Pinkitha
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:17 +0000
stealthmongoose
The Raging 4Skin
stealthmongoose
False Dichotomy
stealthmongoose
False Dichotomy
My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.
I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.
This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.
Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.
For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.
I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.
I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.
It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.
Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?
Now, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there is a man who knows how to have a civil, intelligent conversation about. s**t. That. Matters.
What does Dawkins do? Wastes his brilliance, every ounce of his intelligence and ability as an accomplished biologist... To sell books talking about how Christians are retards. Yeah dude, good job on that one. Working on curing cancer or the rising rate of autism or why primetime TV still sucks after all these years CERTAINLY would not have been a just use of his talent and genius.
Nope, we gotta make sure the WHOLE WORLD knows Christians are idiots, and if anyone defends them they're just padding a bedding for them.
Right, while that's all a very good assessment of his personal issues regarding Christianity, i don't think that says much for either his debate skill or his ability to get the truth of a matter across.
I've already pointed out that there are douches and idiots from every walk of life, and while i'm willing to admit that Dawkins is kind of douchey, it says nothing about the points he raises or his ability to understand the point of his opponent.
The crucial mistake everyone in this thread seems to be making is in assuming that an acceptance of a point is equivalent to the understanding of that point.
It's not.
I can understand a Christian viewpoint by merely analyzing it. I do not have to accept it. I applaud dawkins for not accepting false preconceptions and instead analyzing them for what they are.
As to your point about Neil DeGrasse Tyson (An astrophysicist and scientific popularizer) in comparison to Richard Dawkins (An Ethologist and Evolutionary Biologist, as well as author) seems to be another appeal to their attitude towards religious people rather than their knowledge on any given subject.
Granted, even I find astrophysics a bit more interesting than biology and ETHICS DEBATES, but that neither makes DeGrasse a superior Atheist nor Dawkins an inferior Debator.
Writing a book outlining observations on ethics in regards to religion, whether or not it is insulting to a group of people who claim to be Christian, is not rude or even "d**k"ish as you put it.
I suppose the next obvious question should be "Why u mad bro?" What is it that Dawkins does that is so different in it's approach from anyone else who debates the ethics of religious belief, even a non-specific religious beliefs.
So far the jist of your argument seems to be "This man is a bad debater and truth teller because his truths are insulting. He's wasting his time telling these truths and it's childish for him to do so. He does not accept my beliefs as his own so he is a bad debater. By comparing him to an astrophysicist who does not discuss the ethics of religion, I am proving that this man is a bad debater."
An argument which doesn't appear to hold much weight beyond your typical shouting contest in a schoolyard between children.
You've expressed the different angles of this argument elegantly; well done.