If you were confronted by an atheist who challenged your faith, what would you say?
Now that was clever!
In the art of logic, the counter argument is akin to judo. You can use the weight of your opponent’s argument to flip him on his side.
Dawkins starts off with a valid point: faith, by definition, involves complete assent to a given claim or set of claims whose truth is not entirely evident. He concludes from this that faith cannot be called rational, because it’s not based on evidence.
Then, as if by magic, Dawkins sticks his foot in it when he admits that he has faith in his wife and that he can give plenty of evidence for it. He has reasons to believe that his wife is faithful, but he cannot prove it beyond any doubt. Yet he still doesn’t doubt.
That’s what we just called faith.
Within seconds, Dawkins is forced to admit that he has faith in something based on evidence. Exactly what he was arguing against just a couple of seconds ago.
And the Biltrix is… (i.e., the missing point)…
Atheism is a BELIEF! Atheists don’t doubt their atheism, whereas they cannot prove what they hold to be undoubtedly true — namely, that God does not exist. So why do they scoff at believers for doing the exact same thing, namely, believing in things, like the divinity of Christ, which they cannot prove?
Dawkins mocks religious belief because it is so unscientific. Yet so is atheism. So he should either mock his own atheism on the same grounds that he mocks religion, or stop taking pop-shots at other people’s sincere beliefs.
Live by the sword; die by the sword. The alternative would be live and let live.
One point for the the other side. Next question Mr. Dawkins:
Any more questions?
On deck for tomorrow: losing my religion…
Biltrix 
It is now clear that not only did you not understand the logic of Dawkins’ steaemtnt, but also that you don’t particularly wish to interact with the import of it (yes, there are a few people that reject evolution, but there are a few that reject the theory of an earth in the shape of an oblate spheroid that *does not* mean that there are good arguments for a flat earth; it means that some people hold to wrong and/or irrational beliefs in the face of the evidence), or with the explanations that I gave. Which, somehow is not surprising.You seem to think that the fact that a very few educated people do not adhere to the theory of evolution is somehow more impressive than the fact that the vast majority do. To each his or her own; you are entitled to think that way. But, just for my own personal education, please enlighten us strict Darwinists with some of the intelligent arguments for intelligent design that you so confidently assert exist. Specifically, I’d be interested in who or what the designer is, and how he/she/it/they designed, say, the Milky Way, the human body, or the life cycle of the malaria parasite. Also of great interest to me is the question, Who designed the designer? Any clarification of these questions will be greatly appreciated.
It’s also clear that you did not get the gist of this article. You assume a lot of unnecessary things too.
I believe in evolution; I think the creative design theorists are a bunch of quacks; and I am also a Christian, and therefore, a creationist. Based on your assumptions, you probably can’t put all of that together. But chew on it a while before you respond.
[hint: there are more than just two possible views on this issue, i.e., more than just what Dawkins teaches and what he says his opponents believe. Once you’ve conceived how that can be possible, we might be able to talk.]