Dawkins and civil discourse

[Doug Shaver]

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

I have no idea what criteria for a "proper debate" it failed to meet. However, I suppose one could note that it was not a one-on-one between Dawkins and Craig, which I assume is what Craig was hoping to get into.

[Doug Shaver]

Frankly I wish that, in a public forum, someone would spare the niceties and just tear him (alongside his arguments of course) down.

You don't think that's been done here? Or you don't think this counts as a public forum?

[Chrawnus]

I have no idea what criteria for a "proper debate" it failed to meet. However, I suppose one could note that it was not a one-on-one between Dawkins and Craig, which I assume is what Craig was hoping to get into.

It barely qualified as shallow saturday entertainment IMO.

[Doug Shaver]

It barely qualified as shallow saturday entertainment IMO.

I agree that the quality of the presentations left much to be desired. Some of the speakers I'd never seen before, but of those I was familiar with, I think none was at their best.

[shunyadragon]

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.

That is the problem with many traditional Christians that lack respect for those who believe differently, and yes they do not spare the niceties of civil discourse, and resort to name calling, ridicule, and other abusive behavior, and in reality do not debate. This is a public forum, and this unfortunate behavior is very dominant.

[lilpixieofterror]

Dawkins actually specified that Craig's defense of genocide as conducted through herem and described in Deuteronomy and Joshua is a main reason he will not have a public debate with him.

I do love those that scream "GENOCIDE!" without you know... addressing the substance of what was said. Quite revealing...

[lilpixieofterror]

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

And nobody has been able to bring up a single example yet... can you show me anything The Tea Party has done that is as bad as stealing aircraft and ramming them into buildings with the sole intent of killing lots of people?

[shunyadragon]

And nobody has been able to bring up a single example yet... can you show me anything The Tea Party has done that is as bad as stealing aircraft and ramming them into buildings with the sole intent of killing lots of people?

They just got started serving tea instead of kool aid, and they have not formed their militia yet. give them time.

I actually do not think these posts are on the subject of the thread, which is 'civil discourse.' You threw out the 'Golden Rule' and any attempt at 'civil discourse' before you first came to Tweb. Ridicule, general lack of respect of those who believe differently, name calling, and emotional tirades are your 'modus operendi.'

[lilpixieofterror]

They just got started serving tea instead of kool aid, and they have not formed their militia yet. give them time.

Paranoid much?

I actually do not think these posts are on the subject of the thread, which is 'civil discourse.' You threw out the 'Golden Rule' and any attempt at 'civil discourse' before you first came to Tweb. Ridicule, general lack of respect of those who believe differently, name calling, and emotional tirades are your 'modus operendi.'

If that was true shuny, I wouldn't respect those that I disagree with, but since when are you interested in truth and it is kind of funny how you attack me for ridicule, general lack of respect of those who believe differently, name calling, and emotional trades while of course, you accuse an entire group of people of planning out a militia, with of course, no evidence beyond your paranoid delusions. Talk about ironic.

[shunyadragon]

Paranoid much?

You missed the sarcasm big time for your off topic over the top remarks that were not related to the thread topic

[lilpixieofterror]

You missed the sarcasm big time for your off topic over the top remarks that were not related to the thread topic

Too bad somebody else brought it on topic and I simply picked that out as an example. It is too bad that you didn't say a word about 'sarcasm' and your history around here does show you most likely actually believe that....

[nightbringer]

You don't think that's been done here? Or you don't think this counts as a public forum?

Ah, I meant a publicised forum I suppose, and one with him directly involved.

[nightbringer]

That is the problem with many traditional Christians that lack respect for those who believe differently, and yes they do not spare the niceties of civil discourse, and resort to name calling, ridicule, and other abusive behavior, and in reality do not debate. This is a public forum, and this unfortunate behavior is very dominant.

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

[shunyadragon]

Too bad somebody else brought it on topic and I simply picked that out as an example. It is too bad that you didn't say a word about 'sarcasm' and your history around here does show you most likely actually believe that....

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.

[Doug Shaver]

Ah, I meant a publicised forum I suppose, and one with him directly involved.

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