Peace, you said:

"I think you give atheists too much credit, Frank. I doubt they are any smarter on average than the general population from which they come."

I never said that. You have misinterpreted me.

What I think is this, there are different forms of intelligence. There is social intelligence, intellectual intelligence, musical intelligence, business intelligence, mechanical and scientific intelligence etc. "Smarter" indicates that you think I have identified a specific type of intelligence but I haven't.

On the other hand, atheists don't appear to be part of the general population. It's not that they are necessarilly more intelligent than others but they do have a unique perspective which is usually interpreted as some form of hostility. They are not always hostile to religion but as in my own case I don't really count religion as being important in my life except when I am attacked for not accepting it.

The problem with this whole discussion is about "labels". Dawkins refers to himself as a "spiritual atheist". Einstein's "god" was not a personal one and it's not clear how he defined it. Whenever the label "atheist" is mentioned, it's a hot button kind of like "terrorist" or "communist". Or "democrat" or "republican".

I try to get along with everyone whether they are religious or not. In defense of Dawkins, he clearly separates the belief system from his respect for that of the individual and this is what gives his position weight. He does not present "ad hominum" arguments. (BTW, this is a misued term. It means "to the man". The correct term is "contra hominum"...against the man.)

I don't care for the label "Bright". Here's where I part company from Dawkins and Dennett.
I have found that there are many forms of being bright and they don't come in one package.

I don't even like divisive terms to describe anyone. There are too many labels being used as weapons today and that's the problem with all the names that are bandied about.

Frank