I always preferred Stephen Jay Gould over Dawkins. Why? Gould was never a dogmatist, and never shoved his ideas down one's throat. Gould was an atheist as well, but a gentle one, one that knew both sides of the coin and studied it not to belittle it like Dawkins, but to realize why humans in their evolutionary path chose to use such interesting tools as religion, ritual, and communal expressions of the spirit to explain the unexplainable.

Dawkins on the other hand throughout most of his books has always been a dogmatist and belittled all who do not agree with him on scientific or philosophical matters. And, what is sad, is he is not much of a philosopher, either. Even his science is open to dispute, yet according to him it is a solid ediface without any leaky pots. A thinker of the one idea, a candle with no flame in it...

Hey, and I'm an atheist, yet Dawkins gives us a bad name with his religious proselytizing and zealotry. My opinion is and has always been to let people do what they will as long as it doesn't encroach upon my right to do the same... ah! democracy, what a grand idea!