ďHe who believes in another world is not capable of concentrating all his passion on the transformation of this one."
You're assuming a hell of a lot, knowing nothing of a persons viewpoint. Yet you have the arrogance to ridicule the unknown argument. Dorkins through and through.
Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:
You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.
I've been into it in great detail before on this forum somabc. Religious belief is in fact not at all based on irrational thought - quite the opposite. It's a process of rational deduction to arrive at a point of view. It necessarily isn't based on any material fact, and that isn't a problem at all. To deny that viewpoint is to deny an aspect of logic.
Dorkins doesn't accept anything is valid outside his own narrow field of expertise. A foolish position I'm sure you'd agree. But then it's his main source of income so you can see why he does it.
A worldview of science such as yours can deny anything not subject to it's own definitions. It's necessarily illogical when it suits. Pushing exclusivity in Education promotes theory to fact which isn't. I'm not a creationist, and I'm happy for religion to stay out of science. To me the both happily co-exist. I'm also happy for religious education to be all encompassing. If I were a religious Dorkins I'd want Christianity to be the only view taught.
It's acceptable for him to be so obscene, as it's the fashionable view.
Despite what you say, you aren't correct in your pigeon holing of a belief. You know nothing at all about it, like your illustrious hero.