From your previous post:
"I reject P1 and P2 as being false. Eg happiness is not based on morality."
First read your posts, neeeel.

Yes, none of your post addressed this. Perhaps I just didnt understand what you were saying?

neeeel! What is about this not connected or unreasonable?
At least in the hole human philosophy no one did ever refute or reject (no theists and no atheists) the following:
What you don't want others do to you, don't do it to others. This is the same as I did say above.

Yeah. It was right here.

He did reply and defend his position on his site:
"I am being bombarded with pictures of Down’s children, with descriptions of how adorable and affectionate they are, and how rewarding to look after in spite of the difficulties. I believe it with all my heart, but I need to explain why it is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I have not the slightest doubt that, if I had a Down’s child, I would love her dearly. If I believed in God I’d probably thank God she wasn’t aborted, and I would sincerely mean it and deeply feel it. But that is a judgment in hindsight, and it is totally compatible with a statement that, if offered a similar choice now, I would be in favour of abortion. Totally compatible with a belief that abortion would be the right decision, in circumstances where such a decision was available.

The child that you now love is a person. You have grown to adore her every smile, her every facial expression, everything that makes her the individual personality that she is. The bundle of cells she once was had no personality at the time when she might have been aborted. There was nothing to love there at that time. An abortion is not killing a loved child, not killing a sentient being capable of suffering, any more than you are killing or hurting anyone when you refrain from intercourse and thereby prevent a potential child from being born. I agree it seems paradoxical, but paradoxes sometimes have to be faced.

“But where do you draw the line?” Accepting that a zygote doesn’t qualify as a person but a baby does, on what day does the transition occur? Exactly where is the line to be drawn? It isn’t to be drawn. It’s a gradual transition, like the transition from middle aged to old, or the transition from medium height to tall. See my attack on Essentialism. Or Google “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind.”"

Now the question is:
How does it come that when you lose yourself in paradoxes, than one has to face them, but reject paradoxes when you find (or better construct) them in religions?

He seems also to like his article about religion and the tyranny of discontinuous mind:
Here is a nice article showing his mistakes:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16737
Timothy Fitzgerald is Reader in Languages, Cultures and Religions at the University of Stirling
Here is another nice one:
http://thinkingasaprofession.blogspo...uous-mind.html

I didn't read them thoroughly but they seem to be reasonable.

It is interesting that RD always points to his tyranny of discontinuous mind but never did reply to the critics above.

P1) Happiness is based on morality
P2) Morality is based on humanity
C1) To increase happiness, you should marry a downs syndrome person, rather than an actress

I reject P1 and P2 as false, and C1 doesnt follow from P1 and P2.

If you think marrying a whore makes you happy, just go ahead, as said, my example with marrying a person with DS was kind of a potshot and not a demand.

this still doesnt address anything I said in my post....

Where did anyone mention marrying a whore?

It's just a restatement of C1. He's basically saying that anything he wants to say follows from P1 and P2.

I was reading it as he's equating 'actress' with 'whore'. Which seems a bit of a bizarre leap.

...

Actresses always get mud and never get water. What's so hard to follow?

If you marry a whore, is she still a whore?

Depends on whether you're paying her or not

I did manage to find an image on google of 'actress' Laurent Hutton lying topless in some mud (the whore!!) however I decided not to post it as I fear the gods of moderation may smite me with infraction points.

That you guys at some point start trolling is nothing new, at least this time you guys are really funny.

Drinking muddy water cant be that bad for you its got minerals and stuff.

Are you proposing?

You still havent responded to any of my posts.....

Your long and rambling post was incoherent, and also rather rude to Dr Dawkins. It was probably an easy call for them to delete it. As others have pointed out, their system will likely gobble up any additional posts from your IP address, so you've probably blown your one chance.

You should have requested help from an English speaking friend who is sympathetic to your position. If you had expressed your point clearly and respectfully, using standard grammar and punctuation, they probably would have responded to your comments.

Whether Dawkins is right or wrong, he is an educated man. He's not going to waste his time reading through drivel. When you write that poorly, you give up all credibility.

Ok, I accept everything what I said till now was wrong, but how about this?

On his twitter Carlton James did write about RD:He talks clearly & concisely & destroys people's arguments but never uses ad hominem attacks. https://twitter.com/EGreathead/statu...12149860483072

This was my reply:
This is not true. He doesn't talk clearly and very often he disregards logic.
Example Nr.1: I did never see a clear definition of religion from him.
About what is he exactly talking, when he talks about religion?
Example 2: logical mistakes and superficial views:
Every time scientists start something, they do it because they think it will end good.
Just like any other human. But every time they start something, they might know where they start, but they never know how it will end. Example: nuclear power.
Nuclear power did start somewhere, but even today no one knows if it will end good.
Thus every scientist has faith just like everyone who believes in God.

==>Scientists have faith what they do is good without evidence.

Now Jesus says: Follow me instead of starting things, where you don't have evidence they will end good.
What does he mean with follow me?
He means: become like me!
How is he? Loyal: The good shepherd gives his life for his ships.
Learning to be loyal is at least more rational than manipulating the nature when we don't know if it will end good.

I did add the following tweets:
I give an example which basically destroys atheism:
A blind man is located on a dangerous mountain. Having faith and to call for help is more rational than stepping forward.
Now on a mountain plunge is not waiting everywhere but in life death is waiting everywhere!

It doesn't end well.

Richard has also blocked my tweets.
He did tweet: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/s...28458176471041
"Thought for the day: would Newton's Laws have been discovered centuries earlier if we had evolved on a planet with very weak gravity?"

My question is:
If we give scientists 500 billions years, will they find out the solution to The tower of Babel?
For those who don't get the point: Over 7 billion humans and no one understands his next.

And this is my thought for the day:
What do you think which question is more relevant?