[Red Slinger]

I agree with afc wimbledon above. There's a difference between an atheist and simply a person who doesn't believe in 'God'. An Atheist is someone who categorically rejects a deity. Dawkin would clearly fall into this category.

I'll use the well worn example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why would I bother to go out of my way to reject FSM when the concept is clearly bogus to begin with? An atheist would reject FSM. However, by rejecting FSM you are giving some credence to FSM as a concept and in the process lending credibility to it. Dawkin and his ilk aren't actually arguing in a rational manner. They've engaged in a ridiculous debate. Calgaryborn is completely correct in this respect. Atheism is a parasite on religion.

I'm not an atheist. I don't even engage in the concept just as I wouldn't seriously engage in debating the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think a lot of people fall into the same category as me rather than that of atheism or agnosticism.

However, like I mentioned earlier real faith can not be denied. People feel what they feel and it's not a matter of rationality to try to explain, debate, justify or change their faith. Sure, one could argue it's akin to the phantom limb phenomenon but nonetheless the feeling is there. There is no 'reality' so to speak because we all experience "it" differently. Each of us has our own reality, our own unique digestion that results from our "I-ness". So, if a person of real faith feels what they feel than it is (to borrow a term) what it is. That's like arguing with someone who says they feel cold. Sure, you can argue the conditions which are causing their temperature (anology to the Bible for those following along at home) but how can you argue how they feel when it is truly felt?