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'.
To recap, it is my opinuion...
That and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee.
Nowhere does Dawkins write he would ban religion if he had unlimited power.
I wish! I have too much damn work to do and it won't calm down until July.
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."
Well don't go yelling at us about bad logic then. Sheesh.
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.
I used 'all' to make the argument more straight forward. I would never assume that all Marxists are atheists, and from my earlier post it is obvious that not all atheists are marxists. However that premise does not state that all atheists are Marxists.
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.
OK. His views on religion are Marxist like then.
Let's try this:
Did Karl Marx advocate for the abolition of religion?
Yes.
Do you think Richard Dawkins would abolish religion if he could?
Yes.
His ideas and Marx's ideas about religion are the same.
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?
It was easier than typing the full bit. Besides, Dawkins hates religion, not the relgious.
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.
Logically, two people can share an idea without belonging to the same group. Your claiming Dawkins' views on religion make him a religious Marxist doesn't make sense unless you can partition a human up and label each partition with a different ideological label. That in itself is not helpful.
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'.
Now, don't go putting words in my mouth. If you want to complain about his politics, go ahead. If you want to argue with his biology, go ahead. Just don't conflate the two.
Still going with the Creationist Big Lie approach I see. Well I knew you were full of it from the beginning. So I emailed Professor Dawkins and asked him directly if he favors banning religion. He emailed back and said it is a "preposterous lie." I think that makes you a preposterous liar.
I'll definitely keep a link to this thread. When you make another preposterous lie, I can simply link the lurkers to it. Way to flush your credibility down the toilet. Keep it up. You're doing wonders for your cause.