That's exactly my point; a 6.9 is saying "I'm definitely right, but I'm not going to leave myself open to the arguments against the religious folk". 6.9 is saying that you're sure, but you know enough history to know that there can't be certainty in anything. I argue that they don't have the requisite evidence to support their hypothesis. In fact, they have no evidence other than the lack of evidence, which isn't evidence.

I'm saying they are atheists; I'm not sure why you think I'm saying otherwise. In fact, I've said that they have decided to define atheists as the 6.9s of the world and woe on you if you don't agree with them. Dawkins brand atheism not only requires you to believe in not-god, but also to be anti-religious. He leaves no room to acknowledge the positive aspects of religion in society. In fact, this is why I hate Dawkins; he so often goes off the reservation when talking about god and starts talking about religion as if the question of whether or not there is a god is equivalent to the question of the good or not of religion. That, and the fact that if a religious person, somewhere, some time, did something bad, then that can be applies to all religious people ever. The guy is the model of fundamentalism.