Richard Dawkins debate forum

[Joe Keysor]

For those who might like to spend some time in the enemy camp I heartily recommend the forum at RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website.

As you know, Dawkins is one of the world's leading atheists, and he has set up this forum to provide atheists with a meeting place. The forum rules do allow non atheists to join and debate, and theists show up there from time to time.

There is a Faith and Religion section that does not show up on the forum until you log in.

The rules forbid preaching, but I got into some lengthy debates and said quite a lot before I finally got banned. The issue was not that I was saying "You need to repent and besaved," which I was not, but that people would misrepresent biblical views, and I would present verses to correct them. This was allowed for a while but eventually they got tired of it and banned me for two weeks for preaching.

For a short time, I found it to be a good experience. Some people were openly hostile and abusive, but some were reasonable, and asked serious questions.

I several times referred to a couple of basic principles of Christianity they had not heard of. One was, that (as Paul says in I Corinthians), the principles of Christianity are foolish to the natural mind. They cannot be believed and understood without divine illumination.

Another was, how do we know the bible is true? Because of evidence, logic, facts, and archaeology? Those have a role to play, but ultimately we believe because of the illumination of the Spirit. The heavenly mysteries must be revealed by God.

One argument I found effective was: There are theistic evolutionists who say evolution is a scientific fact, but it works as it does because God is behind it. What scientific evidence do you have to say they are wrong? None. Your rejection of theistic evolution has nothing to do with science and is only personal preference.

 

[Grymir]

Fascinating stuff from liberal minds. I think it's interesting that "A Clear Thinking Oasis" is printed across the top of each page.

Here's what people wrote on the "Should Prostitution be legalized poll/thread"
-"Prostitution is legal, it is called marriage!"
-"Of course, it will be decades before it is legalized here in the States-if ever. The sex-police, oops, I mean, christians, would rather have sex-workers be subjected to abuse and disease rather than legalize "sin" and bring down the "wrath of god" upon this "christian nation". The love of god in action."

More to come!

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Alright, I posted on the Forum - a thread on the "Atheist" area entitled: "Thesis: Atheism is a religion."

Here is the link - if you are interested:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Thesis: That Atheism is a Religion

Given my record here - I doubt I will last a week there!

Blessings,

Rob

 

[christianyouth]

Are you sure that we are welcome at this website? It seems like it's a forum for atheists. That could be the reason why people are being banned from here.

I'd like to go over there and do some debating, but I don't want to if it's against the rules or anything.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi:

Alright, I posted on the Forum - a thread on the "Atheist" area entitled: "Thesis: Atheism is a religion."

Here is the link - if you are interested:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Thesis: That Atheism is a Religion

Given my record here - I doubt I will last a week there!

Blessings,

Rob

The requested topic does not exist.

It must have fallen into one of the Open Minds over there.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I was informed that they moved it into another thread here:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Is atheism a religion?


Third to last post

Thanks,

Rob

 

[Nate]

I've never been to Dawkin's site, but I've spent some time on others like it. It always seems like for every one person who will actually keep an open mind to the christian perspective, there are 100 rabid Dawkinites enthusiastically spouting all kinds of unspeakable anti-christian rhetoric. Always so many swine and so few pearls...

 

[TimV]

I tried to sign up there a few weeks ago to help that woman they turned over to UK social services for teaching her kids to be Christians, but I couldn't sign up.

 

[Confessor]

One argument I found effective was: There are theistic evolutionists who say evolution is a scientific fact, but it works as it does because God is behind it. What scientific evidence do you have to say they are wrong? None. Your rejection of theistic evolution has nothing to do with science and is only personal preference.

Just to let you know, as devil's advocate I would argue against this by saying that you would have to prove God is behind evolution. Autonomous philosophies always believe in "starting from the ground up," and therefore as long as God is not proven by those means, they will declare it irrational to believe in Him. And truly, by their standard, they are right about that: it would be irrational to believe things on insufficient evidence.

But the catch is that their standard is absolutely wrong -- if one were to seriously try to reason from the ground up, one would destroy knowledge and experience.

 

[Matthias]

Hi:

I was informed that they moved it into another thread here:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Is atheism a religion?


Third to last post

Thanks,

Rob

I read your post over there, and it was excellent. Your not going to last long over there

 

[toddpedlar]

Are you sure that we are welcome at this website? It seems like it's a forum for atheists. That could be the reason why people are being banned from here.

I'd like to go over there and do some debating, but I don't want to if it's against the rules or anything.

Hey, if we've had people banned from there (I assume that's what you meant, rather than people being banned from here. Seems as though you dropped a "t") then that's an honor I think we should be happy to accept.

Certainly it's no problem for you to debate over there - have at it! Just remember as always that the Holy Spirit, and not your arguments, will win souls.

 

[Zenas]

-"Of course, it will be decades before it is legalized here in the States-if ever. The sex-police, oops, I mean, christians, would rather have sex-workers be subjected to abuse and disease rather than legalize "sin" and bring down the "wrath of god" upon this "christian nation". The love of god in action."

I know, just like I want murderers subjected to cold prison cells and lethal injection, or theives to be thrown into prison or forced to hide their immoral actions.

How unloving of me brilliant atheist.

/sarcasm

On a more serious note, I'd like to ask for some theories on how the poster of that message manages to avoid shoving forks through the back of his head while eating.

 

[August]

I debated one of their mods a year or two ago in another forum. It did not go well for him, and he started "stalking" me online...apparently looking for a rematch. I don't even know if he is still there, but just be careful, some of these guys can get downright nasty.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

I debated one of their mods a year or two ago in another forum. It did not go well for him, and he started "stalking" me online...apparently looking for a rematch. I don't even know if he is still there, but just be careful, some of these guys can get downright nasty.

Hi:

Thanks for your support. Nasty I can handle. When a person gets nasty at least his/her emotions are involved. It is those who are disinterested who are the ones to be pitied.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[rescuedbyLove]

Hi:

I was informed that they moved it into another thread here:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Is atheism a religion?


Third to last post

Thanks,

Rob

I'm reading it right now.

 

[Confessor]

I debated one of their mods a year or two ago in another forum. It did not go well for him, and he started "stalking" me online...apparently looking for a rematch. I don't even know if he is still there, but just be careful, some of these guys can get downright nasty.

Hi:

Thanks for your support. Nasty I can handle. When a person gets nasty at least his/her emotions are involved. It is those who are disinterested who are the ones to be pitied.

Blessings,

Rob

What I cannot handle is a combination of nastiness and stupidity. That is my only weakness.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

 

[August]

I debated one of their mods a year or two ago in another forum. It did not go well for him, and he started "stalking" me online...apparently looking for a rematch. I don't even know if he is still there, but just be careful, some of these guys can get downright nasty.

Hi:

Thanks for your support. Nasty I can handle. When a person gets nasty at least his/her emotions are involved. It is those who are disinterested who are the ones to be pitied.

Blessings,

Rob

What I cannot handle is a combination of nastiness and stupidity. That is my only weakness.

We did not even get much into a discussion of epistemology and ontology and nowhere close to the existence of God before he was lost and confused, and then he sent me upwards of 60 e-mails name-calling and challenging for a new debate. This after I asked him a short series of questions he was seemingly unable to engage with at any level.

It was quite sad to see, to be honest. It was like a desperate cry for help from a drowning man who can't see the life-preserver right in front of him. I don't think he was stupid, but as with most atheists he was fully committed to remaining ignorant.

 

[Zenas]

I don't think most of them can handle it when their worldview is defeated, even if it's defeated superficially and not completely by a skilled apologist. In fact, I think a superficial defeat is even more maddening to them.

If I watch an unskilled apologist get trounced by an atheist, it doesn't bother me. Christ still reigns in Heaven, the atheist is an already defeated opponent, even if he is allowed to apparently succeed at this time. He will either be converted or rightly face God's judgment.

If an atheist watches one of their own get trounced, or experiences it themselves, it is literally the death of their worldview and they have to somehow revive it in their own mind. The livelihood of their belief system is based on materialism and therefore only survives in the here and now; it only survives in the future if they're able to propagate it. Their god is not alive, he doesn't live nor will he ever, and when an atheist dies, unless someone is there to carry on his worldview, his entire life is a failure to be forgotten or lauded as one of the greatest follies to be pitied. They have to win every argument they get into or it is a failure of their worldview and an occasion to become upset. If their opponent doesn't see the light or others see the ignorance of what they're espousing, everything they are is a waste and they have to find someone to carry on what they believe because, after all, after they die, there is "nothing".

Fools to be pitied, the lot of them.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 05:37:26 EST-----

I wonder why they resort to so much ad hominem and ridicule. I know the obvious answer, but it still defies all reason.

 

[Joe Keysor]

Fascinating stuff from liberal minds. I think it's interesting that "A Clear Thinking Oasis" is printed across the top of each page.

Here's what people wrote on the "Should Prostitution be legalized poll/thread"
-"Prostitution is legal, it is called marriage!"
-"Of course, it will be decades before it is legalized here in the States-if ever. The sex-police, oops, I mean, christians, would rather have sex-workers be subjected to abuse and disease rather than legalize "sin" and bring down the "wrath of god" upon this "christian nation". The love of god in action."

More to come!

Some of those people are quite bizarre and are very hostile as well. They like to imagine they are rational and objective though.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 11:39:14 EST-----

Are you sure that we are welcome at this website? It seems like it's a forum for atheists. That could be the reason why people are being banned from here.

I'd like to go over there and do some debating, but I don't want to if it's against the rules or anything.

Theists are allowed according to the forum rules, and I was involved in a number of threads. I only got into trouble for quoting the bible too much (not just a few times but many times). I almost always did that in response to the other sides distortions of what Christianity teaches, or in answer to specific questions.

Here are their forum rules about religion:
Preaching/proselytising/witnessing
Richarddawkins.net is a forum for rational clear thinking. While it is good to debate and exchange different points of view, members should be able to use the board free from being preached at, bible-bashed, told they are heading for damnation or given any other religious, superstitious or supernatural threats. This forum exists for an exchange of views, not as a recruitment centre for 'souls'.

The rest of the rules are at RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - FORUM USERS' AGREEMENT

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 11:56:33 EST-----

One argument I found effective was: There are theistic evolutionists who say evolution is a scientific fact, but it works as it does because God is behind it. What scientific evidence do you have to say they are wrong? None. Your rejection of theistic evolution has nothing to do with science and is only personal preference.

Just to let you know, as devil's advocate I would argue against this by saying that you would have to prove God is behind evolution. Autonomous philosophies always believe in "starting from the ground up," and therefore as long as God is not proven by those means, they will declare it irrational to believe in Him. And truly, by their standard, they are right about that: it would be irrational to believe things on insufficient evidence.

But the catch is that their standard is absolutely wrong -- if one were to seriously try to reason from the ground up, one would destroy knowledge and experience.

I got into a lengthy debate with them on that very point. It went on for about thirty pages before I dropped out. One of the points was "I (the theist) have to prove my view but you (the atheist) don't have to prove yours. All you have to do is find fault with my reasoning and you automatically win the argument." I argued that was unreasonable. If I present reasons for God and they fail to accept them, that by no means proves their position is right. There was quite a lot more too it than that.

My point anyway was not to prove God was behind evolution. My point was, that if someone does believe in evolution, and says God is behind it, they have no scientific evidence whatsoever upon which to base their rejection of that idea. Their insistence on atheism is purely subjective.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 11:59:17 EST-----

Hi:

I was informed that they moved it into another thread here:

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Is atheism a religion?


Third to last post

Thanks,

Rob

I'm reading it right now.

I had a look at it too. A lot of those people are very proud of their intelligence.

 

[LawrenceU]

Pride goeth before destruction. . .

 

[Joe Keysor]

I have put different answers in the same post. Oh well, I'll get it right next time.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 12:14:36 EST-----

Pride goeth before destruction. . .

And haughtiness before a fall.

Ultimately, it is a spiritual warfare, much more than just a matter of intelligence and arguments. One problem I have with a lot of responses to the atheists is that they rely too much on argument. There is a place for that, but as Paul says their minds are blinded and they cannot understand the truths of God unless he himself grants them illumination.

 

[Zenas]

Most of what I see are ad hom attacks. I wouldn't label that "argument".

 

[Joe Keysor]

Most of what I see are ad hom attacks. I wouldn't label that "argument".

I experienced some ad hominem attacks, but I did find some unexpected responses to my arguments that were interesting. I also had some genuine communication with people who were polite and serious.

One of my arguments, that I believed the bible was God's word because God himself had revealed this to me, was something I think they had not heard before. A lot of the apologetics and arguments I have seen have been geared to proving the Christian faith is reasonable, logical, the archaeological evidence supports the bible, trying to meet their criteria of intelligence and evidence. My statements on this were in the context of long arguments, not just out of the blue, and I got some serious responses.

But, too much argumentation was not edifying, so when my two week ban expired I did not get back into debating. I've had enough of that board.

Jesus did say "Go into all the world" - but I have become sceptical of internet witnessing. It is too easy to sit at the key board and witness while one's response to unbelievers in the real world is very different.

 

[the particular baptist]

I debated one of their mods a year or two ago in another forum. It did not go well for him, and he started "stalking" me online...apparently looking for a rematch. I don't even know if he is still there, but just be careful, some of these guys can get downright nasty.

Hi:

Thanks for your support. Nasty I can handle. When a person gets nasty at least his/her emotions are involved. It is those who are disinterested who are the ones to be pitied.

Blessings,

Rob

You did exceptionally well and no one really adressed your point

I am aware of Dr. Dawkins attempt to prove it in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" by creating a computer program. However, he undermines his efforts because it took an intelligent designer (Richard Dawkins) to create the program. The program he makes, as well as the computer he runs it on, did not spontaneously appear out of nowhere, but was created by intelligent people.

So, my question is: Where is your observed, and purely material, evidence that complexity arises out of simplicity? Within your own boundaries of "science" you cannot appeal to immaterial causes.

May God use your comments there for His glory.

in Christ,
flavio