“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

“The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

“‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

“‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

“‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

– Douglas Adams, the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I give “god” a pretty low probability of existance, but I’m not in a position to be %100 certain that he’s a myth

Dawkins’ himself says he is in this category. I remember him explaining the spectrum of belief and specifically not putting himself at the 100% NO side because that would be dogmatic and he is a scientist. I moved to this category from a position of complete agnosticism of the question. I was like: I am not religious; there may be something out there; nobody knows; religion is a personal thing; meh. I hadn’t even deeply thought or investigated the question. Then I ran into a couple of philosophy books, saw the Dawkins TED presentation and thought I would try his book out. I’m glad I did.

Dawkins has a knack for making some seriously aggressive soundbites, but once you read him I think he makes more sense. The big difference with him is he is more than atheist, he is anti-religious. That’s what gets everybody’s hackles up.

“...agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability.”

Agnosticism is hardly fence-sitting – its simply acknowledging ignorance. Seems like a fairly sensible position to me. I give “god” a pretty low probability of existance, but I’m not in a position to be %100 certain that he’s a myth. Nor is anyone else. Could be he’s an alien. Might be one day we’ll find out. Who knows?

@Richardson Have you read any of Dawkins’ books?

@Chirol After being touched by His noodly appendage it doesn’t take much to fall off that fence. ;)

It would be incredibly ironic if Hillary inherited the problem her husband swept under the rug (warning of an HEU program, 1997-1999) and passed on to Bush. But of course ignoring the problem makes it go away, at least until North Korea produces, tests, or sells uranium-based nuclear weapons.

I also find it amazing that anyone takes Dawkins’ vitriolic take on religion through provoking.

I was wrong. Bush (and Petraeus) were right.