"A Debate Dawkins Backed Out Of
Several years ago I was contacted by an atheist society in Indianapolis in their effort to have Dawkins debate a creationist. I was told this would be a David vs Goliath event (with Dawkins the Goliath, in their opinion). The atheists were anxious to see their champion, Dawkins, triumph against one who they considered to be one of the most qualified creationists. After I agreed to the debate, I was at first nervous, but an in-depth reading of his beliefs helped me begin to develop my debate strategy.
At this point I was looking forward to the debate, confident that I would prevail, or at least hold my own. About this time I received a request from Dawkins through the atheist group for a copy of my resume, which I sent.
A short time later the atheist group informed me that Dawkins backed out of the debate."
This was quite a sad part of the article:
“His pathogenic hatred of theism is illustrated in research by Professor Paul Vitz, who did a study of academic atheists like Richard Dawkins.
Vitz concluded that academic atheists are likely to have had a very destructive relationship with their father or were molested as children.[21]
Dawkins admits his experience of sexual abuse by a teacher at his junior school.
Also, at his senior school, Oundle, he was forced to fended off older boys who tried to climb into his bed at night.[22]”
What did you have in your resume that scared him?
Karl Marx dedicated one of his famous screeds to Charles Darwin.
I will paraphrase but it went something like this.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?I thought about that awhile and the truth of that statement grew even more profound.
Given what I knew about the guys and gals I grew up with, if my crowd had just evolved slightly above the local apes and monkeys, we would still have socialized with them (i.e. hit on them)...and that means that we would have had sex with them and completely intermingled with them.
Hence, the offspring of those apes and monkeys would have also evolved...and so on and so on.
Or to put it another way, the general human horniness would have left no monkey behind.
If it weren’t for some Creationist’s obsession with him, I never would have heard of Richard Dawkins. The free publicity probably helps sell his books.
Darwin was notorious for being incredibly flatulent. Everyone he met said he stank
Darwin has been treated as fairly as the left has treated Martin Luther King. So much is attributed to what he didn’t say. Marx and Engles, loved Hegel and Darwin only so long as they didn’t read the rest of their books.
In as much as God made the heavens and the earth, seven days of God’s work might not be measured in human days, just saying.
Getting off the soap box.
I was interested to study Anton Levay and his followers and discover that they are just extreme evolutionists.
All mules come from horses and jackasses, so are we just imagining there's such a thing as mules, or is it the horses and jackasses that are imaginary?
Boghossian: What would it take for you to believe in God?
Dawkins: I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the Second Coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming, bass voice saying “I am God.” But I was persuaded, mostly by Steve Zara, who is a regular contributor to my website. He more or less persuaded me that even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield. He made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space.
[Peter Boghossian begins to speak and is in full agreement with Dawkins, arguing, for example, that if the stars spelled out a message from God, we would first have to rule out alternative explanations, like an alien trickster culture.]
Dawkins then agrees with Boghossian.
Boghossian then asks him: So that [stars aligned into a message] couldn’t be enough. So what would persuade you?
Dawkins: Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. - https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/richard-dawkins-admits-that-nothing-can-persuade-him-god-exists/