Sure. Oh and i hope you understand my two comments were unrelated yes. For the first that was directed at you, I am not aware of any such statement so was just generally curious. It sounds a bit out there. I am familiar with Dawkings and Hitchens, and Krause and like 1000 other people out there who share a similar sentiment that certain methods of which children are exposed to religion can be considered child abuse and not a soft sense of child abuse, but legitimate and sincere child abuse. I often think such parallels have made some a bit skeptical of say Dawkings, and I can understand why - but at the same time I think people can't be unfair in the sense Dawkings has met quite a few people and even interviewed some, who were raised under horrific circumstances where religion was used as a tool that left psychological scars which have affected them for their entire lives. Very candid interviews, so I think if people project this idea that Dawkings (or anyone else for that matter) is this intellectual elitist in his ivory tower who casts judgement on regular humble folk who are religious - I think they misunderstand. Dawkings like many people interact with real victims who don't really have a voice. Like the Clergy Project as well, another way of helping people who exist but for some reason or the other are kind of trapped by the implications of religion. I hope it doesn't sound like I am doubting you mind you, just Dawkings tends to be quote mined a lot and various sources pass on and around made up quotes and just well you sort of get what I mean?
The garbled point bit (not so much directed at you) is.. well for example, I am addressing sentiment sincerely expressed yes? With insincere sentiment directed at humans who cut off monkey fingers because if one or two humans cut off monkey fingers it totally makes sense to talk about those humans as if they represent all humans especially since cutting off monkey fingers is such an integral part of what it means to be a human. Now some people may criticize drunk driving? Except I might be a drunk person who loves to drink and drive (I am not) so I get highly defensive about people talking about drunk diving and how its bad and if I start talking about how bad humans are with their cutting off of monkey fingers... Often people who don't understand atheism or that it can lack a positive belief element will try and equate it to asserting positive knowledge as well as paint the idea it is a religion. Ditto evolution. Ditto science. If there are atheists who view Richard Dawkings as some authority figure beyond reproach? They are doing it wrong. If people think that science requires belief? They are doing it wrong. Good science is about understanding not believing. Sure there might be some self proclaimed atheists who believe in Richard Dawkings the same way a religious person might the Pope but essentially they are the humans that cut monkey fingers off. Then again the effort required to just make up stuff and assert stuff about science is so much easier than actually addressing opposing views. ^_^