Dawkins and civil discourse

[Soyeong]

Again, there are many examples of fundamentalist Muslims fomenting terrorism, though not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. There are also many examples of tea partiers being racist, though not all of them are racist. Again, there is something about fundamentalist Christian and Islam (fundamentalist anything) that courts these attitudes, so it is a legitimate comparison.

Again, the only reason for you to think there is a connection being a fundamentalist Christian and a racist is because the left was selling a bunch of propaganda and you bought it. I could easily point to a bunch of people on the left saying racist things and say there is obviously a racist element on the left and it would equally be a load of bunk. The fact is that most large organizations have people with undesirable characteristics that have nothing to do with the organization or it's values. Using that logic, someone could legitimately compare any large organization to Islam, but because being a racist is nothing close to as bad as being terrorist, the only reason for someone to make the comparison is if they are trying to spread negative propaganda.

[Whag]

Again, the only reason for you to think there is a connection being a fundamentalist Christian and a racist is because the left was selling a bunch of propaganda and you bought it. I could easily point to a bunch of people on the left saying racist things and say there is obviously a racist element on the left and it would equally be a load of bunk. The fact is that most large organizations have people with undesirable characteristics that have nothing to do with the organization or it's values. Using that logic, someone could legitimately compare any large organization to Islam, but because being a racist is nothing close to as bad as being terrorist, the only reason for someone to make the comparison is if they are trying to spread negative propaganda.

You're right. It's a big left wing conspiracy that makes this stuff up. My bad.

[Soyeong]

You're right. It's a big left wing conspiracy that makes this stuff up. My bad.

I said nothing of conspiracy. Can you at least acknowledge that propaganda is used in politics and that the left has over used the race card?

[shunyadragon]

I said nothing of conspiracy. Can you at least acknowledge that propaganda is used in politics and that the left has over used the race card?

Actually no, I believe that racism is the primary reason the Republican Party took over the south after the civil rights, integration and voting rights were imposed by Federal Law and legislation. 98% of the Republican party is White. The Republican Party is highly church based and the Tea Party movement id entirely church based in the Republican Party, white church based.

[Kane]

The fact of the matter is we simply don't know who Dawkins chooses to discourse with. Given the media's obsession with sensationalism ('If it bleeds, it leads') we only get to hear about provocative exchanges that quite possibly skew our perceptions. It is in the interests of extremists on both sides (Christians and atheists) to demonize their opponents in the 'battle'. I just think that such tactics turn off more people than either camp realizes. It becomes more a case of 'preaching to the choir'.

Apart from that, in this thread I was only using Dawkins and his conversation with Hutton as an example of what is possible. I think it's always worthwhile to respectfully listen to those who think differently. Obviously some conversations are more worthwhile persevering with than others, but it's a general principle I would advocate. I always prefer a warm conversation over a glass of wine even if it is a disagreement to a debate where one cannot be seen to give way without losing face. In the former situation I am much more likely to view a person's argument favourably than in the latter where both of us are 'attacking' and 'defending'.

I think each has its time and place. Given that, I enjoy both when they are useful as a means of rational discourse; I don't enjoy either when nothing practical arises from it. And I've had gentle conversations where the appearance of beneficial dialogue is present, but what's happening is a pacification of reasoning in favour of not offending.

[KingsGambit]

Actually no, I believe that racism is the primary reason the Republican Party took over the south after the civil rights, integration and voting rights were imposed by Federal Law and legislation. 98% of the Republican party is White.

Honestly, yes. LBJ did say that by signing the Civil Rights Act, he'd be handing the Republicans the South for the next generation. I think conservatives should just admit this; that it was unfortunate, but many conservatives did exploit racial tension for political gain, but that it shouldn't affect their current policies today. The Southern Baptist Convention managed to apologize for its racist past and move on, and has made a lot of strides that way. The conservative movement should do the same and make inroads as America becomes less and less white over time.

[shunyadragon]

Honestly, yes. LBJ did say that by signing the Civil Rights Act, he'd be handing the Republicans the South for the next generation. I think conservatives should just admit this; that it was unfortunate, but many conservatives did exploit racial tension for political gain, but that it shouldn't affect their current policies today. The Southern Baptist Convention managed to apologize for its racist past and move on, and has made a lot of strides that way. The conservative movement should do the same and make inroads as America becomes less and less white over time.

I think the highlighted is rather naive and wishful thinking considering the reality of politics today and the Tea Party.

[Soyeong]

Actually no, I believe that racism is the primary reason the Republican Party took over the south after the civil rights, integration and voting rights were imposed by Federal Law and legislation. 98% of the Republican party is White. The Republican Party is highly church based and the Tea Party movement id entirely church based in the Republican Party, white church based.

That's not relevant to the questions I asked. Yes, it's obvious that propaganda is used in politics. If you could hardly criticize Obama without the race card being thrown around, then yes, it has obviously been over used.

[KingsGambit]

I think the highlighted is rather naive and wishful thinking considering the reality of politics today and the Tea Party.

"That it shouldn't affect" is a normative statement. I would hope everybody would agree that there shouldn't be racist policies.

[shunyadragon]

"That it shouldn't affect" is a normative statement. I would hope everybody would agree that there shouldn't be racist policies.

I agree and there probably never will be racist policies, but what I see is over the top racist behavior, actions, code words, and the matter of fact racism as a witness of the nature of organizations including churches, and the Tea party that is white church based.

Of course, not all affiliated are racist, but their general atmosphere and nature harbors racism, and things like up front hostility and 'no compromise' policies with those outside the given belief system, which comes from the more fundamentalist churches, and the writings of evangelists..

[seanD]

Code words?

[Doug Shaver]

I wonder if he'll ever getting around to debating WL Craig.

Apparently, he has: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8. The introduction is in Spanish, but the debate was in English, and it begins at about 8:10.

[Chrawnus]

Apparently, he has: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8. The introduction is in Spanish, but the debate was in English, and it begins at about 8:10.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins has admitted/agreed that the above was not a proper debate.

[shunyadragon]

Code words?

Example . . .

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/207295-2012-racial-code-words-obscure-real-issue

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

© source where applicable

The article goes into more detail about racial politics.

[nightbringer]

I have zero respect for Dawkins as a public intellectual. Frankly I wish that, in a public forum, someone would spare the niceties and just tear him (alongside his arguments of course) down. He brings nothing of worth to the theism debate. Nothing.