The Richard Dawkins forum. The end of a commmunity- a year on…
Looking back over the last twelve months, after my moderating position on the Richarddawkins.net forums came to an end, I have encountered mixed emotions.
I have recently browsed over all the goings on a year ago when the forum unexpectedly shut down. For those who didn’t get attached to the forum I can understand that the emotions the members were immersed in could be seen as blown out of proportion or petty. But for many of the staff and members it felt as if a hurricane had hit their hamlet of closely knit friendly atheists, taking with it a mass proportion of its inhabitants which will probably never be heard from again.
On the night of February 24th 2010 I sat at my laptop, until the early hours of the morning, astounded by what happening to the online community that I had personally tried, and spent many many hours of my free time, to keep safe from bigotry, injustice and prejudice. It was a place of rational discourse, an institution of knowledge and an assembly of like-minded individuals who over time seemed to become altruistic towards each other. I sat and I sobbed. I knew that after that night, even if the forum was switched back on, it would never recover from that hurricane. The wounds too deep to heal.
In the days that followed I had many a tearful moment. I felt as though I had been made redundant from the best job I would ever have. Pulled away from colleagues I worked so well with, we were a team like no other I had encountered. I felt humbled to have worked with them. There was a special bond between us, a small band of people spread over the globe yet completely at ease and at home in our virtual staff room.
It made the newspapers, extensively reported on blogs, forums and websites. Many people, taking into account the forum had 85,000 members, were hurt, angry and sad by what had happened. A year has passed and still people miss it.
If it wasn’t for RD.net I can truly say I wouldn’t be the person I am today. Maybe that sounds a little extreme? But when I joined I had little interest and virtually no knowledge in the subjects I love to learn about today. I believed in God, the forum opened my eyes and helped me think critically. I have done university courses I would never have even thought about doing before RD.nt. I attend Skeptics in the Pub meetings, I have an interest in the secular society and I read humanist magazines. All of these are part of my normal life now and if it wasn’t for the forum I wouldn’t have an interest in any of it. I am a changed person, a person I like, someone with more confidence than before and more intelligence. I’m someone who yearns knowledge.
So even though its gone, and its a year on I’m happy. I thank all my RichardDawkins.netters, Dawks and non dawks for the gift of reason. Now its time to draw a line under the RichardDawkins.net forum,it’s a thing of the past. As it always said in my signature…
“Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened” – Dr Seuss.
Love from,
Me (formally known as Jain) xxxx
Lucyjain's Blog 
Here’s to the future!
January 27, 2011 at 21:04
Yep!!! xxx
January 27, 2011 at 23:03
Very well put Jain.
January 28, 2011 at 13:50
Reason cannot apply to those who are wrong.
Since Leslie Flint the question of the existance of God and the afterlife has been settled. Only the unreasonable still debate the point.
January 29, 2011 at 15:59
There is no evidence for your claims. Maybe you’d like to produce some for me? I have an open mind, especially if there’s hard evidence to back it up.
January 29, 2011 at 19:25
You say there is o evidence when the evidence is overwhelming. You just need to know where to find it. I produced a name – Leslie Flint. A review of his life and his work would have provided you with all the evidence you need to confidantly claim there to be a God and an afterlife. I could not be so bold in the absence of such evidence.
In short, Leslie Flint was a direct voice medium which spiritual energies used to produce a ‘voicebox’ for them to communicate there thoughts in such a way that their thoughts could be heard and recorded in the form of voices.
Of course, such an ability was controversial and brought along with it claims of trickery and fraud. leslie knowing himself to be genuine in his abilities willingly allowed himself to be tested by any means possible by the endless army of scientists and skeptics spanning a period of over 40 years. There was no limit to the methods of controls used including being bound and gaged, tied up and made to keep a hold a mouthfull of water and reproduce the water after the testing. Some testing was spontaneous and held in undisclosed locations so no collaberation among ‘allies’ could occur. Name the method of testing and it was tried. Yet, time and time again without fail the voices appeared seemingly out of thin air at various locations throughout the room. There was never found to be a hint of fraud nor could what he achieved ever be reproduced. Many skeptics became believers. Others remained skeptics even to go so far as to claim that he ‘spoke out of his stomach’. There is an explanation for all this of course. Leslie was the real deal and the spirits were able to communicate through the method described. Any reasonable person would be firmly convinced of the authenticity of the voices and their origin.
So, the evidence is all there for all to view. You wanted evidence, there it is. Now you’ll be able to understand why I am so absolutely confident in stating the claim that there is definately a God and there is definately an afterlife.
Nonetheless, the most convincing evidence is not the appearance of the voices as it is the absolutely profound and loving messages that the voices offer. The most creative and articulate screen writers in Hollywood can only dream to produce such profound information. This is the deal cealer for me, if the voices were not enough.
The important thing is that love is important. Leslie’s life was a gift to be celebrated. We all matter and need to be kind to each other for we are all in this ship together. We need each other.
I hope you get the same out of his work that I have. I have found peace and meaning in a life filled with pain and suffering.
Take care, and thanks for taking the time to read.
All the best.
January 31, 2011 at 02:35
There is one small problem Leslie Flint Fan is overlooking. Just because something has not been shown to be false, does not automatically mean it is true.
All there is evidence for is: Leslie Flint held séances in which voices were heard that were purportedly from people who had died, nothing more. Leslie Flint Fan is taking that evidence and jumping to the conclusion that it is factual and evidence for the existence God.
In addition, Leslie Flint Fan’s claim that, “The most creative and articulate screen writers in Hollywood can only dream to produce such profound information.” is purely subjective and does not add any validity whatsoever to the evidence.
January 31, 2011 at 14:15
I’d like to SEE that evidence. Saying that he was scientifically tested and never failed is one thing, but I cant seem to find anything that actually says this apart from those who believe in him. Who tested him? What were the tests? Where are the results? I’m afraid woo website say so isnt really good enough.
January 31, 2011 at 14:26
I agree, the claim that, “Leslie knowing himself to be genuine in his abilities willingly allowed himself to be tested by any means possible by the endless army of scientists and skeptics spanning a period of over 40 years.” seems to be just that, a claim, and nothing more.
If there had actually been an “endless army of scientists” testing Flint’s abilities “spanning a period of over 40 years” there would be at least a record of some of the tests available for searching — especially if none of the testing came up negative.
Since there does not seem to be any such scientific record, I am highly dubious of Leslie Flint Fan’s claim.
January 31, 2011 at 14:56
Leslie Flint Fan wrote, “There is an explanation for all this of course. Leslie was the real deal and the spirits were able to communicate through the method described.”
And then there is of course the possibility that it was just a trick that somehow escaped detection.
January 31, 2011 at 14:34
Yes Will. I have also emailed the Society for Psychical Research for more details on him. I’m open minded, but very skeptical!
January 31, 2011 at 14:45
Do you know how to contact Jerome? If they exist, he, if anyone, should know how to locate information on Leslie Flint’s paranormal testing.
January 31, 2011 at 15:00
Hi Lucy, I wanted to first thank you for the tribute to the former RD.net.
Well, that, and I haven’t done this in a while, so here we go:
“You say there is o evidence when the evidence is overwhelming. You just need to know where to find it. I produced a name – Leslie Flint. A review of his life and his work would have provided you with all the evidence you need to confidantly claim there to be a God and an afterlife. I could not be so bold in the absence of such evidence.”
Skeptic tip one: If the name matters more than what they did, chances are they are not reliable. The argument from authority is one of the oldest and most popular logical fallacies. If the arguments you put forward are useless without the name attached to them, they are extremely weak arguments at best.
“In short, Leslie Flint was a direct voice medium which spiritual energies used to produce a ‘voicebox’ for them to communicate there thoughts in such a way that their thoughts could be heard and recorded in the form of voices.”
This is all well and good as a claim, it is at least clear, but one of the vital parts of any claim which you want others to believe is to provide a mechanism.
Skeptic tip two: For any claim you make that relies on a causal agent, identify the agent. He creates a voicebox using spiritual energy, fine, but how? How does he manipulate the energies, has it been measured, can it be measured, these are all questions necessary to determine the validity of the claim.
“Of course, such an ability was controversial and brought along with it claims of trickery and fraud. leslie knowing himself to be genuine in his abilities willingly allowed himself to be tested by any means possible by the endless army of scientists and skeptics spanning a period of over 40 years. There was no limit to the methods of controls used including being bound and gaged, tied up and made to keep a hold a mouthfull of water and reproduce the water after the testing. Some testing was spontaneous and held in undisclosed locations so no collaberation among ‘allies’ could occur. Name the method of testing and it was tried. Yet, time and time again without fail the voices appeared seemingly out of thin air at various locations throughout the room. There was never found to be a hint of fraud nor could what he achieved ever be reproduced. Many skeptics became believers. Others remained skeptics even to go so far as to claim that he ‘spoke out of his stomach’. There is an explanation for all this of course. Leslie was the real deal and the spirits were able to communicate through the method described. Any reasonable person would be firmly convinced of the authenticity of the voices and their origin.”
Skeptic tip three: If you say tests were performed, provide details on the tests. I did some quick research myself a few minutes ago and found no details on the tests performed, only vague descriptions of doing everything possible. Saying tests were done persuades us of nothing, but showing what tests were done, how, and by whom, that is going to go a long way.
“So, the evidence is all there for all to view. You wanted evidence, there it is. Now you’ll be able to understand why I am so absolutely confident in stating the claim that there is definately a God and there is definately an afterlife.”
Unfortunately, no, I do not understand why you are so confident in this knowledge.
Skeptic tip four: Never assume that what evidence is sufficient for you will be sufficient for someone else. We each have our own skeptical thresholds, different levels of persuasion required to change our views, and you have failed to overcome the skeptical thresholds of at lest the three of us (Will, Lucy, and myself). It will help if you employ the other three tips as they are what we use to create our skeptical thresholds.
Also, a bit of a non sequitor: Even if Leslie Flint is indeed able to channel the voices of the dead, it does not mean God exists. It constitutes evidence for a spiritual realm of some sort, but is not even nearly sufficient on its own.
“Nonetheless, the most convincing evidence is not the appearance of the voices as it is the absolutely profound and loving messages that the voices offer. The most creative and articulate screen writers in Hollywood can only dream to produce such profound information. This is the deal cealer for me, if the voices were not enough.”
Skeptic tip five: Just because it feels good does not mean it is true. When putting forth an argument, do not use emotions as evidence unless the claim you are making is about a certain stimuli evoking certain emotions. This is not the claim. Your claim is one of existence, that of an afterlife, so think carefully about what information supports this claim and what information is unnecessary, like the above quote.
“The important thing is that love is important. Leslie’s life was a gift to be celebrated. We all matter and need to be kind to each other for we are all in this ship together. We need each other.”
Love is important, and every life is to be celebrated. We are transient, our time is far too short to succeed at our many ambitions as people. So instead, we applaud those who accomplish what they can and who live life as happily as can be done. Every tear, every smile, every hug, every connection of one human to another is to be celebrated and honored. We do need each other, it is the human connection which makes this short and painful existence worth every second.
“I hope you get the same out of his work that I have. I have found peace and meaning in a life filled with pain and suffering.”
I am glad you have found that, I just wish I could say I was pleased with the source. Right now I have trouble fighting the worry that you have found solace in a charlatan at worst or a fool at best. Peace and meaning can be found in many places, in music, in books, in friends and family, in art, in nature, the world has so many genuinely beautiful and precious things, I would hate to see life wasted on that which gives false hope and lies to grant you peace.
“Take care, and thanks for taking the time to read.
All the best.”
To you as well.
January 31, 2011 at 15:06
Ian, I admire your reply – it has gone into details with which I wholeheartedly agree but could not have put into words. Surely any claim of fact should stand up to robust questioning. If there is no information about what tests this person was subjected to then I cannot accept the assertions made about LF and/or that it is proof of the existence of god.
The only aspect of LF Fan’s posting I agree with is that we all matter, and need to look after each other.
Lucy – as you know I wasn’t a Dawk (too late to the party as usual!), but thanks for your blog. Peace and love. x
January 31, 2011 at 20:49
Brilliant post Ian, my sentiments exactly. As Rachel said you wrote what I would have found hard to put into words myself. So we await this evidence still?
January 31, 2011 at 21:28
Hello, everyone; how have you been doing? 🙂
I must admit to the fact of a wonderful time on the forum; my participation essentially was ended on the same day as when I first signed up on different years: by coincidence only, that day happened to be my birthday. It amuses me still, in some small way. There is yet some small measure of sadness at the recollection, but the fondness of the memories, the good ones, and the stark import of the more intellectually involved (both on a purely discourse-centered, cerebral basis and the more emotive sides) ones are by my heart.
You have my thanks, darling, for putting this up. And I am very glad to see “old faces.”
Nowadays, I occasionally visit a Greek forum on atheism. Goodness, I hate to see no same level of global representation, no equality of rational discourse! Truly, my brand of tea, so to speak, is an acquired taste, but then again… I could really not suffer such bald-faced redundancy of thought for too long! Sometimes, it hurts me deeply…
Logic? Useful to them as long as it fulfills the goal of hooting at Christianism, and in barely legible ways. Philosophy? Mostly irrelevant to most, apparently, and little understood at that: they revel at flaming onerousness. I am bored and tired…
February 1, 2011 at 09:40
Ok, I heard back from the society for psychical research, i’ll copy and paste….
Was he debunked? No, and some of his mediumship seems to have been very remarkable. But he was tested for the reality of his direct voice, i.e. the claim that his words came from an external source, and the test carried out by an SPR committee was inconclusive. No report was published, out of fairness to him. A later test carried out by other members using an infra-red viewer and throat microphone showed that on that occasion the voice was certainly coming from Flint’s own corporeal voicebox. But on one occasion the voice of the control personage, Mickey, was heard coming from the ceiling, after the lights had been turned on, and on another occasion it seemed to speak directly into the ear of a sitter. There is a biography, Leslie Flint – Voices in the dark, (Macmillan) ghosted by Doreen Montgomery, a writer who attended a lot of his sittings and was very impressed by his mediumship. Best wishes, Mary Rose Barrington
So no, he was never debunked but he was never verified as completey authentic either, so the test would not have been extensive enough to prove either way, so skeptics have every right to not believe this. The throat microphone showed the voices came from his own voicebox and even from his control person. Does this make him a reliable source for proving the claims he made? I think not. As for proving there’s a God, nope. Going to have to do much better than that!
X x x
February 1, 2011 at 22:26
Thanks Lucy!
February 2, 2011 at 00:43
If you listen to the tapes you can hear leslie Flint laughing in response to some of the comments ‘Mickey’ was making, so yes of course there were times when his voice was active. So acticivity being detected from his voice can easily be attributed to this factor, and does not necessarily provide evidence that would invalidate his mediumship abilities. Conversely, it could add support in regards to his credibility due to the spontaneity of the exchanges.
The fact that he was never debunked is beyond remarkable. Leslie gave full access and no limitations to the manners, means, times and locations for those who were doing the studying. The only logical reason for him to do that was that he was as he claimed to be. He had nothin to fear and wanted to to subject himself to no limitations to support his claim, or at least demonstrate that no matter what the restrictions, location, times; despite being bound and gagged, made to keep a mouthfull of water and spit it back out after the session was done; blinfolded and taken to undisclosed locations to eliminate chance of seeting up coordinated deception, It did not matter: the voices would come anyway and they always did.
As you acknowledged, leslie was never debiunked. In light of the fact, your following statement, that he was never declared authentic, rings hollow, meaningless and irrelevant.
In my humble opinion, the fact that leslie Flint was never debunked after 40 years of testing comes as close to proving authenticity as anything ever could , even if one is not willing to take the ‘leap’ and go on record and declare it. Few are willing to make such a claim, but this has less to do with Leslie’s abilities and more to do with the personal risk of reputation for doing so.
If ‘spirits’ were not communicating – as Mickey had been heard to do from the top of the ceiling, how did Leslie do it? Why did he do it if his intent was to deceive? Why did he not capitalize finacially on his talents. Why did he not make a deathbed confession? If I had his skiils of ‘deception’, I would want the world to know defore I departed this earth. The reward associated with ability to deceive and fool is to do so and let everyone know you pulled on over on them. He did not do this.
All evidence supports authenticity no matter which way you look.
I think he was the real deal as he claimed. I think the message behind all of this that now needs to be the focus is that Man needs to begin to look and think outside the box. Man can do this by spending less time trying to debunk and dismiss his claims, and spend more time listening to the messages themselves.
The messages have much to offer. They are profound and enlightening. Heartwarming and inspiring. We have been provided a gift and it is up to us whether or not we want to take advantage and learn from it or not.
I have chosen to listen and learn. The messages have changed my life. I had been bitter and angry for years. I am now neither. I now have hope, optimism and purpose. I want to develop my talents and passions to help others. These messages have changed me.
No one can convince you of their authenticity. But, try and look beyond that and just listen to the messages themselves. They are the real deal and in my case, a life changer.
Take care.
February 4, 2011 at 16:04
(gravatar avatar test)
February 2, 2011 at 11:09
I know, it’s only ‘teh internetz’, but my attachment to the forum, or more specifically the people who frequented it, was very real thing. For me, a person with restricted mobility, it was a community every bit as ‘real and actual’ as any flesh-and-blood social entity, and it was a community with a definite sense of its own identity; a culture. This is why it stung so much when the forum was summarily shut down on a manufactured pretext by people who had no conception of, or regard for, what that community identity had fostered in ‘real people,’ and why many felt personally maligned and were angered when the community was disingenuously misrepresented to its sponsor and the wider media.
Yet like LucyJain my very being was fundamentally changed when I stumbled upon the forum. I was tempered by my membership of RDF, and the values of the community, and the practices in discourse encouraged by the moderating team, taught me how to critically examine my own ideas, how to assess the declarations of credulous and self-nominated authorities alike, and to develop a mode of expression which allowed me to communicate my ideas and views honestly, openly, and with some confidence. But moreover, I made many, many friends there, and some very, very close friends, people I could (and can) trust and talk to freely, and although we were scattered across various timezones we had that bond of understanding that meant we would (and will) always try our best for each other. This was not just my experience of the forum, it was repeated again and again among the members.
But LucyJain is right, one has to move on, draw a line and, as they say on confessional day-time TV pap, seek ‘closure’ if we are to avoid being trapped by the feelings of past events. I miss RDF and the people who frequented it, but when I think back I am not overwhelmed by sadness and regret, I am cheered and heartened by the memories I carry from that time. It was a crucial, pivotal time for me, and like so many have said the community went a long, long way to shaping the person I am today – a person I like a whole lot more than the rather troubled and confused person who tentatively signed up to the site in 2007, and for that I’d like to thank every member of the RDForum community for making it what it was – unique.
:¬)
February 2, 2011 at 12:21
Thank you darling beardy TWOTH and thank you for all you’ve done to keep us together. Big enormous hugs x x x
February 2, 2011 at 12:37
Back at ya, unbeardy one. 😀
February 2, 2011 at 16:17
@ seeing aint always believing, I’m glad you had a positive experience but just because you feel that way doesnt make it authentic. You say..
“If ‘spirits’ were not communicating – as Mickey had been heard to do from the top of the ceiling, how did Leslie do it? Why did he do it if his intent was to deceive? Why did he not capitalize finacially on his talents. Why did he not make a deathbed confession? If I had his skiils of ‘deception’, I would want the world to know defore I departed this earth. The reward associated with ability to deceive and fool is to do so and let everyone know you pulled on over on them. He did not do this. ”
This is very poor evidence, how can any of us know why other do the things they do? Imagine how much power he must have felt having followers, people in awe of him. People constantly thanking him, thats enough to spur someone to carry on faking things. How could you possibly declare that you were a fake on your death bed after fooling so many people? There are two ways to look at every situation. Just saying all this means nothing its just assuming. It boils down to Cold hard scientific evidence. There is none, the tests that were carried out were not recorded in a scientific manner. Who knows who carried them out? There’s no record. You can believe what you like, but I like to have somthing substantial to rely on and word of mouth and non scientific experiments with no record just isnt enough for me.
I’m not saying he’s a fake, I am just saying I cant believe it, not until it has been proved.
Thanks for your comments x
February 4, 2011 at 20:13
Hi Lucyjain.
Of course if the ‘unscientific’ tests produced results that conclusively indicated fraud you would be citing these results to make a claim that he was a ‘fraud’. I doubt very much you would be questioning the methodology that produced the results.
I am not agreeing with you re: your claim that the results were ‘unscientific’ and unreliable because they were ‘word of mouth’. I believe this is a convenient ‘out’ when evidence does not support your beliefs.
There are some who are going to hang on to their beliefs regardless of how illogical and unreasonable that belief system is in light of evidence to the contrary.
I have not seen Richard Dawkins. I have heard of Richard Dawkins. Am I to believe he is a real person? If I was under oath I could not say that he was. I have no real proof. Can you state for absolute certainty that he exists? Could you pick him out of a lineup of extremely similar looking people? In reality you could not swear conclusively under oath that you know for a fact that Richard Dawkins exists. A good lawyer would have your head spinning and cast a great deal of doubt that would have you even questioning whether he was a real person or not., or whether the person who calims to be Richard Dawkins that you see is actually ‘the’ Richard Dawkins. How do you know he (if there is a he) does not have a double? There is no end to the doubt that can be cast on our belief systems re: a great deal of information we assume to be correct. Which standard should I apply in my every day existance?
The point is we believe a great deal of things without proof. We have to do this or we could go about our day. Absolute proof is not a requirement for believing. Reasonable observations are often suffice and then we move on.
There is nothing I can produce that will provide you with the ‘proof’ you need in regards to Mr. Flint. But the ‘reasonable’ and ‘logical’ standard works in my day to day existance and has gotten me this far so I trust my judgement that the ‘logical’ and ‘reasonable’ standard will work when apllied to the authenticity re: Mr. Flint as well, despite the ‘disbelief’ or ‘shock’ factor that is associated with this approach. The ‘disbelief’ factor should not influence my judgement and tip the scale to imposing an impossible standard to buffers the shock. Shock and disbelief should not be a reason to be unreasonable.
All the best.
February 5, 2011 at 01:20
Hi Lucyjain.
Just wanted to correct your opening statement.
You say “ust because I feel that way does not make it authentic: .
Conversely, it is preciously because I feel this way that makes it most authentic.
It is one thing to argue the validity of the origin of voices which science still has no answer after 40 years of study. It is quite another thing altogether that the voices themselves have provided by far the most profound and thought provoking messages I have ever heard in my entire life, many of which have moved me to tears.
This is a bit more than a ‘positive experience’. No writer living or dead has had such an absolutely profound and absolutely life altering effective on my life.
It is important to me that your words do not minimize the full effect of my experience. Despite the scientific failure to provide a plausable explanation after 40 years of study, the deal maker for me were the messages themselves. No writer could even imagine writing from such an absolutely foreign, other wordly perspective as there exists no point of reference for them to begin. But there the messages were, descriptive, consistant, incredibly comprehensive in terms of the profound nature of their environment.
I challenge you to, without listening to the messages, try coming up with your own other wordly perspective and provide details from that perspective and then ask commarades to see how your words compare to the descriptives of the messages.
I am sorry, but I have little doubt that you will fall miserably short in your attempt to do so.
As I mentioned before, I am far beyond the debating point and view the Life and work of Leslie Flint as a gift that we may choose to take advantage of if we have the wisdom to do so. I choose to do so and the effcts have been profound and life altering and unmatched by any author living or dead.
February 5, 2011 at 06:33
Not quite up to the super lengthy responses some have provided. However, I’m happy for someone that has a belief in whatever – good for them – as long as they don’t expect me to settle for the same evidence as they have. My own threshold is bound to be different to everyone else’s.
I have never met Richard Dawkins, and haven’t seen him on tv that much. No, I couldn’t pick him out of a line up either. This does not stop me from believing that he is a real person who has inspired a significant number of people. So what?! I haven’t met Barack Obama, David Cameron, David Beckham, Evan Dando – the list goes on. I accept that they exist. If anyone told me these people had mystical powers I wouldn’t accept that without hard evidence that exceeded my own threshold of belief. My personal threshold is rather high though….
February 5, 2011 at 17:36