Then he should start debating people who believe in god. He needs to stop saying that he will debate anyone except Christians. He needs to actually stand up for what he believes in stop saying he is right without really fighting for that belief and shrugging off all opposition who would have the smallest chance of beating him.
If he wants to prove, once and for all, this his ideals are correct, he should debate someone who challenges them. There are plenty he could choose from; John Lennox for one, Francis Collins and so many more!! If he doesn't have the guts to stand up and argue his case against real Christians, we might as well give up on his ideals and condemn them to being complete and utter rubbish, as, in my opinion, they should be.
He picks specific people to debate, those he is sure he can beat and even then he often loses. However whenever a challenge from a more knowledgeable Christian comes along he declines it. He is not very good philosopher and he seems to on some level know this but publicly acts like he has these amazing philosophical ideas.
I do realize that he is also an evolutionary biologist and that his main debates are against Young Earth creationists.However, Most major Christian denominations accept evolution as consistent with their beliefs, and even had members of their clergy who made important contributions to the development of evolutionary theory.I doubt that he will have anything to argue with the catholic or Orthodox faiths that constitute the vast majority of Christians.
He repeatedly asserts that there is no proof for the existence of God and has at numerous times public denounced various aspects of the Catholic faith based on his mis-understanding of it.
It would be really interesting to see him debate an good intelligent christian apologist or someone who represents the actual beliefs of the vast majority of christians
The "Real Christians" concept is a projection of the True Scotsman fallacy, in the sense of how well they can reason.
Fun fact: 99% of Christians aren't theologians.
98% are not scientists.
99% are not philosophers.
Even their most renowned physicist, Spitzer, doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics correctly. And their most renowned philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, couldn't understand cause and effect.
He has repeatedly stated he has no interest in debating on religion and philosophy. His area of both expertise and interest is in biological evolution. He correctly states that having debates with people of untenable positions gives those people the veneer of legitimacy that the ideas do not deserve.
He should continue to do that at which he excels- writing books and giving lectures on evolutionary biology. As a biologist myself, I can attest that he has a gift for explaining complex concepts in a manner accessible to a layperson, and making them almost poetic. "The Greatest Show on Earth" was marvelous.
Richard Dawkins can do what ever the hell he wants. If he wants to debate people, he does so. If he doesn't, he just doesn't. Just because there's a bunch of angry religious people out there doesn't mean he should debate them.
Not to mention he already debated a series of people who differ from his views. Christians can't just throw more pointless and ridiculous walls of speech at him until he drops of exhaustion.
In addition, Dawkins is a much more efficient and useful man when researching sciency stuff than debating.
Richard Dawkins specializes in biology and debates evolution vs. Biblical creation. Last time I checked, his response to why he wouldn't debate Christians is that he doesn't want to give undeserved recognition to Christian apologists like WLC. Debating is different than just stating facts; Dawkins isn't rhetorically gifted like Craig (I'll give him that much, at least). Dawkins isn't really a debater and he doesn't really claim to be one. He has very little interest in debates outside evolution. If Christians want to refute Dawkins claims, they can do so publicly, but they shouldn't expect Dawkins to have to travel and make a public appearance just to stumble around typical debating tactics that professional debaters are likely to employ.
No one has the right to dictate what another human being should do unless they've been asked for advice. Dawkins is well-educated, and he has important work to do. It's not surprising he doesn't waste time debating Christians. Perhaps the people who feel such a strong need to defend their "almighty" god can find some other way to alleviate their fears and doubts. What Dawkins chooses to do with his time and his life is no one else's business. The fact that this question was even asked is a testament to how much Dawkins intimidates Christians, so maybe it's better for them that he won't debate.