Banned from The Richard Dawkins Foundation

Here is my account of how I got banned from the forums at the Richard Dawkins Foundation - "A Clear Thinking Oasis"!

Another form of censorship is that The Richard Dawkins Foundation channel on YouTube will not permit me to make this a video response to any of its videos. I guess they simply don't want their people to see stories like this?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard Dawkins
• reason
• science
• forum
• blog
• William Lane Craig

[antonahill]

Why did you go on in the first place? What did you expect to gain? What's the difference between a fundamentalist & a theologian?

[TheCartesianTheist]

@antonahill

I went there to see if I could find any atheist on there who was philosophically able.

"What's the difference between a fundamentalist & a theologian?"

I think that could be one of the most ignorant questions I've ever been asked on YT - ever! I would recommend some idiots guide to theology as you begin your research.

[antonahill]

@TheCartesianTheist This isn't to say that the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal on all theological matters, but the one example is enough to demonstrate that there are similarities between what you seem to suggest are disparate views. So if you're going to allude to something as straight-forward as that fundamentalists and theologians are different and yet it can be demonstrated that they aren't so in all cases, my question arises.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@antonahill

It's not that. I just don't want to have to tutor someone in something so incredibly basic that's all. Sorry if that's patronising but it's the truth. Broadly speaking, anyone who talk about God in any respect is a theologian. So there are fundie theologians of course. Even some of them might have PhDs in theology and therefore be a professional theologian in a more restricted sense too. But the vast majority of theologians OVER CHURCH HISTORY have not been fundies.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@antonahill

Take one key doctrine of fundies as an example. The six days of creation supposedly 6000 years ago. That does not come about until Bishop Usher. The agreed doctrine of creation was a gradual one and not based on a literal reading of the creation story of Genesis as science but as poetry. Ronald Numbers has demonstrated the evolution of creationists and how much of a north American 20th century phenomenon they are. They don't represent historical theology on creation.

[GGDFan777]

@TheAikenHead Whether the earth "will be toast in a couple of billion years" doesn't refute the fine-tuning argument. If something is degrading, that doesn't show that it wasn't the result of design in the first place. My car will probably degrade in several descesenia, does that show that it wasn't designed?

[GGDFan777]

@TheAikenHead Moreover, your objection also assumes that if God fine tuned the universe he couldn't also later still intervene (perhaps God will create a new heaven and a new earth before 'the earth will be toast'?). Your assumptions are groundless.

[antonahill]

@TheCartesianTheist Presumably, you feel that fundamentalists are wrong and theologians are right. Yet, one of the pieces of "evidence" Craig claims to support his assertion that there is a god, specifically the god of the Bible, is that he feels it is so. This is identical to what fundamentalists claim. It seems, then, that on that one claim, the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal. (More...)

[antonahill]

@TheCartesianTheist I asked the difference between a fundamentalist and a theologian because on multiple occasions in your video, you act as if there were a definite distinction between the two and your tone seems to suggest derision of the former and respect for the latter. This is a value judgement. Thus, I was interested in whence you derive your assessment of the value you've judged. (More...)

[antonahill]

@TheCartesianTheist Given that ignorance is a lack of knowledge, it follows that a question comes from a place of ignorance. So yes, you've correctly assessed the nature of a question. I wasn't looking for any definition. I was looking for yours. Given your assertion that the question is easily covered by an idiot's guide, I assume you're more than capable of answering. Given your assessment that the question is ignorant, it follows that you have an answer. And yet you didn't share it. (More...)

[antonahill]

@TheCartesianTheist What do you mean by "philosophically able"? An atheist who's read philosophy? It begs the question of your end purpose. Let's say you find an atheist whom you feel is so "philosophically able" that he's read more than you. What does that prove or disprove? (More...)

[TheCartesianTheist]

@jennpunk4lif3

The internet fashion police have arrived!! LOL