Dawkins doesn't mock anyone except hard-nosed religious critics who throw mud at people who call themselves atheists.

Blandiver, your statement is rational and if feelings are hurt by it, that says more about the victim then it does about the statement.

" You need to look carefully at the impersonal intention of this statement and weigh it against your very personal attacks you hurled in my direction by way of a response."

That's a good rule of thumb for everyone here.

The issue of "Religion is to Pornography" makes no attempt to celebrate pornography.
It was a metaphor to illustrate a point and not to say that religion is pornography.

The problem with the word "atheist" is that it has become a weapon to be used by those who are believers for those who are non-believers. So we have the attack dogs who go after the canard of "New Atheists" which don't really exist. This is a media bogeyman used to discredit non-believers.

There are those individuals who try to recreate themselves as gods such as Ayn Rand, Joe Stalin, Hitler, Assad etc. They demand religious obedience of their followers.

"could not be a religion UNLESS a God or Gods are involved"
In that case there is no grounds for suggesting, as many believers do, that "atheism is a religion" - is that right?"

Jim, you nailed it. This is the semantic problem with hard-nosed definitions which can't always be relied upon from dictionaries. An open mind would enquire as to how someone would define a term and then agree or disagree. This appeal to Authority is always bad logic.