Well that is pretty well what I expected as a reply - just a repetition that you are right and that Dawkins, and now me, are wrong. Couched as usual in generalizations justified by nothing other than that you believe them - pretty much the way the fundamentalists "argue".

You refer specifically to ONE point:

    Some of one and a half million people who have already bought Dawkins' book are people like this person "still looking for answers".

Millions of people also bought The Da Vinci Code looking for answers. That doesn't mean it gave them any answers worth having.

Books like the Da Vinci Code are part of the problem which Dawkins et al are addressing. You haven't come up with any specific criticisms of Dawkins' book - apart from assumumptions about what he's trying to do - which  are clearly wrong - as I'm tired of pointing out.

Of course you again ignore the other evidence that he's succeeding in helping religious people leave religious groups, and giving support to agnostics and atheists - which many of them appreciate and feel is important in the current religious climate in the US. You also ignore rdf's comment and the evidence in it.

It's clear you don't understand the origins or motive power behind the fundie movement any more than Dawkins does. So for homework I suggest you research who funded Jerry Falwell and the other original fundies in the 80s, and who they were connected to politically.

It's clear that you are so rigid in your views you continue to ignore any evidence and arguments against it - despite the absurdity of claiming that "the Religious Right in the US is ... not, in any way, a religious phenomenon." I have already said that I'm sure some politicians exploit religious groups - but that clearly religious groups are pushing religious agendas too in politics with extremely harmful consequences for many.

I find it staggering that after all that's been pointed out about Dawkins' aims and the various forms of positive feedback he's got, you continue with junk like this:

 ... And whether they're more effective as agents of persuasion than a book aimed at a middle class and educated readership which has no interest in becoming part of fundie culture.

If YOU did some homework you'd know that even  some fundamentalists are intelligent people who've struggled with their own doubts, often suppressed not to upset those close to them, but that, in the end, they couldn't compartmentalize any more. Some of even the previously most committed started asking questions and then reading books like that of Dawkins and, despite the personal problems, changed radically.

In between these extreme cases and overt atheists, who welcome support, there are many people of all classes in the US who have doubts and many are beginning to read such books and open discussion of them has become more acceptable. This is to the credit of such authors.

Believing that Dawkins has a clue about any of this, or any influence on it at all, is entertaining, but - it has to be said - somewhat at odds with historical reality.

Presumably we should just have faith in your views -  even though they are "somewhat at odds with historical reality" - which is a bit more complex than - it's all due to the neo-cons.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.