OK, Musket, "no issue" suffices to make my point.

"Dawkins and his followers": a large label, but not quite as large as "atheist", sind D. wrote many books with more claims than just "God does not exist."

Although it is not the topic here, allow me to list some (of many) points why Dawkins is not at all "straigt as a die":

• He adopts a notion of God from monotheist fundamentalists, often pretending it to represent all religion.
• He refuses to take notice of any research into religiousness and religions, beyond the latter's verbal teachings taken as statements about the physical world.
• In fact, in his most widely publicized statements (- I have not read everything -) he largely ignores all social sciences, philosophy, and history.
• Instead, he bases his reputation on his past merits in a different field of research, much less related than he pretends; he "dines out".
• He suggests (or suggested?) to his readers and listeners, presumably despite better knowledge, that evolution theory can be applied to human behaviour and social groups.
• He fallaciously equals "intelligence" (or "sound judgment on all matters including religion") to "prominence in natural sciences".
• He effectively equals his ideas on religion to results of natural sciences, being not proven but as likely as we can get - without supplying the sort of exact notions required in science.
• Thus, he has his share of responsibility for those ubiquituous pseudo-Darwinisms, and possible truly militant clashes with other ideologies.
• His propaganda may discredit genuine sciences.
• His smug and taunting rhetorics are designed to further fuel the anger of some religious persons, actually preventing them from rethinking their theology.
• Like many media personalities nowadays, he uses his talents as a comedian as if they provided real arguments.

This criticism is independent of the validity of any other concept.