an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

The Rick Warden Challenge

A while ago I presented a challenge, via this blog, to Christian apologist Rick Warden. This is that original challenge –

Rick, you’ve posted several challenges to atheists on your blog (here, here, and here) which you claim have never been met. Well, the Fundamentally Flawed podcast is happy to discuss your ‘proof’ for the existence of your god via a Skype recorded interview.

In short, we accept your challenge.

When are you available?

Rick responded by claiming that he would only debate online, something I felt was unacceptable considering the nature of the original challenge from myself. In the absence of Rick appearing on the podcast, I asked him to add a statement to his website to the effect of ‘The Fundamentally Flawed podcast were more than happy to meet the challenge I laid down on my blog, but I declined to speak to them’.

To date Rick has failed to add this to his blog, instead accusing myself, and my fellow podcaster Jim Gardner, of numerous things – including the frankly ludicrous claim that we refused to debate him (despite the fact that Jim posted lengthy replies on his site)

Rick, the challenge is still open, are you confident enough in your arguments to discuss them on a podcast? If not I again request that you add the statement above to your website.

Single Post Navigation

13 thoughts on “The Rick Warden Challenge

  1. I don’t understand how they could possibly refuse. How can a man, with the almighty creator of the universe backing him up ever lose against a poor little simple atheist?

  2. Especially since he’s made a complete spam whore of himself by going to 20 atheist sites and posting his challenge to them there, then crowing about their inability or refusal to debate him.

  3. Alex,

    You seem to be either a chronic liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. . On January 29 I made a comment at one of your recent posts “@God’s Word is Law’s Million March for Morals…” and I stated the following:

    “I’m not refusing to debate you or Jim but I do not believe a ‘podcast discussion’ is a suitable means for debating either you or Jim Gardner and I’ve explained why in my comment posted here at your blog January 22. So you, Alex, are NOT accepting THE challenge ‘to come and debate the article at my blog’ I had offered the 20 top atheist blogs.

    Jim Gardener DID accept my challenge and came to debate at my blog but did not make one cogent point but, rather, made a few ancillary, irrelevant and unsupported points before leaving off our debate. The manner in which you continue to twist the truth and now claim I’ve made an ‘ad hominen attack’ without showing how I supposedly have done this altogether underscore the fact that a Skype ‘discussion’ with you would most likely be a waste of time.”

    Your follow up comment reveals you did not read my comment or ignored it:

    – Rick, I am more than happy to take your challenge, just add ‘theealex’ on Skype,

    – I’ll repeat again that you have NOT taken up my challenge to come and debate in text at my blog. And I have never claimed that you have refused to debate me in any form, a lie you are now exhibiting:

    “including the frankly ludicrous claim that we refused to debate him (despite the fact that Jim posted lengthy replies on his site)”

    Can you please show me (and your audience) where I wrote this?

    The more lying and twisted your communication is revealed to be, the less interested I am in a live, unmoderated Skype debate with you.

    A brief search on the Internet reveals you have a tendency of using underhanded ploys in your online debates:

    “I noticed Jim also used a Christopher Hitchens ploy of audio dropping out when he feels that he was being backed into a corner.”

    The above link shows you did attempt an online text debate at that post, so it is not as if you have never done it before.

    • Rick, as I said in my email reply to you, your willingness to call people ‘liar’ and accuse them of ‘intelectual [sic] weakness’ whilst running away from a live debate speaks whole volumes about how utterly weak your position is.

      Either agree a time for a debate, or add the comment to your blog that Fundamentally Flawed were willing to meet your challenge but you declined to speak to us.

    • Pvblivs on said:


           It looks to me that Alex has met your initial challenge and that you are now simply adding more hoops for him to jump through. It further appears that you are refusing to debate him while claiming that is not what you are doing.
           Here’s a thought. Post Alex’s proposal that he asserts fulfills your challenge and let your readers decide who is being dishonest. I doubt that you will do that because some of them might decide it’s you. It’s far easier for you to tell them “nope, nobody even responded.”

  4. Justin on said:

    In my experience those that are all bluster and rhetoric without substance are the ones that refuse to participate in a written debate. In the slow measured responses of text the bullshitter is exposed and for all to see. The Internet never forgets and it never forgives…

    • Alex Botten on said:

      My reason for wanting to do the debate verbally is down to having covered all of this nonsense at length over the last six months, and having no desire to hash the whole lot out again. If Rick is so confident in his ‘argument’ then he should be easily able to dispatch me in a recorded conversation. My original challenge to him was to appear on the podcast – a challenge he has failed to meet

  5. Justin on said:

    @Alex, My apologies, I did not mean to indicate that you were the one that was the “bullshitter”. Rick has avoided any kind of written debate with Mr Bethrick and that is where I came to be aware of him and his challenge. Frankly when surfing in the early morning I should slow down and read before posting and sticking my foot in my mouth. Sorry Alex, truly no offense intended.

  6. imnotandrei on said:

    Well, I’m now two comments in to an argument with him; we’ll see if he deigns to respond.

    Because sheesh, putting bald assertions into a P1 P2 C form really is not the most persuasive…

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: