it. I still don’t see how that justifies you ignoring my points though, especially after you made such a bold claim as “science has disproven all of the proofs for God’s existence”, which of course is a claim that I am very interested in seeing you demonstrate. Science disproving deductive proofs is itself a rather magnificent claim. I am becoming a bit suspicious that you have realized that now and that is the real reason for you ignoring my points, you realized you “made a boo-boo”.

It's not a magnificent claim at all. It's a really simple premise the way I understand the meaning.
I'll give you a few 'for instances' :

That rainbow is beautiful - many would consider that "proof" of god.
That volcano erupted and destroyed that wicked city ... "proof" of god.
The ocean tides rise and fall like clockwork. We later discovered the moon takes the credit ... "proof" of god.


I could go on and on Stat. What she said is a true statement when you realize any tangible "proof" that you christards offer up as evidence has been proven not so by science. Furthermore, stop being such a dick. There's no proof your god exists, let it the fuck go already. You can't just believe and let it be can you ... you have to come here and be a prick to everyone.

[smax]

Are you really suggesting that personal spiritual experiences are legitimate proof of God’s existence? If not, then exactly what are you suggesting?

I'm stating the obvious. For something to be supernatural, it must be SUPERNATURAL. And it's unreasonable to believe in something supernatural unless it is verifiable. Is that really hard to understand?

I realize that you've grown accustomed to believing in the supernatural merely because other people told you it exists, but at some point you have to grow up and challenge the existence of Santa Clause.

Make the man show himself, and prove his power. Not to much to ask, unless you've been conveniently brain washed into believing that such a logical challenge is somehow "evil".

I assume you are referring to Christopher Hitchens here. I am sorry, but I reject your apparent notion that a writer for Vanity Fair magazine is a proper authority on the existence of God.

Wouldn't matter if he was a high school drop out working at McDonald's. Logic and reason do not discriminate.

Which brings us to:

"The Bible makes magnificent claims, we should require magnificent proof."

And your response:

This just proves my point above, Hitchens was nothing more than a clever rhetorist. In order for the above assertion to be anything more than a meaningless platitude you’re going to have to be a bit clearer. What makes something a magnificent claim? What’s a magnificent proof? How is it different than inductive support or deductive proof?

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you really require clarification of what is magnificent? Would it be too much to ask that you merely look the word the up, being that you evidently lack the basic education it would have taken to know it in the first place?

I'm really not trying to be condescending, but come on!

A word of advice, and it's really the best advice anyone can offer you. Stop assuming you've got this subject right, and stop rejecting some of the most important and critical questions that should have to be answered in order to justify your faith.

If you can't do that, what good are you really in discussions like this?