Richard Dawkins and Father Coye

[Erebus]

I wouldn't say Dawkins is uncivil, so much as he's blunt and unsubtle. I can appreciate the need for this kind of mentality when dealing with fundamentalists, but it still doesn't endear him to me.
Having said that, he was very well behaved in this clip

 

[Valjean]

It was a very civil discussion all round. I'd have liked to have heard more about this 'evidence' they were talking about at the end of the video, though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you kidding? He is always insulting to people of faith. That's his schtick.

Give an example.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Give an example.

You won't acknowledge anything I say. I am too experienced with Internet atheists to punch that tar-baby again, sorry! It's actually giving me nightmares now, all the mental anguish that comes with these frustrating and pointless arguments.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, someone arguing the case for atheism is obviously not going to be pro-religious, so what would you expect. And let's not pretend his opponents don't have a bias as well.

Some atheist are "pro-religious". It just doesn't involve faith; say for example UU's or Buddhist. And there is a difference between not being pro-religious and being anti-religious.

 

[painted wolf]

UU are not all atheists.
The minister at the UU church I sometimes attend is a Christian.

The idea that all Buddhists are atheists is also incorrect... there are branches of Buddhism that are theistic, such as Vajrayana school in Tibet.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

UU are not all atheists.
The minister at the UU church I sometimes attend is a Christian.

The idea that all Buddhists are atheists is also incorrect... there are branches of Buddhism that are theistic, such as Vajrayana school in Tibet.

wa:do

Thanks man. I've been in RF long enough to know that. I didn't give an inkling of "all" or anything of that sort.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You won't acknowledge anything I say. I am too experienced with Internet atheists to punch that tar-baby again, sorry! It's actually giving me nightmares now, all the mental anguish that comes with these frustrating and pointless arguments.

And, as usual, when I ask people for examples of anything uncivil or directly offensive Dawkins has ever said, they dodge the question.

Don't patronize me or insult my intelligence by telling me I won't "acknowledge" anything you say. I'm an adult, and I'm capable of assessing the merit of somebody's argument. Now, you made a claim and I've asked you to support that claim. So you can either support it, or admit that your claim was false. Which is it going to be?

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks man. I've been in RF long enough to know that. I didn't give an inkling of "all" or anything of that sort.

Then I am curious why you said it? You gave UU's and Buddhists as examples of people without faith... and by implication as atheistic.

But perhaps it was just confusing wording after all.

...and I'm female.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

Then I am curious why you said it? You gave UU's and Buddhists as examples of people without faith... and by implication as atheistic.

But perhaps it was just confusing wording after all.

Because some Buddhist are........and some UU's are. The context was that of "some people".......not "some groups" or "some religions". But I say why you interpreted it as you did. No biggy...

...and I'm female.

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot, sorry.

 

[painted wolf]

No problem.

wa:do

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

No, of course not. He's your guy.

No he's not. And that still doesn't change the fact that anti-religious=/=uncivil.

 

[Smoke]

I wouldn't say uncivil.

In my experience, people who say Dawkins is uncivil invariably mean that they don't like his opinions. I've never seen anybody who makes that claim back it up by providing an actual example of his being uncivil.

 

[fantome profane]

I particularly like his "Science is Interesting" argument.

And just for the record that was Dawkins quoting somebody else. (and I loved that comment too)

 

[painted wolf]

A lot of people confuse an argument against a deeply held philosophy with a personal attack... and a lot of people think that any critical discussion of faith has no place in "civil society".

Both are unfortunate IMHO.

wa:do

 

[Midnight Pete]

And just for the record that was Dawkins quoting somebody else. (and I loved that comment too)

I agree. Science is interesting. I am fascinated by it.

The Mythbusters are like my ambassadors to the world of science.