Dawkins and civil discourse

[MaxVel]

So, you'd like to see him insulted, the way he gets insulted here, in some venue where the whole world is watching.

Well Dawkins is quite willing to encourage atheists to ridicule and show contempt for Christians / Christian beliefs

Another example comes from Saturday's rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to "mock" and "ridicule" that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it's best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were "Mock them. Ridicule them." So by "them" did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn't seem so to me.

If he's prepared to dish it out I see no reason why he shouldn't be prepared to take it as well...

... or of course he might prefer to be shown up for a hypocrite and a coward...

[lilpixieofterror]

There are those that make unwarranted assumptions concerning what others believe, including you. It is best to cite people accurately instead of making false innuendos.

Pot... meet kettle...

[shunyadragon]

Pot... meet kettle...

Meaningless, your debate tactics are classic violations of any reasonable standard of civil discourse. You cannot cite one instance where i used accusation of innuendo as you just did. Name calling, ridicule and use of innuendos are your modus opperendi not mine.

[Doug Shaver]

So, you'd like to see him insulted, the way he gets insulted here, in some venue where the whole world is watching.

Well Dawkins is quite willing to encourage atheists to ridicule and show contempt for Christians / Christian beliefs



If he's prepared to dish it out I see no reason why he shouldn't be prepared to take it as well...

... or of course he might prefer to be shown up for a hypocrite and a coward...

If some believers wish to respond to Dawkins's ridicule in kind, I don't see anyone stopping them, least of all Dawkins himself. I'm not saying it should or should not happen, but if I were a believer and could attract the kinds of audiences he attracts, my message would not be to return insult for insult. My message would be: "Dawkins says my beliefs are ridiculous. He is wrong. My beliefs are not ridiculous, and here is why ...."

[MaxVel]

If some believers wish to respond to Dawkins's ridicule in kind, I don't see anyone stopping them, least of all Dawkins himself. I'm not saying it should or should not happen, but if I were a believer and could attract the kinds of audiences he attracts, my message would not be to return insult for insult. My message would be: "Dawkins says my beliefs are ridiculous. He is wrong. My beliefs are not ridiculous, and here is why ...."

I pretty much agree. I might add something showing how ridiculous Dawkin's arguments are...

[nightbringer]

My message would be: "Dawkins says my beliefs are ridiculous. He is wrong. My beliefs are not ridiculous, and here is why ...."

Of course. I don't think that's counter to anything I've said though.

[shunyadragon]

I have no problem with those who "believe differently".

I am repeating your previous post for reference . . .

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.

I believe your acrid description and challenge to Dawkins reflects that you do have a problem. This extreme denigration does not reflect what you say in this post. I definitely do not agree with Dawkins conclusions on aspects of his arguments, but nonetheless his argument is not as bad as you depict, and no one has essentially torn his arguments to pieces and likely will. He has weaknesses in his arguments from my perspective, but I also understand his argument from the physicalist naturalist perspective.

I enjoy much meaningful dialogue with people are who are very much on the other end of the spectrum to me theologically. What I do have a lack of respect for is false authority, anti-intellectualism, and a crass belittlement of important human concerns. I find Dawkins to be guilty of all the above and the sooner he flees the spotlight of religious debate in shame the better off we and the wider public will be.[/QUOTE]

[lilpixieofterror]

Meaningless, your debate tactics are classic violations of any reasonable standard of civil discourse. You cannot cite one instance where i used accusation of innuendo as you just did. Name calling, ridicule and use of innuendos are your modus opperendi not mine.

Sorry Shuny, you earn everything you get.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry Shuny, you earn everything you get.

Air Ball!!!!!!!!

The golden Rule and any effort for a civil discourse just went under the front tires.

[nightbringer]

I believe your acrid description and challenge to Dawkins reflects that you do have a problem.

Okay, well, I don't.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, well, I don't.

This goes to the heart of this thread. Civil discourse does not, nor will it likely ever, play a role in a constructive dialogue between non-believers like Dawkins while such a negative hostile view persists.

[Soyeong]

The golden Rule and any effort for a civil discourse just went under the front tires.

Actually, I think lpot does treat other like she wants to be treated, according to what she has earned. I see no particular reason why people who have earned disrespect should expect to have a civil discourse.

[lilpixieofterror]

Air Ball!!!!!!!!

The golden Rule and any effort for a civil discourse just went under the front tires.

So the golden rule means I have to treat a passive-aggressive, arrogant troll, with respect? Where did you get that one from?

[lilpixieofterror]

This goes to the heart of this thread. Civil discourse does not, nor will it likely ever, play a role in a constructive dialogue between non-believers like Dawkins while such a negative hostile view persists.

Sorry Shuny, i thas nothing to do with Dawkins being a non believer, it has to do with his hostle attitude towards Christians. Of course, he was quite passive-aggressive in the links of the letters, but there wasn't too much for these two to disagree with. I would love to see how Dawkins would act towards somebody that he disagrees with more.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually, I think lpot does treat other like she wants to be treated, according to what she has earned. I see no particular reason why people who have earned disrespect should expect to have a civil discourse.

That's pretty much it and Shuny has far too much of a bloated ego to notice.