Why no debate? This thread seems to provide the answer to that question.

There is a line somewhere in the Bible, Paul I think, in reference to the crucifiction he says, roughly, that if you do not believe in this event, then all else is dust, there is nothing left.

So, clearly Creationists, and indeed plain old creationists, do believe in the crucifiction and Dawkins and Nicholls do not.

So there really can be nothing to 'debate' between them.

Our high court of Australia found that charlatanism is the price we pay for religious beliefs and that if any religion asked to prove those beliefs all would fail.
Religion is charlatanism and all who practice it are charlatans.
All rational thinking people live in the hope that one day these charlatan religions will eventually be prosecuted and these poor religious cult members being fleeced by their respective cults, who to us all seem to have a mental illness indoctrinated into them from childhood abuse that prevents rational thought, will wake up to themselves and realize religion is the greatest fraud ever invented by mankind. All of the estimated 2500 invented Gods and religions, mostly all now discarded with just a minuscule group of the most ferocious and deceptive, now left after having slaughtered all the opponents and competitive cults over a Milena of extremely violent and merciless inter religious warfare unequaled in the Earths history!
Atheism like all truth, first it's ignored and ridiculed, then its violently opposed, then taken as an irrefutable fact! Just like the round Earth and it's orbit around the Sun, once thought of as blasphemy and punishable by death, by the same religious cults members we argue with here today, how ironic, how bloody ridiculous? The Atheist convention is just the beginning of the removal of the chains of religious dogma!

The point I was making re: spectrums of light, radiowaves, frequencies and the like is this - there was a time, once, when these things were invisible to us... Being invisible - most supposed these things did not exist...

In fact we an in the presence of these forces always... They permeate everything... But if their existence had not been proven - we would have never known.

That said - perhaps there are things which even now are invisible to us... Indian spiritualist are convinced of the existence of a complex 'spiritual nervous system' - 'nadis' - they call them - and much more also...

And if one concedes that - on these same principles - spiritual world(s) may exist - then my the same rationale - we need to take the idea of the existence of God seriously...

Also - just to speculate: perhaps there might even be such a thing as 'transpersonal consciousness'.

To conclude, however - while God may exist, this is not to say He exists in the sense promoted in the 'popular imagination'.

But if there were dangers in any spiritual world, also: then as I wrote earlier in this thread - the idea of Christ as shepherd begins to make sense.

'Religion is charlatanism and all who practice it are charlatans.'

Very much proven by the gw religion which has now been largely exposed. A few desperate true believers are still holding to their dogmas Not surprising since the premise of it originates from the evolution fantasy.

There is surely, somewhere, a collective noun that covers a seething mass of non sequiturs, Tristan Ewins.

If there isn't, then someone should invent it, and immediately apply it to your last post.

>>Being invisible - most supposed these things did not exist... if their existence had not been proven - we would have never known.<<

But they did exist. And they were ultimately discovered. By science.

The fact that there were people who did not know about them does not render them non-existent. Except maybe to Jean-Paul Sartre - is this an Existentialist discussion, perhaps?

>>perhaps there are things which even now are invisible to us<<

Perhaps there are. Perhaps there aren't. We won't know until we uncover them, will we.

>>if one concedes that - on these same principles - spiritual world(s) may exist<<

Hardly. How would scientists discover a spiritual world? Where would they look? What tests would they perform?

>>my the same rationale - we need to take the idea of the existence of God seriously...<<

By the same rationale, it would appear that you are suggesting that there will come a day when scientists will "discover" God.

That would be a challenge. What would happen to religion, without faith to sustain it, as God suddenly becomes just another Being.

Supreme? yeah, that would need to be a major characteristic. But a Being nevertheless.

Won't happen

>>while God may exist, this is not to say He exists in the sense promoted in the 'popular imagination'.<<

God can only "exist" for those who believe. Therefore he can take absolutely any form your imagination - popular or otherwise - cares to dream up.

>>if there were dangers in any spiritual world, also: then as I wrote earlier in this thread - the idea of Christ as shepherd begins to make sense<<

That has to be the granddaddy of all non sequiturs

If: spiritual dangers; Then: Christ as shepherd.

Mind-numbingly pointless.

As I've said many times before,the existence of god irrelevant.It is not a matter of what you believe but how you treat your fellow man.Sucking up to a god figure does not make you a better person.

If money becomes your god then in biblical terms,reap what you sew.
We cannot define the essence which drives us and this is probably a positive,but to deny a spiritual self that has so many possibilities, is an atrocity.Every human being has worth and as we degrade that status,we all become lesser beings.