Another reason that Dawkins is a tool.

According to the Telegraph:

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain

And:

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

And everyone should agree with Dick to the Dawk's probability estimates, which is why he has argued that teaching children a faith is a form of "child abuse" and children should be taken away from people who have reached a conclusion on an open question. See e.g. Peter S. Williams' article quoting Dawkins as follows "In a recent editorial for the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, entitled ‘Religion’s Real Child Abuse’, Richard Dawkins opined that: ‘Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.’"

How dare anyone reach a conclusion when Dawkins says "I don't know."

After all "He's Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D. He's smarter than you because he's got a science degree."



The revealing part of all this is that it demonstrates the totalitarianism of secularism. There is no role for freedom of conscience in a world composed of mere "molecules in motion." In Dawkins' world everyone should reach the same conclusions - the probability of the existence of God is very low, "around 6.9 out of 7" - and they should derived the same conclusion from that calculation - that believing in the existence of God - based on that .1 out of 7 probability estimate - is irrational because Dick to the Dawk "says so."

What a tool.

Don't worry. When his fanboys cry out in agony from their own "long, dark night of the soul," based on empirical observation, the odds are low - probably 6.9 out of 7 - that Dawkins will NOT explain that he was misquoted.

I repeat, what a tool.