I'm sure he would speak of his "followers" in the twitter sense but even Dawkins would, I presume, not wish to see "follower" described in the belonging sense.

It seems easy, too easy in fact to elevate his stance to that of providing an alternative to religion. I have read some of his books and nowhere did I see evidence for this. As he is a scientist I reckon if he had such a mission, he would give clear evidence to promote it.

Grishka. Abuse may not be clever or pretty, but when given out in equal measure to the general stereotyping abuse hurled at the majority of "religion is to do with others not me" rational people, your recognition of who is providing abuse says much about where you might stand on this debate.

Take Seaman Stains for instance. He seems so fascinated by Dawkins that you wonder what his beef is. If you mention that religions brainwash children he will naturally assume you point your carpet towards Oxford and worship him.

I used to worship his missus though when she was a scantily clad Dr Who assistant back in the 70s.

But that's a different sort of worship to any religious one.

And much more healthy for that matter. .....