Dawkins NOT Strident?

1) Dawkins NOT Strident?, 2) When not strident, inaccurate - Dawkins, you cannot spell out information to a linguist.

OK, not as strident as PZM back a few years ago, but PZM withdrew the videos.

CMI, on St Robert Bellarmine's normal day of celebration, publishes an article taking into account but refuting Dawkins' claims, like these:

I seem to be perceived as aggressive and strident and I don’t actually think I am strident and aggressive. What I think is that we have all become so accustomed to seeing religion ring-fenced by a wall of special protection that when someone delivers even a mild criticism of religion, it’s heard as aggressive when it isn’t. I like to think I’m more thoughtful and reflective.

CMI : Richard Dawkins upset that public doesn’t like him
God-hater says his attacks on religion are ‘thoughtful and reflective’
by Warren Nunn
Published: 13 May 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/dawkins-upset

Well, thing is, I have had to deal with some people, one of whom at least is his (Richard's, nnot Warren's) disciple.

HGL's F.B. writings : Attacked on "Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel" Subject Again
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/05/attacked-on-evolution-of-languages.html

Whether Cushla Gery who made herself deliberately obtuse to my points or "Kain Karrion" were his disciples directly or not, I do not know. I do however know that Tony "Hackenslash" Murphy was, since he on his blog a few years ago specifically thanked Dawkins and ... PZM ... for the training. I quote that and link to the source.

I would finally like to extend my gratitude to the following:

Richard Dawkins, for bringing us together.
PZ Myers, for his input and clear head. etc.

Reciprocity: When You Fight Yourself
[title of blog as well as of one message]
http://reciprocity-hackenslash.blogspot.com/2010/02/reciprocity-when-you-fight-yourself.html

Now, has Dawkins and has PZM promoted thoughtfulness and reflectiveness in him? Getting back to my debate with him, I nitpick a little:

My point which he adressed

Tower of Babel does NOT deny that French and Spanish both descend from Latin. One can however ask whether "evolved" is a good description of that descent. Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations.

His first words in adressing it

Since this seems to be the root of your malfunction, perhaps it's worth addressing it, because it's as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice.

A bit later on he said

Neither credentials nor any amount of study are remotely relevant when you're talking shit. Language, fashion, the biosphere; all evolve, and with evolution meaning pretty much the same thing in every case.

My reflection when mirroring the debate on the blog

On his profile it says he is chief cook in a kitchen. Some Dunning Kruger effect, perhaps?

Perhaps some Dunning Kruger effect in the sense of incompetence taking its due in thinking itself more competent (the reverse being also a Dunning Kruger effect, for those who consider Dunning and Kruger as experts). BUT I canot help thinking Dawkins has actually made a contributionn in giving him - along with PZM - a pseudo-competence. One in which making a distinction that the evolutionist misses becomes equivalent to malfunction. Just as for Cushla Geary my criticism of standard evolutionist models comes through only as "religious rant". Even if they hardly mention God, only leave God as the one remaining and obvious option of explanation.

To some people the main thing about philology and linguistics is neither reading old texts nor knowing what "sound laws" (perhaps better understood as sound correspondences between known languages than as now considered each and all as sound changes from an unknown reconstructed one) tie together two languages, but to see philology as a parallel to palaeontology and to see sound laws as a parallel to mutations, which I do not.

I am not very subtly but rather rather broadly reminded of the agressive atheism of the Soviet Union.

Martyred in the USSR : WHAT IS MILITANT ATHEISM:
"In total, the number of Christians who were martyred under the militant state atheism of the USSR is around 12 million."
http://martyredintheussr.com/about.html

I have heard other estimates too (ranging from 1 to 90 million). Some of Dawkins and of Krauss is very reminiscent of the Soviet Psychiatry which served militant atheism by declaring mentally ill and forcefully treating people who were simply Christians. There is more to Soviet system that seems to have survived:

Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of Church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities.

Reminds me of certain cities, like Daytona Beach, where Christians feeding the homeless in a park have been fined.

Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings. For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities. In addition, scientific theories, such as the Big Bang, which implied a creator God, were suppressed in favor of theories which were thought to support atheistic materialism.

Reminds me of Krauss, if "admitting" Big Bang (not much to "admit" except if you have a Newtonian view of astronomy, but most "admitting" it have some problem not seeing it implies God), at least violently defending himself against any theistic implication.

Lawrence Krauss embarrasses William Lane Craig in this debate
Yon Choi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-A_SU3m5c

Apart from who embarasses whom, it is clear WLC is pushing Big Bang as a Theistic (but anti-Biblical) argument, and LK is defending himself against that with a multiverse theory. Here are my comments, so far, by the way:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : When an argument is wrong, that should be proven with refutations ...
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/05/when-argument-is-wrong-that-should-be.html

No, the agressive atheism is still alive. And I cannot say that either Dawkins or Onfray are totally outside it.

To me, that gets very much through as strident.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
3 days after St Robert Bellarmine
16/V/2014