"I think you are correct that there is a (possibly unbridgeable) gulf in understanding between those with a religious viewpoint and those without. The latter find it difficult to understand why the former need religion, while they find it hard to understand why the latter can live without it, and assume that they are seeking something to replace it."

Howard, you bring up an interesting point. I understand why those who need religion defend it so vociferously. I understand that it is a conditioning that happens early in the way some are conditioned to drug use or alcohol. A replacement is sometimes a temporary solution to the addiction. I can't agree that the non-belief position doesn't understand the religious position. Quite the contrary in my opinion. Many non-believers were former religious people and those who at one time espoused "spirituality" or New Age.

When "spirituality", "New Age", or religious convictions are not enforced by adopting a superior attitude or belligerence then it is my opinion that because of the US Separation of Church and State implication in the US Constitution, people can believe in the tooth fairy,
Santa Claus or whatever they choose as long as it stays out of government and is not forced down someone else's throat. I have encountered so many who claim "spirituality"
as a means of feeling superior to others who "don't get it". They bought the T shirt,
and paraphernalia and all the trappings to exhibit it on their own soap box without allowing any criticism or skepticism about it.

Among non-believers, critical examination of non-belief is welcomed. This is another reason why it's not a religion. It's open to empirical verification and many don't think this is true but there is a great deal of humility there about what someone can actually know about anything. This is one reason that Professor Dawkins doesn't think the term "atheist" really covers the extent of the views held by non-believers and he relies on a sliding scale of belief in the probability of any god.

When he talks about "The God Delusion" he is referring to the massive reactionary pulpiteers and religious pundits and the enabling that is done by so-called "moderates".
These reactionaries have dominated the discussion of religion and "spirituality" for so long shouting down the voices of dissent. Now, that's changed. A new voice is being heard and of course the reactions range from contempt and offense to downright violence.

Instead of the term "atheist" I prefer FreeThought, the freeing from dogma and certitude.