Richard Dawkins a atheist?

This is bullshit. Dawkins makes his position quite clear. Are you trying to be a devil's advocate or merely a pedantic asshole? Do a little research.

I don' need no steenkin' clip. I gave you a link. If that ain't good enough go and read The God Delusion.

How about you spell out exactly what you are accusing Richard Dawkins of? Are you saying he can't be a real atheist because he doesn't claim to know that there can't possibly be a god? If that's not what you are saying then please elucidate.

Okay, I think you need to produce a clip or citation and explain exactly what you mean. It appears as if you are trying to make some huge distinction between agnosticism and atheism. I have no doubt you can find many and various dictionary definitions to support this but in the real world there is a great deal of overlap between adherents to these two ideas (as the Wiki link explains). Remember that dictionaries contain common usage definitions which evolve over time. Many words have taken on meanings or connotations different from their original meanings over time and in different cultures. At one time an atheist was anyone who didn't believe in a particular deity but might believe in or worship a deity or deities of another religion.

So, please clarify: are you claiming that Dawkins literally changes his story or the nature of his claims? If so please provide some evidence.

We cross-posted there. I can't watch the video from my present location so I'll get back to you after I've done so.

How does he change his story? Here are the words from that section of the book:

The view that I shall defend is different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability.

If you listened to (or read) the words preceding this he is arguing against the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of God's existence and the hypothesis of his non-existence have exactly equal probability of being right.

If you keep reading, 2 pages further on, he expands on his "spectrum of probabilities":

1- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2- Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3- Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4- Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5- Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7- Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

And he states quite clearly: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

I don't see anywhere that he changes his story. Or is this just more agnostic/atheist semantic bullshit? If you're arguing that he changes his story because he sometime uses the word atheist and sometimes uses the word agnostic they you're just wrong.