'REPOSTED FOR CLARITY'
I must say, that's BETTER! I had just been struggling through the above post, and was surprised because you usually format quite well. I appreciate the time you took to format it in the second round.
I'm afraid our biggest difference here will never be resolved. You are not keen on my references, or won't accept them (even though some of them are from his own website) but when it comes down to it, the difference in opinion lies in the way you and I interpret his words.
That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable, and I don't really think that it's a problem for you to think differently of Dawkins than I do. I have followed Dawkins through the years, and have become dismayed by his movement away from science and towards stridence. You are perfectly okay with that, and continue to defend him. I can accept your right to your opinion, while continuing to believe I'm right in my opinion.
Can you do the same or do you feel that I must see things from your point of view alone? What would Dawkins do? It would make a very interesting and cool bracelet:
WWDD?
'REPOSTED FOR CLARITY'
I must say, that's BETTER! I had just been struggling through the above post, and was surprised because you usually format quite well. I appreciate the time you took to format it in the second round.
---
I dont understand actually, I formatted the first one the same, but it got munged. Much strangeness afoot.
--
I'm afraid our biggest difference here will never be resolved. You are not keen on my references, or won't accept them (even though some of them are from his own website) but when it comes down to it, the difference in opinion lies in the way you and I interpret his words.
--
Well, if he had said ANY words about free markets and capitalism, then you would have had a point. But he didnt. The problem seems to be that you think because he is against one thing you like (religion), he must be against all things you like (free markets included).
--
That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable, and I don't really think that it's a problem for you to think differently of Dawkins than I do. I have followed Dawkins through the years, and have become dismayed by his movement away from science and towards stridence.
--
He has ALWAYS been strident. But that is not the point here. I asked you for a single quote from Dawkins about free markets or capitalism. You have provided none. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
--
You are perfectly okay with that, and continue to defend him.
--
I dont defend him. I dont agree with him on many issues. I simply asked you for one single quote. That is all. One single solitary quote. That shouldnt be hard to find, should it?
--
I can accept your right to your opinion, while continuing to believe I'm right in my opinion.
--
Despite the fact that you offered no evidence that he said anything about capitalism or free markets.
--
Can you do the same or do you feel that I must see things from your point of view alone? What would Dawkins do? It would make a very interesting and cool bracelet:
--
I dont really mind how you see things. I just appreciate EVIDENCE when claims are made.