Curious what do you think are the holes in Dawkins' argument? You mention one, which isn't a hole- it's pointing a finger at the arbitrary nature of what people profess to believe is the "right" way to get to heaven. Or to "get saved". How does one believe something so slippery? It would be one thing if everyone who looked at the bible agreed on a single interpretation, but since that is not the case, if you profess to follow the bible, don't you kind-of have to endorse all of it? Or do you get to pick and choose what you think are the socially good and acceptable life lessons and disregard other teachings, like the outdated ones? And if you do decide for yourself, aren't you just... deciding for yourself? How is that a hole in Dawkin's argument?