There you go again, just because Prof Dawkin would be comfortable with a label such as you describe (although neither of us has ever asked him his view. .) you assume anybody with a view different to yours is some form of acolyte of his.

Why?

Is it that we are both British? Is it because neither of us have a religious faith? Buggered if I know what else it could be? You seem to know a lot about him anyway when I mention that all the Abrahamic religions don't consider their children as religious till they have a rites of passage of some description, you pounced on it and said we were all just quoting Dawkins. Presumably forgetting The Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, chief Rabbi and myriad Islamic clerics.

Can you for once read an opinion without invoking your fascination with Dawkin?

Early in the morning. Can't remember if its Dawkins or Dawkin.

Your take on what I said above by the way is based on thinking I hate religion. Perhaps if you read what I put rather than what you like to think I put you may not make such absurd conclusions.

For that matter I have never promoted atheism. I don't know what it means for starters. If I promote anything it would be informed choice before jumping in bed with any club, society or cult. If something needs brainwashing of children or preying on vulnerable adults in order to boost membership rather than laying out the benefits of membership to informed adults then it really needs to have a good think about relevance.