Your comment was appreciated, and your sound logic clearly shows as well.

His flawed logic has little to do with his analysis of religion. Even if he were correct in his conclusion, which I don't think the case, the methodology (i.e., the logic) he uses to get there is flawed. You see, if the answer to an arithmetic problem is 10, you have innumerable ways in which to arrive at that point. However, it's as if he says 12-13+19=10, which is false. The answer, in that example, is correct but the means by which we arrive there is not. His philosophy is THAT bad. Antony Flew (in his earlier days) and, perhaps, Richard Carrier, are much better choices as they actually pose a threat to theistic academicians. Richard Dawkins is purely entertaining to me. There's a reason he refuses to debate serious theists like William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas, like Flew and Carrier have; he wouldn't stand a chance. That's not a dig on him, it's just pointing out a shortcoming. We all have them in droves....

It would appear so...

PS: ASre you having trouble with the "send message" aspect of your channel, like I am.

Well, of course, I completely disagree, I think RD is completely correct in his analysis of religion. It is indeed devisive, stops independent thinking and is dangerous, for all the reasons he states.

I don't feel as though I've disparaged him as many of his fellow academic atheists actually versed in sound logic have said far worse things about his approach. I mean one non sequitur after another tends to get one in hot water with those in and outside of one's camp. I very much respect his work, his intellect, and his sharp wit, but I have little respect for his philosophy because it is fatally flawed on so many levels, NOT because I disagree with his conclusions. This is why I think it best for him to stick to science (note: not scientism) as opposed to philosophy. There are far better choices of folks for you to emulate on the atheistic side. And I mean that sincerely. Dawkins steps out of his realm far too often with terrible results. Good scientist, for sure. Bad philosopher, most definitely. Take care.

I was going to say though, I do not see us being friends if you make disparaging remarks about Richard Dawkins, who is an admirable, moral man who believes in science and reason.

Yes I would like to send messages privately but for some reason your send message bit wont let me. Will try when I have more time, am busy at present.

Ipse dixit, seemingly as always with you. And if you're going to be a vacuous clone of the philosophically incompetent Dawkins, at least get his quotes right. Even if you paraphrase him, please make sure it makes sense first. But, judging by your woeful ignorance of your multiple self-defeating, unsubstantiated assertions and supposed philosophical foundations (in addition to your unwillingness to answer direct questions), I guess I shouldn't expect much. I don't say this to berate, but to simply illustrate blatant inconsistencies. It seems I'm not the first, and I doubt I'm the last. I wonder if you realize the utter futility (on your worldview) of arguing away huge chunks of your finitude with random so-called self deluded people . Truly, take care.

The likelihood of the God of the Bible existing is the same as the likelihood of elves, dragons, unicorns and Zeus and the pantheon of Greek gods existing. In otherwise zero.