BTW whether Dawkins is a Marxist or not has no bearing on the validity of his views of biology.
Hey, no problem, when the weather changes I move from FR to the golf course, the beach and bike rides with my grandkids.
My beef was with your poor logic in this particular case. The argument you used can be expressed as a categorical syllogism with propositions of type 'a'. When expressed this way it shows clearly that you have formed an example of the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Whatever.
All Marxists are atheists who want to ban religion
Here you've made an unwarranted aaumption. Not all Marxists are atheists and not all atheists are Marxists. But Karl Marx viewed religion as something that should be banned. So does Dawkins and in that way Dawkins is marxist.
Dawkins is an atheist who wants to ban religion
To recap, it is my opinuion that Dawkins would ban religion if he were King.
Therefore Dawkins is a Marxist.
Not my view. My view is that Dakins view on religion is marxist in that he would ban it if he could.
Let's try this:
Did Karl Marx advocate for the abolition of religion?
Do you think Richard Dawkins would abolish religion if he could?
I will use the term strong atheist to describe those atheists that would like to get rid of all religion.
Why? Why not simply use the term bigot?
If you meant that Dawkins' religious views are like those of Marxists then you are right, but if you meant that Dawkins is a Marxist, your argument fails to show it.
I said what I meant. Dawkins' views on religion are marxist. Nobody on this thread has demonstrated otherwise while I have demonstrated exactly what I claimed.
BTW whether Dawkins is a Marxist or not has no bearing on the validity of his views of biology.
Dawkins writes on relgion and politics often. He doesn't get a 'No criticism because he is a scientist card'.
Nor does it, I might add, affect the lack of validity of the original argument. Even if Dawkins actually IS a Marxist, the original argument is logically invalid.