People like dawkins can back up their lectures with proof....based on actual evidence.....show me one shred of evidence to back up any evidence relating to that fairy story book nutters call the bible

From what we have been seeing many of the evangelical Christians today talk about the literal statements from(a) bible - there are several versions. I am sure not all atheist agree on some of the finer points but we all agree all religious teachings are crap and only pollute ones mind. Dawkins is human and so can be prone to mistakes but my question would be how much conflict of interests are involved. Religion has a massive conflict of interest but there is usually little gain in helping people let go of myths. Looking at some of the links I suspect Gray is a stealth religionist. Denigrating science and glorifying religion shows that.

Just because some highly educated Jewish and Christian thinkers didn't take the myths seriously doesn't mean that the ordinary priests didn't inculcate such superstitious myths into the common people.

This is the same old "atheism is another religion" argument. I am narrow minded, apparently, because of my inability to take the ridiculous with the undue seriousness with which they embrace it.

The Dawk is a Bright.

The great majority of Christians do not take the Bible allegorically. Many more take the Bible literally than not. This is much more important than traditions which do not significantly affect the lives of millions of believers and non-believers alike.

There is perhaps no doubt that Dawkins is arrogant. But having said that there is perhaps a failing of logic in criticizing him for only attacking the easy target of fundamentalist religion, and failing to engage with the the, “ vast traditions of figurative and allegorical ”, when by definition such traditions are irrelevant to the debate between the literal interpretation of religious texts and science.
Especially as by some definitions such traditions could be said not to be religion at all.

Yes, it's obviously Richard Dawkins who is closed minded. Ha ha ha.

Because there have been a small number of xtians over the years who purported that the bible was allegorical, it was obviously never meant to be taken literally.

And what about other bible stories? Believing in the literal resurrection and virgin birth is what defines a christian. A great many xtians also believe that the bible is the unerring word of god regardless Philo, Augustine, and Maimonides many have said.

It's okay to respect Dawkins as a biologist and take his sociological claims with a grain of salt.