Richard Dawkins and Father Coye

[Quiddity]

An interview of Father Coye and where he stands with regard to evolution.
[youtube]po0ZMfkSNxc[/youtube]
YouTube - Father George Coyne Interview (1/7) - Richard Dawkins

I was more impressed with Richard Dawkins and how civil he was. It was a civil discussion over all and it would be nice if more of us followed in their footsteps even if we end up disagreeing.

 

[Father Heathen]

I was more impressed with Richard Dawkins and how civil he was.

Has Richard Dawkins ever been uncivil?

 

[Quiddity]

Has Richard Dawkins ever been uncivil?

More then once.

 

[Meow Mix]

I particularly like his "Science is Interesting" argument.

 

[Quiddity]

I particularly like his "Science is Interesting" argument.

Sorry, you lost me here...

He made that argument in this clip?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

More then once.

When?

 

[xkatz]

When?

I wouldn't say uncivil. I think aggressive better describes his attitude towards theism sometimes.

 

[Sunstone]

Has Richard Dawkins ever been uncivil?

I haven't seen him be uncivil. I've seen about 50 or so clips without coming across any in which he was uncivil. Maybe that's luck of the draw though.

 

[Quiddity]

When?

Immortalflame is right. It was poor wording on my part. His critiques are strongly anti-religious and bias. His own collegues are well aware this:

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I haven't seen him be uncivil. I've seen about 50 or so clips without coming across any in which he was uncivil. Maybe that's luck of the draw though.

Overly sensitive Christians and other sorts who don't like the concept of public atheism have a tendancy to whine and cry and make Dawkins the poster boy of "MILITANT ATHEISM! WITH SCIENCE!".

Even if I wasn't in his corner. My despising people that can't learn to separate attacking an idea, even one they hold dear, from attacking the person would help me in recognizing many of the accusations against Dawkins are grossly over exaggerated.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Immortalflame is right. It was poor wording on my part. His critiques are strongly anti-religious and bias. His own collegues are well aware this:

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

"Strongly anti religious." does not equal uncivil.

 

[Quiddity]

"Strongly anti religious." does not equal uncivil.

What part of me saying "It was poor wording on my part" did I not make clear?

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

What part of me saying "It was poor wording on my part" did I not make clear?

Oh I saw it. Doesn't mean I'm not going to post something about it even post not quite yet clarified but going to do so.

 

[Quiddity]

Oh I saw it. Doesn't mean I'm not going to post something about it even post not quite yet clarified but going to do so.

Speaking of clarifying...I didn't understand your post.

Just yell it out loud, I live in the OC and can probably can hear you.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Speaking of clarifying...I didn't understand your post.

Just yell it out loud, I live in the OC and can probably can hear you.

Well you obviously didn't mean to imply anti-religious=uncivil so........

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

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.

That and people also forget that "bias" does not necessarily imply a negative.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Has Richard Dawkins ever been uncivil?

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

 

[Midnight Pete]

"Strongly anti religious." does not equal uncivil.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

I can only assume you are not used to actual disagreements about the role of religion, Midnight Pete.