Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Annoying, sure. Dangerous? Richard Dawkins has a heck of a long way to go to prove himself as dangerous as your typical faith. (yeah, I know, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot)
But I didn't say he was atheist. I said he's probably not terribly far from being agnostic. As in he'd at least be comfortable saying (privately), "yeah, I don't really know whether there's a god, but I choose to believe anyway."
Anyway, I don't really get the sense that faith and worship are particularly important to him. Which is a compliment.
|
So Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were no big deal? Am I going to have to go back to the French Revolution and start working forward on this one?
Sure, if you call everyone who believes in God other than those of Wonk's friends who claim to have recently done a hand-jive with the Father, Son & Holy Ghost down at the bowling alley a "near agnostic", then he's a "near agnostic". You've just defined me as a near agnostic. Probably the Pope, too.
If you call everyone who can parse a syllogism a blackberry mojito, then Obama's also a blackberry mojito. Are you a blackberry mojito?
