[sageb1]

That was an amusing debate.

"It’s a vast question because we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will."

And this quote pretty much sums up which one won the debate.

[MHGinTN]

Your post zeroed in on the essence of it all ... Dawkins assumes his own status as godhood and thus moral responsibility which begins and ends with himself. From such an arrogant position it is near impossible to even comprehend his own error in reasoning, yet the error is blatant. Dawkins may have free will as his own god, but no one else may have free will if their choices obstruct his will. Truth is, only with a God of the creation in which we are creatures may we each have free will since we answer ultimately to the highest authority ... which is not Richard Dawkins, not any government, not any whim of nature or even the natural destruction of that which is matter in nature, for the soul is more than the matter in the mechanism and the spirit is more than the soul of the mechanism. Someone might want to ask Dawkins by what standard Stalin was evil or bad ... alas, Richard will obfuscate the obvious even from his own mind because he is unable to be free to be loved by his creator since he holds himself to be god to himself.