Dawkins vs the Rabbi

[Meshuga]

I am not sure if this debate has been posted here or not so I apologize if it is a duplicate.

My thoughts on the debate... Well, I thought that Dawkins was clear and to the point in his responses and arguments while Rabbi sacks (an orthodox rabbi) rambled a lot especially when there were disagreements. Although the two men seem to agree on several points.

I know Dawkins has a reputation for being "combative" and "disrespectful" since many of those who don't agree with him like to attribute him with these qualities but he was none on those things in this debate. In fact, he was quite the opposite IMHO.

I also thought the rabbi could not make up his mind regarding literalism which made me quite confused. And I thought the rabbi was kind of a dick at first when he felt offended and charged the God Delusion passage about the God in the Hebrew Bible as antisemitic. I felt bad for Dawkins at the time since the charge made no sense whatsoever until the rabbi explained his point and they seemed to understand each other. Well, at least Dawkins demonstrated understanding while standing by his words and their intended context.

[Deep13]

1. His manner and speech are respectful...

...but he will not water down his point out of deference for people's feelings.

[Meshuga]

3. And he didn't water down his point in this one either. N/T

[longship]

2. The only time I see him combative is on Fox News.

He's not normally a fire breather, no matter what people think. But he shows no respect for Bill Orally and company at Fox. I don't blame him.

The only other time I've seen him go off is when somebody equates Charles Darwin with Hitler. Can hardly blame him there. Biology is his field and nothing makes sense in biology except through the modern Darwinian genetic synthesis.

[skepticscott]

4. Except he's nothing but a bigot

And so is everyone here who doesn't repudiate him.

At least, you can make that case if you lie about what he's said.