No kidding, Sherlock. You are still dodging the fact that someone taking Dawkins’ word on what John Adams said would come to a false conclusion about Adams’ views.

AJ: “He seems to be wrong about Jefferson being an Agnostic (he doesn’t say Jefferson is an Atheist), but you seem to think that’s somehow dishonest.”

Actually, as I already indicated above, I think Dawkins is being credulous here, rather than outright dishonest.

AJ, you are trying to wriggle out of the obvious:

*Any reasonable person who read Dawkins’ quote of Adams would conclude that Dawkins was indicating that Adams thought the world would be better without religion in it.

*Any reasonable person who read the source of Dawkins’ quote would conclude that Adams did not think the world would be better without religion in it.

You can pile up all the verbiage that you like, but we are still left with Dawkins misleadingly quoting Adams out of context.

I’m not trying to wriggle out of the obvious, you can’t tell the wood from the trees. Any reasonable person would conclude Dawkins was indicating what he said he was before quoting the Founding Fathers. He lays out his points, then quotes some people, and none of them had anything to do with what you were accusing him of. The Adams quote in full doesn’t weaken Dawkins point of the founding fathers being Deists, and some possibly Agnostics and Atheists.

He seems to be wrong about Jefferson being an Agnostic (he doesn’t say Jefferson is an Atheist), but you seem to think that’s somehow dishonest. Being wrong is not dishonest, you haven’t given evidence to suggest Dawkins is trying to mislead anyone, you’ve only done what you accuse Dawkins of, taken someone out of context.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/hitchens_and_franklin.php

*Any reasonable person who read Dawkins’ quote of Adams would conclude that Dawkins was indicating that Adams thought the world would be better without religion in it.

*Any reasonable person who read the source of Dawkins’ quote would conclude that Adams did not think the world would be better without religion in it.

You can pile up all the verbiage that you like, but we are still left with Dawkins misleadingly quoting Adams out of context.

You did a deeper hole by pointing out Dawkins’ further credulity. As Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars pointed out, Jefferson was no atheist:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/hitchens_jefferson_and_atheism.php

I have found that the more combative atheists tend to be more irrational. Even Dawkins, who is relatively nice as combative atheists go, has credulously repeated a quote mine of John Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,” which in context expresses a sentiment opposite to the one Adams had. It’s a variation on the theme of truth being the first casualty of war.

He is not trying to express the opposite sentiment. Dawkins is making a different point that’s very much in line with what Adams is trying to express. If the point was that Adams thought that the world would be better without religion, then yes, that would be trying to express an opposite point to what Adams actual said. Yet taking Dawkins in context clearly shows that was not his intention. It is also accompanied by other Adams quotes.

John Adams,

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p41-42, p43

The genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America, and the Founding Fathers would have been horrified. Whether or not it is right to embrace the paradox and blame the secular constitution that they devised, the founders most certainly were secularists who believed in keeping religion out of politics, and that is enough to place them firmly on the side of those who object, for example, to ostentatious displays of the Ten Commandments in government-owned public places. But it is tantalizing to speculate that at least some of the Founders might have gone beyond deism. Might they have been agnostics or even out-and-out atheists? The following statement of Jefferson is in-distinguishable from what we would now call agnosticism:

Remarks of Jefferson’s such as ‘Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man’ are compatible with deism but also with atheism. So is James Madison’s robust anti-clericalism: ‘During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.’ The same could be said of Benjamin Franklin’s ‘Lighthouses are more useful than churches’ and of John Adams’s ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’ Adams delivered himself of some splendid tirades against Christianity in particular: ‘As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?’ And, in another letter, this time to Jefferson, T almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!’

I’m entitled to my opinion and nothing I read has changed that. Personally, I don’t want to go back to such sneaky, degrading, demeaning attitudes either. I won’t deal with such abusive behaviour, so don’t unblock me. No not sour grapes, I just wanted a change to rebuttle on your turf. Doesn’t matter, since I already have.

Maria said,

December 22, 2007 at 7:19 pm

LOL, now he’s threatened to ban someone who said Mriana was banned-right after saying he doesn’t ban anyone! LOL! and someone just sent me this latest quote of his:

“The three of us have a combined IQ of about 450, I think that’s a good start. The rest is up to you to remove your head from your ass and read what we write, admit to yourself you’re delusional if you think we’re not intellectuals”

so now anyone who doesn’t take it on faith that sapient is a genius just b/c he says so, is deluded! lol, yeah, the intellectuals have so much to show for it.

Oh get out! IQ scores don’t impress me, because that is all they are scores that can fluctuate at any given moment. They mean NOTHING! Don’t let them bully you or anyone else, Maria. Divide that by three and I’m still not impressed. One day they will wake up after 4 hours sleep, no breakfast, and stressed out beyond anything and score 135 or less. It’s just a score.

Besides, I’m not sure if that’s bragging or trying to impress others. Who knows, but I don’t buy it and even if they did, like I said it fluctuates and I’m not impressed. Besides, my son and I score pretty high ourselves. It just doesn’t impress me.

They are being arrogant about their intelligence and one day they will take a fall off their big ego pedestal.