And so I assumed you were saying they were not atheists because, more or less, I agree with them on the likelihood of a God, as well as our human fallibility when considering it. I am in as much disagreement with the existence of God as Dawkins or Hitchens is--and yet you called me an agnostic, because I (like Dawkins and Hitchens, when you delve into them) acknowledge the metaphysical impossibility of being "sure" of virtually anything (again, aside from self-referential comments)
Dawkins (and Hitchens) have in videos I've watched quite explicitly said that the question of if religion is useful is absolutely NOT the conversation they are interested in having.
Something false can be very useful. Dawkins/Hitchens are intent on arguing about the truth (or falsehood) of the concept that God exists. Sam Harris is slightly more open to the pragmatic side of the religious experience--but Hitchens/Dawkins are frankly not very interested in that. They are happy to bring up counter-examples of the evils religion does, although that often hurts their case cause it becomes a "which pile is bigger? the pile of good or pile of evil?" debate. But Hitchens quickly points out when his religious opponent changes the argument from: "I know God exists, and here is why" to "I know God exists, look at all the good religious people do!"
Cause the former is interesting, the later is not. (IMO)
no subject
And so I assumed you were saying they were not atheists because, more or less, I agree with them on the likelihood of a God, as well as our human fallibility when considering it. I am in as much disagreement with the existence of God as Dawkins or Hitchens is--and yet you called me an agnostic, because I (like Dawkins and Hitchens, when you delve into them) acknowledge the metaphysical impossibility of being "sure" of virtually anything (again, aside from self-referential comments)
Dawkins (and Hitchens) have in videos I've watched quite explicitly said that the question of if religion is useful is absolutely NOT the conversation they are interested in having.
Something false can be very useful. Dawkins/Hitchens are intent on arguing about the truth (or falsehood) of the concept that God exists. Sam Harris is slightly more open to the pragmatic side of the religious experience--but Hitchens/Dawkins are frankly not very interested in that. They are happy to bring up counter-examples of the evils religion does, although that often hurts their case cause it becomes a "which pile is bigger? the pile of good or pile of evil?" debate. But Hitchens quickly points out when his religious opponent changes the argument from: "I know God exists, and here is why" to "I know God exists, look at all the good religious people do!"
Cause the former is interesting, the later is not. (IMO)