Religion as a virus - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (4/4)

Can science and religion ever sit side by side? Not according to Richard Dawkins. And he has rock-star mice to prove it.
(Part 4 of 4)
Playlist link - • 60 Second Adventures i...
Transcript link - podcast.open.ac...
Study free course on Studying religion at the Open University www.open.edu/o...
Study free course on Religion today: Themes and issues at the Open University www.open.edu/o...
Study R14 BA (Honours) Arts and Humanities (Religious Studies)
www.open.ac.uk/...
Study R23 BA (Honours) Social Sciences (Religious Studies)
www.open.ac.uk/...
The Open University is the world’s leading provider of flexible, high-quality online degrees and distance learning, serving students across the globe with highly respected degree qualifications, and the triple-accredited MBA. The OU teaches through its own unique method of distance learning, called ‘supported open learning’ and you do not need any formal qualifications to study with us, just commitment and a desire to find out what you are capable of.
Free learning from The Open University
www.open.edu/op...
For more like this subscribe to the Open University channel / @openlearn_ou
Like us on Facebook: / ouopenlearn
Follow us on Twitter: / oufreelearning
#OpenUniversity #religion

[@serendipity9defined]

Hate on Dawkins all you want. No seriously, he praises our Freedom of Speech.

[@TheBc99]

agreed. just because he might not be the most pleasant person, doesn't mean his logic is wrong. i think he's TOO logical for our often sentimental society, and that's what makes him come off that way.

[@Burchale]

I sometime wonder how the ancient Greeks were very good at science and religion at the same time. I quite admire them for that.

[@BudCharlesUnderVlogs]

And the Islamic caliphates, before the middle east became the extremist shithole it is today.

[@troylow]

Greeks take God as an ideology i suppose

[@Morfe02]

Richard Darwins destroyed

[@godofimagination]

He'll be remembered for inventing the word meme.

[@lupen_rein]

So first of all, Kudos for including Dawkins' idea in a university course on religion, after all his thoughts on the origins of religion are actually quite interesting. However, it's evident that he is being portrayed as a greedy grimace and not really the controversial public intellectual that he has become, and that based on negative atheist stereotypes, which is quite unfortunate for a university course. His views on religion as a virus are kind of of course a judgement of religion itself, however it is true that religion is a collection of specific stories, beliefs and behaviours that are spread by exploiting weaknesses in the human train of thought. Religion tends to be forced down on people in weak situations, either those who are too young to resist it or people who are depressed and in need of psychological help and who then end up being recruited by cults, like a bacteria that infects people with weak immune systems. That's why the analogy is actually quite appropriate, even though it might seem offensive to some. However his most interesting idea of religion is actually the origin of it, as an unintended consequence of evolutionary adaptation for pattern-seeking, religion using patterns and stories mostly instead of real-life evidence.

[@dorkfishdani94]

I personally think its hilarious how quick everyone was to jump on me when I stated an opinion that disagreed with their own. Thank you for proving my point and for continuing to do so, as I'm sure SOMEONE has something else to say in reference to my opinions on Richard Dawkins.

[@yaplakal4088]

If you remove religions all people may become atheist, but the percentage of critical thinkers and skeptics will remain about the same. So we will still have most people believing all sorts of nonsense ideologies.

[@black_platypus]

Yes, that holds up. *But* if we remove religion not by force, but by inspiring people to adopt a more skeptical world view and to think for themselves, everybody wins, and religion will probably go away as a side product, which is, however, not that important

[@MrBenMcLean]

> "If you remove religions all people may become atheist" That's not removing religions. That is making one religion (atheism) push out all the other religions. > "But if we remove religion not by force" Sorry, no, you can stop right there. Atheism is just one more religion.

[@yaplakal4088]

it isn't. We atheists don't hold ceremonies or any sort of rituals. It is not institutionalized. Atheism is a lack of religion. If I am a pedestrian, I don't go to DMV to register as a driver along with Audi drivers, Toyota drivers and Mercedes drivers. It's that simple

[@MrBenMcLean]

> "We atheists don't hold ceremonies or any sort of rituals." Yes you do. You just don't like to call them that. > "It is not institutionalized." Yes it is. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is a church. > "Atheism is a lack of religion. If I am a pedestrian, I don't go to DMV to register as a driver along with Audi drivers, Toyota drivers and Mercedes drivers. It's that simple" My non-driver state ID is printed on the same card and required getting the same photo after waiting in the same line at the same DMV.

[@yaplakal4088]

I am not affiliated with any sort of foundation. Neither do most of the atheists. So it is NOT institutionalized. It may be a worldview, but in no way it is a system of beliefs. Beliefs is a key word here. It is just a view of the world based on up-to-date scientific facts, no nonsense myths to believe. I know at this point you are tempted to twist certain words and meanings to make an argument, so please stop. Ritual is a ritual - you can't just keep adding new meanings to it. RDFRS is not a church. And ffs a pedestrian is not a driver. If I continued the DMV analogy with your correction, then I would be getting a state id, and you would be too, but also you'd be sitting there and telling everyone that after you die you get to own a mercedes, with no real proof of course.

[@Aristocles22]

Any set of ideas attempts to spread itself. It's only called a "virus" when one doesn't like it. One could say the same thing about fandom for movies and tv shows, and sports teams.

[@ltschriscrucker]

There's a big difference between believing in God and believing in religion. I agree that religion in most cases contradicts with science, but believing in God doesn't. If we define a "believer" as a person who believes in things he/she cannot prove, then a person who BELIEVES that God doesn't exist is just as a believer as a person who believes God does exist. Neither of those contradicts with science. Why is believing in God "unscientificly" then?

[@asdfsadfdsfadfgw4rbg]

Because it's a baseless theory.

[@ltschriscrucker]

EndlesslyDistracted The theory that God doesn't exist is also baseless. Even worse, theory about existence of God actually has many bases. One of them is the so-called cosmological proof of God. It starts with two postulates: 1. Everything that exists has a reason. 2. The universe exists. Conclusion: There is a reason for existence of the universe. Some people define God as the reason.

[@asdfsadfdsfadfgw4rbg]

ltschriscrucker *A creator would need a creator.* That is pretty much the definition of Baseless. Without a base. Imagine a pillar built on itself. Exactly, it makes no sense. A creator theory just keeps hypocritically revolving around itself. A creator is possible. Is it likely? Hell no. Just like the many theories out there. Whatever led to our creation is obviously outside of our universal laws and logic and is unable to be comprehended by the human mind. The fact that humans created/discovered the theory of God just discredits it overall. We are smart, in fact too smart for our own good. But we aren't that smart. .

[@ltschriscrucker]

EndlesslyDistracted A creator would need a creator is a logical statement. Even though it remains true only as long as the method of induction, which is intuitively predicted by humans works. "Is it likely?" "Hell no". Here, I completely disagree with you. "Likely" is based on statistical facts, and there're are nearly no statistical facts about topic about the creator. That means your "Hell no" is based only, and only on you meaning and intuitively imagination without any scientific or logical references. To be on the most objective side - the most reasonable statement for now is that existence of a creator is just as likely as the non-existence. Which brings me to the first point - believing that God doesn't exist is just as religious as believing in God. Next. You are saying "laws and logic and is unable to be comprehended by the human mind". But that statements may actually be the solution of your first paradox ("A creator would need a creator."). That means, as long as we think inside the our own sphere, the existence of a creator is actually more likely that non-existence. Because it seems that you don't deny that existence of the universe has a reason.

[@asdfsadfdsfadfgw4rbg]

I don't believe god doesn't exist. Let me tell you fyi that I'm an *agnostic*. I believe it's almost impossible for any theory, God or not, to be true. The whole human race could dedicate itself to creating theories of how we got here, and it will NEVER stop. The theory of god is just one of the many theories out there and just because it is the most popular one doesn't make it the most likely one. For example. There could be many gods. There can be two gods. Three gods. God could be dead. God might not even be a life form. God might not even be rational or even think. The "creator(s)" could be a man or a woman or a tree or a rock or simply a non-living substance unbeknownst to mankind. The "creator(s)" might be an alternate reality itself, or an alternate reality of another reality which lead to this one. The "creator(s)" might be ourselves in the future due to an unfortunate event in the time/space continuum and accidentally bending it into a paradox due to fortunate circumstances, never touched or created by anyone above. There's an Infinite amount of possibilities, you're a fool to stick to one.

[@OkenAndMosh]

I agree with Dawkins, there is no place for Theism in our age of information.

[@SrNkolaidis]

If religion is a virus, snobby atheists are its most fatal strand

[@TheBc99]

Konstantin Nikolaidis 1) atheism is not a religion, but the lack thereof. 2) snobs exist in every belief system

[@BOBMAN1980]

OMG! You must be, like, so smart!

[@Fizzyanims]

Benjamin Rome Clarke By definition it's a religion.

[@RatsNests]

Fizzyanims What 'definition' are you speaking of? Atheism is literally the lack of religion.

[@ha.alamin]

People will always kill each other over their beliefs or ideologies. People will never kill each other over their lack of beliefs or ideologies. This isn't limited to religion.

[@VliengWieng]

Richard Dawkins is such a sweet guy, I would looove to have him as a godfather.

[@pinkopal100]

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and the list goes on...

[@puntime]

I think what's key is to go to the original Greek text. The word used for reign is basileu, which means to influence or exercise control. Yes it can mean to reign in a physical sense but if you bear in mind that Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, then the kingdom spoken of is a spiritual one.

[@puntime]

For Christians, Israelites are those that believe in Christ by faith as well as the Jewish nation. A reference for this is Romans 4 and Hebrews 11.

[@777Opus]

I was just using reductio ad absurdum to say that not all beliefs told in a group setting would be banned. My real point was the question on how this would be decided. Would it be the judges decision, or would there be a group deciding on what would be slowing down evolution and then banning it. Now, on the reinstating to society, you would mean that they would be able to practice their faith excepting organized group settings like churches, right? You believe, you don't talk about it policy?

[@RedJoker9000]

Here's and idea that a lot of my classmates don't understand. If all or the majority of people believe something is right, does it make it right? I gave the example of the earth, almost everyone thought that it was flat and the center of the universe. It was only until someone proved it for people to believe it. We have no prove of a higher power so with this logic does it make it right? I would like to hear your ideas.

[@KingDevyn]

I would love to have richard dawkins as a godfather. Why wouldn't he be good? Because he's an atheist? That's kind of judging someone for not believing the same thing as you isn't it?

[@xereeto]

King Devyn Burke III I think it's because the word godfather has god in it

[@SmittenKitten.]

xereeto Yes, that was definitely the joke they were trying to make. :) (Isn't the role of a godparent to advise their young charge in the ways of religion?)

[@sarfaraz.hosseini]

SmittenKitten Yes, exactly. It's a religious role in the Anglican (Episcopal) communion. The OU is a British channel so the joke probably doesn't travel as well.

[@SmittenKitten.]

Sarfaraz Hussein Thank you for that! Is it only the Anglican communion who have the godparent role? I'm not well-versed in these areas, you see.

[@sarfaraz.hosseini]

SmittenKitten You're welcome. Although I'm a Muslim/Atheist so probably not the best person to ask, but being English I gather the idea of having a mentor in the faith who swears that duty during a ceremony at baptism originates in Catholicism. Anglicans (Church of England) renamed Episcopalians in the US after independence, and Lutherans both broke with Catholicism, but retained Catholic traditions in a protestant form. So Christian sects who followed along those lines are likely to still practice the tradition. Anabaptists: Christians who don't believe in baptism until one is old enough to confess their faith can't because there's no childhood baptism. And Evangelicals probably don't because they don't appear to like anything Catholic or ritualistic. Although there are not many Evangelicals in the UK, so I am speculating there.

[@utah133]

I met Dawkins. Actually, he's a really nice guy!

[@jeffwolcott7815]

As long as you agree with his view from what I've seen of him.

[@vaporwavevocap]

I like it how the videos on religions are partially respectful. Unlike Dawkins.

[@puntime]

Interesting. What flaws are you talking about specifically?

[@aungthuhein007]

Love these animations

[@Bobanamanamo]

Lest we forget that many wars have been started with no influence from religion. In fact, abolishing religious gatherings (and therefore, personal freedom) has caused considerable amounts of bloodshed in the past as well. In fact, abolishing other people's religions and personal beliefs is exactly what non-progressive societies and institutions (the Taliban, for example) did. The only difference is, you're an atheist (so you must obviously be correct).

[@boliussa]

Can't you look at the thread of discussion and figure it out?

[@ScrapmanJoe]

I will never understand why people are so intolerant of Christians. Why can't I believe in God if I want to?

[@Zellean]

but in that specific part they are talking about hes reign is over the Israelites, It says for ever mean before and after Jesus went to heaven. It never said " You will rule it after your resurrection and ascendance onto the kingdom of God", it clearly means to rule it while your in earth and after you go to heaven.

[@puntime]

A few things to note:Science was birthed in Christianity. Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist that ever lived, believed like most of his counterparts that there was a God of the universe who had designed it with certain laws and rules. And that these laws and rules were to be discovered by man (God promotes this thinking in the bible)

[@777Opus]

I did read your comment, and I don't feel you have specified what would count as insane or not quite enough. From what you said, if a man tell his kids about Santa Claus, then he is to be sent to be rehabilitated to the mental institute until he denounces his belief and repents to pearlism. I doubt you would want to be that inclusive (which would also make the institutes to be massive if they also had such inclusive to ideas) So, tell how you would define something to be insane, please.

[@yourexcellency5862]

Konstantin@*Turns head* How do you function?

[@iLLuSi0nzZGaming]

If we wanted to put our energy into something useful to begin with, religion would be non-existent at this point. Do you know how many years of scientific research has been held back because of religion?

[@theslothmonkey]

If you are referring to "bigoted"... Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I think bigotry quite accurately describes the expressed mind of Richard Dawkins. Believe what you will with respect to the subject matter he discusses, but do not blind yourself to his intolerance. I believe it comes from a place of hatred in the heart. Not something to embrace in your identity.

[@theslothmonkey]

Though there are examples showing hypocrisy in the actions of religious people who show intolerance towards others and then criticize someone like Dawkins for being intolerant.. this is not always the case. The comment which you responded to may not be entirely well spoken, but it touches on something I think is true. Richard Dawkins does appear close-minded in his accepted form of reasoning and shows a great deal of intolerant, hateful, disrespect toward those who do not agree with him.

[@zaxbit]

All of these have been more along the lines of "Adventures Against Religion"... still great, though. Love it.

[@monolyth421]

Why does this video have a thing against Richard Dawkins? He's pretty rational and soft-spoken most places I've seen him.

[@ItsJakeTheBrake]

debates don't mean anything because they are not a path to truth but more of a political stage. The fact remains, there is no science to back up religion so their claims are not supported by evidence and can therefore be dismissed. Vague assumptions and assertions made by Craig don't mean anything. And Dawkins has debated him....

[@lenarends]

How so, balen azez? You think the tone of these videos was sympathetic, as opposed to mocking?

[@puntime]

And reigning over The house of Jacob refers to the church as Paul states later in his letters that all who believe by faith are descendants of Abraham (righteousness was accredited to him because of faith, not... works or bloodline. So those that trust in Christ belong to Israel. It’s cool, you obviously believe it means something else. We can disagree. I don’t want to fight.

[@AdamGibiGulyabani]

then why did you call me ignorant in the first place?

[@Bobanamanamo]

I have no problem with radical theories, but abolishing other people's rights would be... abolished if I was in charge. If you can ignore the irony :)

[@Zellean]

LK 1:26-38 location

[@AdamGibiGulyabani]

İgnorance is bliss thats why all religious people are happy

[@puntime]

I hear you. But it's a completely different story when God is real in your heart. As a former atheist I could not understand how people could trust a stupid book. But when he was so real in my life and after some of the miracles I saw with my own eyes, I approach the book with a new view. I totally get your frustration but all I can say is that once this truth and faith enter your life, everything is different. Keep searching for more truth Hector. If you knock, you will get answers. Peace.

[@puntime]

I don't think that it's clearly saying to rule on earth. Please understand that the Christian believes that Christ rules in their hearts and into eternity in a spiritual kingdom. I absolutely agree with you that it can be taken to mean what you believe it means. But for someone of Christian faith, such as myself, it means something else. Yes you can say that it's twisting words but the same could be said of any interpretation.

[@777Opus]

Everyone would be encouraged to think logically, unless they say a god exists and are in a group together to talk about that deity, you mean? That would be banned. Can we also assume you would set up a council or something to decide what is right and wrong and what would be the best path for human evolution? That way you could actually start banning groups by law instead of 'willy-nilly, i don't like you' so you government has some sort of legitimacy?

[@pinkopal100]

The real purpose (or the original meaning) of a Godfather is someone besides your parents with the purpose of loving you and bringing you closer to God. So I don't think Richard Dawkins quite fits the parameters.

[@AdamGibiGulyabani]

Noah,genesis,guy in a whale's stomach,david and goliath,adam and eve. In quran flat world, pillars hold the sky to fall down, spliting moon in half,splashing water from fingers spliting half the red sea...etc

[@33limestone]

Hah, I see what you mean . About Richard Dawkins, although it might seem so considering how he's portrayed, I doubt this is meant as criticism or mockery, they're merely presenting his ideas humorously, like they did with lots of other people during these series.

[@zhubajie6940]

I dislike the caricature of reason. Seems like it is implying a strawman argument and a vox populi argument.

[@MrBenMcLean]

This video talks about Dawkins as if his points about atheism were somehow notable in the history of philosophy. They aren't. The last time atheism did anything notable was when logical positivism was rejected in the 20th century. Or, arguably, Ayn Rand if she gets to count as a political philosopher. 21st century atheists haven't done anything yet. It's all repeats of earlier stuff.

[@BuggyrcobraAya]

I don't know why people listen to Dawkins when it comes to religion. He really does not seem to know that much. As a religious person, I trust him much more as a biologist than as a religious philosopher, since he just seems to target strawmen about religion, and tears down people for believing in things without evidence, while he himself does not believe in God without evidence to back himself up.

[@puntime]

Not trying to cause trouble. Just saying. Stu (atheist turned believer)

[@MaxRideWizardLord]

he is agnostic by the way

[@深夜-l9f]

Not putting Abrahamic religions is is really an absence, even if you don't believe that just put it, man. The series is really short for religion, I hope there are other series

[@neilbarner3967]

the religion you claim isn't what determines your fate after death. it's your actions.

[@a8lg6p]

It's ironic that the word "meme" has become such a successful meme... BTW, when Dawkins introduced the idea, it was more of a thought experiment it illustrate a point about natural selection than a serious theory of cultural change or anything. Although some apparently think it can actually work as such. My understanding is that memetics is now an actual field, but it's very small, and I don't think it's accomplished much.

[@spearmintpolo9]

How do you explain the way that Cain, who was a son of Adam & Eve, went and found a wife when 'God' had not created any other people. Also in Genesis GEN 1:25-1:26 says that animals were created before Man, then GEN 2:18-2:19 Adam was created before beasts? Hmmm how do you explain that?? If you don't know the answer it must be that "God works in mysterious ways" OR it could be that the Bible is a book of made up stories....

[@mnfchen]

I'm okay about you being religious. I'm not okay if you don't respect other's people's expression of their own religion, e.g. Islam. The same goes for atheism. I'm okay with atheists, but not when they're spreading hate for the religious, kinda like the Westboro Baptist Church spreading hate and not tolerance against gays.

[@donkykong8459]

If you simply say what you honestly think, that you don’t believe in God or if you admit that you think the world would be better without religion, then you’re considered unpleasant, shrill and strident.

[@MrBenMcLean]

I wonder why that is ... oh wait, no I don't. It's because people who say that tend to act that way.

[@teltri]

Yes, he is. But he doesn´t unerstand spirituality at all.

[@TheToyminator]

Not 'open minded'? in what way?

[@toddjsmith02]

Somebody disagreed with you on the internet ? How sad : (

[@laportama]

we let specialists tell us what to believe.

[@DarkArtistKaiser]

Well I'm glad someone realizes this.

[@kaizersokle]

all is fun and games in this world...until you die and face the consequences...whether you believe it or not...to those who claimed to be a devout atheist, my only suggestion is...don't die...

[@BogdanManciu]

Didn't see that coming

[@Zellean]

Alright thanks m8, i am always learning new things and researching if a miracles happens to me i might chance my mind so until then i will keep being skeptical about it

[@AbEtastic82]

But aren't all ideas, including the ones about evolution, memes too? If this is so, then calling religion a virus because it's a meme isn't a criticism, it's a quality that all ideas have.

[@Bobanamanamo]

You can, in fact, deny that most religious communities are cults, because it's simply not true. I assume you're not a guy who goes to church a lot of bears an open mind on the idea of such. But churches are just institutions where people go, perform rituals they feel have meaning, say a few prayers, and meet people with like-minded ideologies. You can leave whenever you want with absolutely no repercussions or penalties. Scientology is a cult, Christianity, Judaism, etc, are religions.

[@boliussa]

Dawkins has good reason not to take the god concept seriously. That's not narrow minded bigotry!! But calling christians bigots is stupid too and Dawkins deserves to be called a narrow minded bigot because he can't handle debate and he himself likes to name call.

[@Chamelionroses]

Dawkins is good at being scientist but not so good at social issues. Most definitely.

I shall die a thousand days starting today so to live a thousand more.

[@yophey]

Oh well, some people believe, some people don't. Some people hate others for disagreeing, some don't. Either way, life is pretty awesome and beautiful, as long as you picture it that way. But must I say out of sheer unbiast opinion that religious people are likely to be a little happier.

[@scrivner3902]

It always amazes me how hypocritical people can be. They don't even seem to realize that they describe themselves in their diatribes.

[@BikingVikingHH]

Ooooo, good word! Imma use that!

[@DarkArtistKaiser]

One must wonder if Atheism, New Athiesm espesically, still applies to his meme theory. I mean, if his theory is right, it can be applied to everything. If anything, it just shows atheism much like any other idea and religion, is part of a continual cycle of humanity in constant self destruction and self propagation. In other words, it does not free, it merely just contribute to the cycle, and one day, something will replace it, just as it replaces religion.

[@DarkArtistKaiser]

***** You have any idea how much that sort of phrase has been said in our history? The Christians saw accepting Jesus would somehow save them from their sins. The French thought getting rid of their monarch would make them a free society. The Nazis thought they could cure their society and race by wiping out all others. The Communists and Capitalists, both believed each other to be a disease and themselves the cure. Our history is full of the same mindset, they are the disease and we are the cure! Think for a moment, is Atheism really this supposed cure, or are you just being sold the same snake oil by the same salesman but in a different outfit? Call what you think is the cure, for that is the first step to becoming the disease you hate so much. As I said, not ending the cycle, but becoming part of it.

[@TheBc99]

The main difference between atheism and religion is that atheism is not institutionalised. All atheism is is a philosophical belief in no god. There are no rules of conduct or doctrines attached to this, as it is employed in conjunction with other philosophical beliefs (such as Humanism), as well as personal reasoning and discernment, to inform a person's morals and psyche. To say it is a religion would be like saying Marxism or Epicureanism are religions, when they're not. They're philosophical theories that go against religious doctrines, such as the belief in a God or (in the case of Epicureanism) the idea of physical indulgence as a sin. Philosophies aren't religions. You can only have one religion, but you can have many philosophies, a lot of which are within religions. For example, many religions adhere to social philosophies concerning the necessity of a hierarchy.

[@Zellean]

wow, you can sure twist the words around to make them say all you want. It clearly means he was supposed to rule over the house of Jacob all (Israelites), Jesus never ruled over anyone he just had followers , he was never regarded as a king or ruler. He never was politically involved, even though he was supposed to reign over the Israelites.

[@DigitalFunBobby]

You don't even know, Jon Snow

[@rezzo1802]

Wow, its unbelievable that how fast time flies, 6 years ago , wow!!!!

[@yellowlila]

Great!!

[@boliussa]

Well certainly he is afraid of WLC. Funnily enough one of the atheist debaters - John Loftus - that thought he'd demolish Craig, got pitted against an up and coming former atheist and great christian debater that usually deals with muslims called David Wood. David Wood demolished Atheist John Loftus even better than he demolishes muslims. Though Loftus demolished himself a lot too. There are some excellent christian debaters out there. Dawkins is best advised to steer clear!

[@Zellean]

indeed

[@Zellean]

Many of them, the word of a God should not contain flaws. Here is one example illgive ou the site to where i found it. "The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)" infidels(dot)org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

[@Chris-tk3nh]

Half the comments on here have completely missed the point. Oh well.

[@Zellean]

Thats another one of my points, such an intelligent God inspires a book that can have literally hundreds of interpretations to convey a message. Couldn't he come up with a better method of distributing his word that would cause less miss interpretation and confusion. I find that incredible stupid.This is one of the biggest reasons why i do not feel comfortable believing anything the bible says.

[@Bobanamanamo]

Moreover, even though you sound like you have absolutely no idea what religion truly is... like, none whatsoever, let's assume it is an institution that hurts society as a whole. You could also argue that smoking hurts society as a whole, Miley Cyrus hurts society as a whole, alcohol hurts society as a whole, and so forth. You can't abolish people's rights to watch Miley Cyrus and drink and smoke if it's something they want to do! The same applies to religion.

[@puntime]

That's awesome dude. Not sure if you've seen it before but if you ever want to check out some good Christian apologetics and philosophy, reasonablefaithdotorg is a good start.

[@jtghm]

rip hitch

[@777Opus]

But you are the one who brought up this hypothetical situation where you have dictatorial (ironically godlike) power to stop people from meeting to talk about religion (which is a very anti-religion stance) I was just wondering how you would actually go about that. Lets say a group of Christians got together to eat and pray. What would happen? Jail time, fines, maybe firing squads for the leaders? Just in the hypothetical situation you had created.

[@Zellean]

right.... Well if you think Dawkins has flaws you should read about the god of the bible or the quran, you will find more flaws in your God(s) than 100 Dawkins put together.

[@brod2man]

"Here tomorrow, The Buddha." THE BUDDHA IS DEAD, EVEN BUDDHA KNOWS THAT

[@youngneil1365]

Why do they make Dawkins look so mean?!

[@fredisdeadization]

i think the joke was the "god" in "godfather"

[@zaroffhound]

I don't believe in a Dawkins. Rumour has it that Dawkins has the power to transform whining into whimper or something like that. Someone said he was born of that eagle from the Muppets, frankly im not sure.

[@unamaxify]

WLC argues that he can prove the existence of god he claims the universe could not exist without a god as it's cause and that physics would prove that. He agues that science (the study of the natural world) could prove something supernatural. One can't prove the supernatural with science unless one had a complete knowledge of the natural world. That makes WLC a fraud or a clown -> why would Dawkins descend to that level ? excellent Christian debaters: provide names please

[@Jitterskull]

evangelical fundamental atheist richard dawkins known as world famous atheist admit he is an agnostic, what a hypocrite.

[@ppriebe120]

I've been studying the Bible for many years and I can not find any flaws in the Bible, only humanity (including myself). Everything I have seen in science and nature only confirms what the Bible has already said.

[@boliussa]

RELIGION HAS *SOME* SOCIAL GOOD. It's about being honest you silly chap.

[@funnyvidssnet]

These videos start more left but always end up leaning right.

[@Zellean]

yes there are, Noahs arc and genesis are all flat out lies. BUt i know what you are going to say oh but it is metaphrocal, even if it is it is still a lie..

[@boliussa]

Yeah look at the Muslims they're so cheerful all the time. HINT, there is no one "religion", different religions are DIFFERENT.

[@boliussa]

I knew you'd trip up. I'm an Atheist. Now try again

[@Zellean]

secondly Dawkins is humans he can have as many flaws as he wants still doesn't make the things he says any less true.

[@boliussa]

You write "WLC argues that he can prove the existence of god". That is not true. You write "he claims the universe could not exist without a god" I doubt it. He argues that God is the best explanation. The term "supernatural" is misleading. You don't understand logic so you don't understand WLC. Dawkins has debated other Christians just none of the calibre of Craig. Plantinga is even more amazing and he beat Dennett(Dawkins's hero). And I told you a debate to watch.