Richard Dawkins Faith In Memes Is As Blind As A Christian's to God

[Scented Nectar]

No one is claiming that a meme is a solid, much less biologically reproducing being. It is simply an idea that has caught on. Which memes stick around and which fade out, are sometimes referred to in evolution-speak with 'survival' and 'selection' but even though it is structurally similar, it does not involve genetics or biological reproduction.

so far you have agreed with me entirely.

I don't think so. I've been getting from what you wrote, that you thought individual memes (like the meme of a god existing) were more than a popular concept, that they were genetic or physical somehow. The evolutionary structure of some things sticking around and spreading due to being the selected or favoured ones can be seen both in the usual biological sense, AND where popular concepts/ideas stay around longer than unpopular ones which die out. That's the only similarity in both of these types of evolution, even though it's usually the biological ones that get talked about.

What's interesting is that religions would have never have had to start any disputes with scientists and their evidence proving evolution, if the only form of it discussed were as to which concepts outlast other ones. But when our planet's huge history of biological evolution was found, the religions freaked out because the newly discovered evidence disproved the magical 6 day creation of all earth life, and disproved that it all happened only 6 to 10 thousand years ago. They are still denying it, even when shown tons of transitional species, observed speciation, etc.

As for religion being a part of our code, it is not.

there is no evidence for that statement, and in the interests of accuracy and science, should not be repeated without some.

I am not a scientist, but I am quite a fan. Maybe I would have gone into botany if I hadn't dropped out of school at 16 to support myself. Probably, since it's a strong interest of mine. I want to rephrase what I wrote above, since I think I can see what you are saying about it. Here goes:
As for religion being a part of our genetic code, there is nothing to indicate this. It's possible that something might show in the future though, I suppose. All we know for sure is that the ability to believe in things without proof exists in us, including the ability to fill in any blanks with our imaginations. This ability may have survived in humans because it was beneficial and meant fitting into existing social structures where one is expected to take on the group's morals, beliefs, etc on trust rather than only coming to one's own conclusions from real experiences and evidence. Humans survive better in societies than on their own scattered, so this faith-ability-trait would have survived better as well, I'm thinking.

You sound like you are defending god: not material, but real none the less. how can you say they are real without proof? and i don't believe dawkins is claiming they are nonmaterial. to say they are nonmaterial is like comparing them to a ghost.

one definition of nonmaterial from the dictionary: unreal.

I think of nonmaterial in the non-physical sense, but if we go by the definition you're using, I'll just use a different word, non-physical. Ideas, even popular ones (called memes) are real, but non-physical. I'm not saying they are not real. We know ideas exist, and that some are popular. We experience them on a regular basis, and we see/hear them expressed.