rusty,
it wasn't my concern to deal with his strongest point
i simply wanted to deal with the point i made above
his philosophy: *intolerance is wrong*
is a joke
intolerance is wrong from religious people but it is perfectly alright for atheists to be intolerant of religionists :-)
the statement itself is an absolute statement: intolerance is wrong
it is also an intolerant statement...to be intolerant of intolerance is no less intolerant :-)
it's self-refuting...and immediately so at that
the same is true of the *all truth is relative*/*there are no absolutes* philosophy
they are both absolute truth statements
again, immediately self-refuting
whence came dawkins (or anyone else's) authority to make absolute statements about what is true and what is false or what is right and what is wrong...or even about things relative or absolute
his statements in and of themselves are intolerant, absolute, and posed as absolute truths that we should all accept (or suffer his not so stinging wrath :-)
that said, i will try to step back into this at some later point with a rebuttal to his *strongest* point
my original post that you quoted above was supposed to be a quick response to show how illogical his *logic* is from a foundational perspective
my q for anyone is: are these philosophies (that sound so good and are so ubiquitously prevalent) sound or reasonable or logical
is the argument against intolerance tolerable
is the argument for all truth being relative true...or not
is the argument against absolutes or absolute truth true...or false
dawkins own intolerance and absolute truth statements are diametrically opposed to his own claims
