He is an agnostic atheist. Nothing different that yesterday.

Also I came across an argument saying that the town of Nazerath did actually exist until it was created by the New Testament. I think the argument was that there was misinterpretation or misspelling of an Old Testament prophecy so they had to Jesus of Nazerath even though there is no evidence of such a place before the New Testament. Just wondering if you had heard anything about that?

He is an agnostic atheist.              A smart one at that -- and in his honesty cleared up his stance in admitting to his doubt, even as miniscule as it may be.       Having been considered the world's foremost atheist for quite some time now (according to the London Telegraph at least) ... I guess he can now be considered the world's foremost agnostic atheist.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

--- and from Wikipedia: (rather conveniently)

The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one. If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other.

 

--- and of course, if it is on the Internet it must be true. (eyes rolling)

 

 

Nothing different that yesterday.             You might want to tell that to the media and see what they say ... apparently the London Telegraph thought it newsworthy that Dawkins had publicly "admitted" that he is an agnostic .... To wit: "He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist"        

[post #8] ... Also I came across an argument saying that the town of Nazareth did actually exist until it was created by the New Testament. I think the argument was that there was misinterpretation or misspelling of an Old Testament prophecy so they had to Jesus of Nazareth even though there is no evidence of such a place before the New Testament. Just wondering if you had heard anything about that?

 

The author of Matt 2:23 states that in fulfillment of prophecy '"He will be called a Nazarene". It is generally thought that the author was referring to Is 11:1, where the Messiah is called a "netser", or shoot, out of the root of Jesse. The name for the town of Nazareth may have been derived from the same word. The author of Matthew saw a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Jesus' parents taking up residency there.

 

The region had been settled by Jews since ancient times and had remained a bastion of Judaism down through the centuries. Archeological excavations conducted beneath the Church of the Annunciation have revealed that ancient Nazareth was an agricultural village. Pottery was found there dating from Iron Age II (approx 900-600 B.C.).

>"He is an agnostic atheist.  A smart one at that --
      An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe ..."<
-----------

Sounds to me that Dawkins is taking the ignostic position, which is the one I graduated to.

--- also from Wikipedia (ignosticism):
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

 Every atheist is technically an agnostic

 

 

Shocking. Was it not you who called me a #### fence sitter for saying that I was an agnostic atheist? Now Dawkins says that's what he is, and so now you think it's a perfectly logical position??? Wonders never cease.

Wow I do remember that. Though I kinda view the agnostic atheist thing as a necessary logical construct. Do I think any gods exist-no. Can I prove it-no. Do I really think anyone logically can prove or disprove it-no. Do I feel confortable believeing that ant and making a positive statement that no gods exist-sure. Is that logically sound-no but it is still the end result.  and of course as always I remain open to evidence of the contrary. 

 

Also I think agnostics tend to be fence sitters that just don't wan't to offend others or get ridiculed.

NO worries. And if that day shall every come, i am quite sure I will telling everyone I can.