19th November 2008

“Scoring a debating point against Richard Dawkins does not prove the existence of God.”


3 Responses to “19th November 2008”

  1. Terence Meaden Says:

    I hardly see how anyone can score an effective debating point against Richard Dawkins or any other erudite atheist in matters to do with god-belief, for the fundamental reason that because there is NO proof for the existence of any god—let alone the Christian god or Allah or Thor or Siva or Krishna or Zeus . . . , or a flying spaghetti monster (pesto be upon him; pasta be his name)—there are NO sound intellectual reasons for believing tales that emanated long ago from the fancies of desert tribes of the Near East or anywhere else.

    Simpletons would like us to believe as they do, no deep questions asked; but having NEVER produced any quality evidence, then that should be the start and end of any debate. Atheists are well advised to turn any debate into this direction as soon as possible.

  2. antitheist Says:

    Well said TM!

    The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim!
    An Atheist should never accept the challenge to “Prove he doesn’t exist!”

  3. Terence Meaden Says:

    The godbots are godbots almost by definition.

    The few non-quality points that they may try forcing into a discussion and call it evidence (watch out for this) are wholly unacceptable to rational, unbiased, freethinkers.