Articles, Blog

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

December 29, 2019


Sixty second adventures in religion. Number four, religion as a virus. Richard Dawkins is an atheist, evolutionary biologist and probably not someone you should ask to be a godfather. He said that religion and science can’t sit side by side because belief in God doesn’t
stand up to scientific scrutiny. But religion is still so popular because it’s like a virus with an innate desire to spread
itself and it’s various symptoms – like ‘believing in
things without any scientific evidence’ and ‘judging people with different beliefs’. Like a successful gene, this cultural phenomenon or ‘meme’ has features that made it likely to appeal or be passed on – like being adopted by music and art – or threatening that nonbelievers will be put to death. Dawkins’ ideas have been pretty successful at spreading themselves. Nowadays he’s more widely known for his views on atheism than his work on evolution. Although, for book sales, he’s got a long
way to go to catch up on religion. Maybe he should try some viral marketing?

100 Comments

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 16, 2013 at 1:06 am

    SHUT UP!!!! EVERYONE! Good lightning, if all you chrisians and atheists would just expend your energy on something useful, we would all have flying cars now. Let it be said that I am nither christian nor atheist, because both are based in fallicy. Athies, you belive everything came from nothing, nuf said. Chrisians, did you know that there is no "J" in Hebrew? Ooh, jesus and jehova don't work now, do they? Both of you research your facts before going for each other's throats. Onytr.

  • Reply Chad Varner April 16, 2013 at 2:36 am

    google

    it's amazing the answers you can find

  • Reply Dyrus In Jail April 19, 2013 at 9:51 pm

    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?

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan April 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Wow, I really hope you're kidding. The Hebrew words for Jesus and Jehovah are roughly Yeshua and YHWH, respectively. The anglicized version of those words became Jesus and Jehovah, because it was easier to pronounce in Old English. Why you thought that was a sound or relevant argument is beyond me.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    Umm… Sound and relavent because isn't it beyond man's power to change the name of the Creator? The letter "J" didn't even exist before the 15th century A.D. Look it up. If I may quote the bible for a second, "Then it was begun to call on THE NAME OF YHUH" Gen. 4:26. If you can show me from Scripure where The Name of the Father or the Son has been "changed" to have a "J" at the front, I will retract my previous comment.

  • Reply Paul Nong April 22, 2013 at 12:44 am

    I fully believe in God, but I grew that religion can be a virus. When someone like the Pope is the authority of a religion, people can be misled by them from God's real message (not saying the Pope is a bad influence, but the Vatican has had a few rotten Popes before). Religion has gotten better in the fact that believers don't go out witch hunting or starting another Crusade just because some people with religious authority said so. God will lead us, not other humans who modify his true message

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan April 22, 2013 at 4:03 am

    You are aware that the Bible was not originally written in English, correct? The name wasn't changed, but in different languages it is rendered differently. For instance, my first name is Jonathan, but if I went to Italy, people might call me Giovanni; if I moved to Germany, I may be called Johannes. The name remains the same, it is simply different people interpreting the name in their own tongue.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 22, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Umm… yeah, I'm well aware of the bible's language of origin. And that language was Hebrew. The situation you described is not a change in your name, but what they might name their childeren that is closest to Jonathan. Your name is STILL Jonathan, no matter where you go, and people will do their very best to pronounce your name "Jonathan". Sure, some cultures, (including Hebrew) lack a "J", but even still, they TRY. It's not as if we can't pronounce "YHUH", and what is the Messiah's name?

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan April 22, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    For most of human history, if someone made international travels, their name would be adapted into the language of their host country. Take the explorer Zuan Chabotto, an Italian native who is known in English history as John Cabot. God is far above our human languages and customs, so he can be called different names by different people and still be the same. Jesus' name was actually Yeshua, then translated into Greek and later into English as Jesus. Even "Christ" is the Greek word for Messiah.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 23, 2013 at 1:39 am

    So, in other words, I can call on Krishna, Budda, Zeus or Johnathan and get YHUH? If that's the case, then there is a CLEAR contradiction in Scripture, because we're all going to heaven. One question, what language did YHUH speak to Abraham in? How about Moses? Daniel? David? And christ is not a name, it MEANS the same thing as Messiah, which is "anointed one". Names do not change from culture to culture. Zuan Chabotto is STILL Zuan Chabotto, no matter what the English called him.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan April 23, 2013 at 1:54 am

    Are you trolling me?

    What I am talking about is the SAME NAME rendered differently in DIFFERENT languages. Zuan Chabotto is still Zuan Chabotto, but he is also John Cabot. Just as YHWH is still YHWH, even when he is called Jehovah. This is different from Krishna or Zues, who are not the same being. My name on YouTube is completely different from my real name, but it has no affect on my identity. Do you understand? Jehovah isn't the "correct" name for God, but it does not affect WHO He is.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 23, 2013 at 2:12 am

    I AM NOT "TROLLING" YOU! If you wanna stop debating, just say so, and I'll leave you alone. Ok, imagine you are walking down the street, and you randomly hear someone saying "Mr. Wallace! Mr. Wallace!" Unless your real last name is Wallace, you are not going to pay him any mind. My point is: if you seek someone, call him by his right name. That's what made me turn from Christianity to begin with, no one in the church could answer my question. I understand your point, but I do find it lacking.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan April 23, 2013 at 2:22 am

    It has nothing to do with wanting to stop "debating", it was an honest question because your points seem so insanely irrelevant, from my point of view. But you have to realize that God is above human language and names. And so God will respond to "Jehovah" to those who call Him that, and to YHWH for those who call him that.. The only reason Jehovah isn't "correct" is because He was called YHWH first. If you left Christianity over this issue, then I wonder about your faith in the first place.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson April 23, 2013 at 2:39 am

    Ok, question. Isn't the personal name of the Creator of the universe the most relavent thing there is? And if was called Eirikr from day 1, I kinda like to be called that for the rest of my life. Maybe I read a different bible than you, but in there it says ONE NAME, not 5,793. And when I asked around, no one was "ready always to give an answer", a most Christians claim. How is it that the Name doesn't matter? You have me very curious. P.S. you have no grounds to question my faith either.

  • Reply RedJoker9000 April 24, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    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.

  • Reply joseph albright April 27, 2013 at 11:49 pm

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

  • Reply mnfchen May 8, 2013 at 1:59 am

    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.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Sorry for the delay. The name of the Creator of the universe is extremely important, but since He transcends human language and cultures, it is perfectly acceptable for his name to be translated into different languages. I have no grounds to question your faith, but I am curious as to how such a simple question with a very simple answer could have made you turn away from your faith. Also, you made a point earlier which I didn't notice at the time about the letter "J" not having existed until…

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 8, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    (con't) … the 15th century AD. You are correct in that, however the Bible was not translated into English until the 16th century AD. And again, I just stress the fact that God is above all human languages and therefore He can meet us where we are, in our own language. We get so caught up in details – marriage equality, abortion, appearance, etc. – that we miss the big picture: God loves us, and we need to love others the same way, and in that love, we love and glorify Him. Peace and blessings.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 8, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    You wrongly assume that YHWH is the truest name of God, however my view is that YHWH is the name attributed to Him by the Hebrews. When Moses asked who he was speaking to in the burning bush, God didn't say "my name is YHWH", no: He said, "I am that I am". This is why God is called "I am". God doesn't need a name, because He just IS. God is the first and the last, nothing was before Him and nothing shall supersede Him. God simply exists, without needing to have a name, or any human involvement.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 9, 2013 at 12:26 am

    So, let me get this straight. If "god" manifested himself to the Hindu's, would they have called him Kirshna? If so, then aren't we ALL going to heaven? I mean, Hindi people are generally GOOD people, right? If "god" trancends human names, then Scripture clearly LIES. It's one or the other, not both. If we all can call him whatever, then 3 things happen. 1. There is no right or wrong anywhere. 2. We are all going to heaven. 3. Scripture contradicts itself. I will continue this next comment.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 9, 2013 at 12:41 am

    -bangs head off of wall- THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!!!! YHWH manifested him to no one other than, wait for it, THE HEBREWS! The Hebrew words for "I am that I am" is: ehYAH esher ehYAH. Read Exo.14-15, pay close attention to what He says in v.15. His Name is the most precious gift anyone can receive, it's what we're sealed with in Revelation, and you say "it doesn't matter"? This reminds me of church! This boggles me, no offence.

  • Reply Andy Azael May 18, 2013 at 7:10 am

    Cheese will save us all.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 19, 2013 at 3:20 am

    The name of God is incredibly important. That's why it has been translated into other languages, the same way "Jonathan", "David", "Isaiah", and "Jesus" have all been translated from their original Hebrew into English. Since Hebrew does not share an alphabet with English, the names look different. the Hebrew letter correlating to "Y" in English was often rendered as "J" in English, because of English language customs of the time. The Hebrew language doesn't have written vowels as in English.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    I understand about the difference between Hebrew and English, and I understand the need for transliteration, but do you see my point? The "j" was originally just a iota with a tail, but around the 15th cent., it changed pronunciation, thereby making all previous transliterations wrong. Following your logic, I could transliterate the Name "Zeus" if I wanted to, because He trancends all laguages. You see the flaw? ACCURATE transliteration is important, and its something the church has forgotten.

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 24, 2013 at 1:06 am

    Again, you are mistaking translation with "just make up any old name". Jehovah is a name which actually descends linguistically from YHWH, but "Zues" has nothing in common with YHWH and is not a translation of the name. By your logic, we should correct all Biblical names with a j: Joshua, Jonah, Jonathan, Jeremiah, Elijah, Jehoshaphat, Judah, Joseph… It doesn't make any sense to do that. The fact that pronunciation has changed does not mean that the translation or transliteration is invalid.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 24, 2013 at 2:02 am

    Yes, you should correct all names to their original. Why doesn't that make sense? If someone came up to me and started saying a word that I didn't know, only to find out later that that word was my name, then how would I know what they were talking about? By your own admission, jehovah DESCENDS from YHWH, but it's not the same! That wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't the Creator of the universe. P.S. Is "god" his name too, or what is that?

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 24, 2013 at 2:10 am

    It doesn't make sense because we are speaking a very different language than Hebrew. By your logic, we should also have to write Biblical names in ancient Hebrew, because if we wrote them in English the Biblical persons wouldn't understand it. But we live and work and experience the world in the 21st century, and in the languages we speak today, so we can't conduct our lives in ancient Hebrew. Since God is the creator of the universe, in a sense "God" is His name – at least it's His designation.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 24, 2013 at 2:59 am

    Ok, you admit that bible people couldn't understand English, but you pray to a Hebrew using an "English" name? What would tempt you to listen to someone trying to call on you, but in a name you never even heard while you walked on earth? Now, it's not such a big deal with Elija and Judah (but still important), because they aren't names by which man can be saved. How many names can save, again?

  • Reply MaxRideWizardLord May 28, 2013 at 9:06 am

    he is agnostic by the way

  • Reply NoTheOtherJonathan May 30, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    You keep forgetting that God is God – He has no language, He is above all this. I'm done discussing this with you, because it brings no glory to His Name to squabble over such trivialities.

  • Reply Eirikr Haakonson May 30, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Ok, I'll leave you with this final thought. If god is god, then all can come to him by any way they like. There is no absolute Truth, Way or Life, because it doesn't matter. Krishna is just as acceptable as jesus, bucause there are no linguistic traits associated with "god". Just ask yourself what that means. Also, what language was written on the wall in Babylon and on the tablets at Sinai? I hope and pray you see the truth. Shalom.

  • Reply Jitterskull June 5, 2013 at 8:54 pm

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

  • Reply Zaroff's Trophy Room June 24, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    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.

  • Reply Aristocles June 26, 2013 at 2:23 am

    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.

  • Reply Saleem Zeidan July 23, 2013 at 9:41 am

    Sure, but please don't be late on our meeting where we will discuss what's the best way in raping our own mother!

  • Reply LRX July 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm

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

  • Reply teltri July 29, 2013 at 8:42 pm

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

  • Reply Riyo Widianto July 30, 2013 at 7:23 am

    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…

  • Reply Fidel August 3, 2013 at 4:46 am

    I hate how people try to discredit the Word with man created ideas, separating the Word into multiple "denominations", confusing people. the Word of God remains the Word of God. just freakin study it yourself. do extensive research, don't just scratch the surface, then you'll end up like modern day "christians"<– tried to auto correct to caps. I said heck no. no caps this time.

  • Reply Fidel August 3, 2013 at 4:57 am

    and don't try ask questions like why does god allows abortion,
    Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
    his ways are higher….

  • Reply William Prado August 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    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).

  • Reply William Prado August 5, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    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 🙂

  • Reply neil barner August 6, 2013 at 11:45 pm

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

  • Reply Habib Alamin August 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    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.

  • Reply AbEtastic82 August 12, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    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.

  • Reply TakeyMcTaker August 15, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Please don't confuse "science" with "belief" or even "a system of belief." It is neither. Science is a *process* of repeatable and verifiable (and more importantly, falsifiable) fact discovery. Therefore, any claims that evolution "is just a theory" or "another meme like religion" misunderstand the power of verifiable+falsifiable theory over unverifiable (and thus meaningless) belief. Believe whatever you want, reality will disagree.

  • Reply pinkopal100 September 12, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    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.

  • Reply pinkopal100 September 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Just want to point out here, Atheism is a religion it's just the religion of believing that you are infallible there fore believing that you are God like & that science can explain everything, which it can explain most things but not everything. & religions such as Catholicism do not hold back science in fact a lot of major scientific discoveries were made my Christian/Catholic scientists. examples of scientists who believed in God: (in the replies)

  • Reply pinkopal100 September 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    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…

  • Reply William Prado September 14, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    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.

  • Reply William Prado September 14, 2013 at 11:36 pm

    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.

  • Reply DnS September 26, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    More GOVERNMENTS have killed people in the last 100 years than in the entire history of man. You might want to be more worried about the Governments around the world rather than religious groups. Sorry these are the facts.

  • Reply DnS September 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Aye in many but take WW2 for example, America claims to be a Christian state and so did the Nazi's, but just because they can claim they are this or that doesn't make it true, we have to remember that they will use any bullshit excuse to get their way, there are people who use Governments as just mere external weapons to bring about the change they want to happen and most of the time its murdering the poor, whether it's their own or a neighbors, the result is still the same.

  • Reply Chris Trent October 3, 2013 at 5:19 am

    you can, just don't go pissing around trying to influence our laws and lives.

    Have a nice day, from your friendly neighborhood atheist.

  • Reply 777Opus October 11, 2013 at 1:49 am

    I don't know what's scarier, your wish to become a dictator who apparently has control of people even meeting to promote your view on what humanity should evolve to (and seeming to not view yourself as a extremist so I would hate to see those people of your anti religion party), or that out of 26 people who care enough to voice their opinion, 19 would go with you and thus probably be able to kill off the other 7.
    What would you do to those people anyway? Send them to the Gulag?

  • Reply 777Opus October 11, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    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.

  • Reply 777Opus October 11, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    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?

  • Reply 777Opus October 11, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    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.

  • Reply 777Opus October 13, 2013 at 12:48 am

    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?

  • Reply Young Neil October 23, 2013 at 2:17 am

    Why do they make Dawkins look so mean?!

  • Reply fredisdeadization October 30, 2013 at 7:19 pm

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

  • Reply عبدالله رويشد December 26, 2013 at 12:58 am

    Can sports and social justice sit side by side? Not according to people with the reaction: "WTF?!"

    I think this attempt-not the video though; something more general-of religious people to say religion & science can't contradict each other is another form for them to, virtually, 'jerk-off' their brain cells. In other words, it's just an other drug-slogan.

  • Reply serendipity9defined January 20, 2014 at 8:40 am

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

  • Reply MrSqaz2wsx January 24, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Bias religious video, nice job The open university. Not so open after all.

  • Reply laportama February 18, 2014 at 2:24 am

    we let specialists tell us what to believe.

  • Reply VlaDDrakkeN March 5, 2014 at 10:38 am

    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.

  • Reply Mohammed Alsayyari April 2, 2014 at 6:04 am

    طق طق على دوكنز هههههه

  • Reply Fergus Maclaren April 3, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    Religion is a cancer on humanity's brain

  • Reply Jon Snow April 24, 2014 at 7:27 pm

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

  • Reply Donky Kong June 5, 2014 at 4:51 am

     
    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.

  • Reply Violeta Botero June 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    Great!!

  • Reply Your Excellency June 8, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    [email protected]Turns head How do you function?

  • Reply Your Excellency June 8, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    Jos cuz said ''scientism'' like that word exists. He can't be more stupid. Science isn't a dogma really.

  • Reply King Devyn Burke III June 24, 2014 at 6:30 am

    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?

  • Reply Qeti Lekiashvili July 11, 2014 at 9:30 am

    Anti-christian bigotry and pseudo science with bit of Atomism, the perfect day of today's Atheist.

  • Reply Raginmund July 23, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Religion as a virus – 60 Second Adventures in Abrahamic* Religion (4/4)

    Fixed it.

  • Reply PuraguCryostato July 30, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    Of course how religion spreads has little or nothing to do with its truth value. And the same can be said of atheism, or agnosticism. Is that also a …. "virus", which has been selected for because of hendonism and sexual promiscuity? 🙂

  • Reply mario antonio acuña romo August 8, 2014 at 4:54 am

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

  • Reply Burchale August 10, 2014 at 1:50 am

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

  • Reply Jennifer Isaacs August 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm

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

  • Reply Sanjaya Senarathane August 13, 2014 at 10:07 am

    Cheese will save us :p

  • Reply Bobby Price September 7, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    You don't even know, Jon Snow

  • Reply Vaporwave Vocap September 15, 2014 at 3:21 am

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

  • Reply ltschriscrucker December 13, 2014 at 10:47 am

    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? 

  • Reply Psasa May 16, 2015 at 3:57 am

    Just because an idea is popular that does not hold it true. It's like saying segregation or facism were true due to their popularity in the past times. And you describe religion being like a virus by describing it through evolution? Evolution is about passing dominant traits that ensure better chances of survival against natural selection via reproduction. We aren't born with religion were indoctrinated into it

  • Reply YAPLAKAL December 17, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    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.

  • Reply TBOTSS March 5, 2016 at 2:46 am

    Ah Richard Dawkins; the man who shits himself whenever William Lane Craig comes to Oxford.

  • Reply godofimagination March 14, 2016 at 4:28 am

    He'll be remembered for inventing the word meme.

  • Reply Benjamin Philipp June 7, 2016 at 11:02 pm

    "Probably not someone you should ask to be a godfather"??? O.o
    Not sure what they were going for, if it was a poor reference to the deity in that term… But it just sounds like he's not a very kind or nurturing person! What the hell? o.o

  • Reply Yasin Akşit November 9, 2016 at 8:25 am

    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

  • Reply Buggyrcobra Aya December 29, 2016 at 9:53 am

    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.

  • Reply Benjamin McLean March 9, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    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.

  • Reply R. B. April 22, 2017 at 5:32 am

    Religion is magical thinking, like in Santa Claus.

  • Reply boba bola July 22, 2017 at 6:18 am

    98 likes came from triggered theists 🙂

  • Reply rationalguy August 5, 2017 at 12:58 am

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

  • Reply Zhu Bajie August 18, 2017 at 3:47 am

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

  • Reply Mardas Man February 8, 2018 at 11:34 am

    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.

  • Reply Chris September 16, 2018 at 11:05 am

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

  • Reply luke hp October 29, 2018 at 11:59 am

    nice "open" Uni

  • Leave a Reply