If the commonalities of spiritual systems are unreliable, the differences
ME: If the commonalities are what matter we can agree to disagree on the rest.
The universe doesn't need a maker for it to be.
ME: But it shows plenty of signs of having one (the dialogue covers my views on this)
Spirits are not necessary for gestation.
ME: Neither is good sex but it both exists and is a good thing :).
"Mind" is a name for brain activity.
ME: I profoundly and utterly disagree.
Love is chemistry.
ME: But not just to do with chemicals.
Life doesn't need a maker.
ME: Although we've no idea how it came to be.
Geology is understood, and punctuated equilibrium is the key.
ME: Unless I'm Richard Dawkins (actually I am a neo Darwinist).
Hominid evolution is understood.
ME: And explains our bodies.
Human languages can be traced back beyond Proto-Indo-European.
ME: Except the ones, like Basque, that can't.
No particular religious hero is unassailable.
ME: And nor is anything else.
Religion has a history, but that does not necessarily mean a goal-oriented
process is occuring.
ME: Christianity has made the world a better place.
Morality and ethics are social inventions.
ME: Objective morality is either real or slavery can be OK.
Patterns are not necessarily indicative of artifice or of intent.
ME: But may well be.
A broad range of studies support themselves on each other's discoveries
without supernatural help.
ME: So the universe is the product of one mind.