"I believe their strategy is ...."

Says it all really.

Sorry but you just cannot educate pork. (Funnily enough, the guy I learned that from was a Methodist preacher.)

Why did you ask me to be respectful then add the next post before my answer? Come on, admit it. You love a knock about every bit as much as the next person who doesn't take themselves seriously . You wouldn't write what you do if it were otherwise.

If you don't like insults, why use parenthesis when describing Dawkins credentials? Yeah, religious people can have a pop at the rest of us all they wish, use words such as atheist as inferred insult, tell children there are fairies at the bottom of the garden then screw their min ds when they grow up by forgetting to tell them its a metaphor... But if a single person asks them why?......

Then call them aggressive atheists. Accuse them of secret worship in priest holes to the altar of Dawkins and his mate Hitchens who dies for our sins... Fight for the right to call gay people wrong, women not worthy of the top jobs in their club, get a qualification in hand wringing over the ills of the world whilst coining in the funds.

But don't forget to attack anybody who questions it...

You don't need to be qualified to notice delusion, you just need to judge it against the facts. To be fair, when applied to a single person, as you are trying to do to muddy the waters, I can accept it can be misconception, sincere belief or plain view. Taken as a whole, it is peddling a delusion. Don't take my word for it, just listen to the British Anglican clergy, from vicars to bishops who bemoan those who misrepresent what they are trying to achieve by insisting on literal adoption of stories. You will find a past Bishop of Durham used the term whilst in office before Dawkins had published a single book.

Oh, Goofus. Wrong thread mate. The spirituality thread is a back click away. Don't confuse the sanctimonious sailor any more than is necessary. Using words such as orgasm can be dangerous at this stage in his sermon...