I think that lack of conviction is a conviction. This is semantic word play.
I am interested in how people arrive at a lack of conviction as well as a conviction,
if you like.

I think Dawkins has been misinterpreted by many with religious convictions.

What I find prevalent in this thead so far is a lack of understanding. It's too easy to ridicule and call names. This requires very little intellectual ability and a resort to anger and insults in place of a thoughtful examination.

I would give everyone here the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you arrived at your conclusions by an honest search. I am more interested in that honest search than I am at half-assed ripostes and angry generalities. They come across as pompous and vacant.

An assertion of this magnitude about atheism deserves an honest and sincere answer and not a supercilious snide sarcasm. Pete and I will never agree on this issue but I have a little more insight into his, what I would call, conditioning. He would call it "faith".

So far, there has been no religious person making a statement that would change my views and if I were a religious person, here, there would be no non-believer that would change them also. Leaving all that aside, this is an opportunity for dialogue and learning and getting beyond the petty wisecracks and
that's why I ask again for information about why the various positions about religion or non-religion were formulated.

Hurling sarcastic snide remarks is really a bore.