ubertuber

Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.

Honestly I thought that Hitchens book was far more recommendable. It suffered the same flaws, but to a far lesser extent.

Can you say more about your surprise? It only seems natural to me that atheists would be as motivated (if not more) than religious folks to spread their views. I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion though - in that it lacks faith as a component that would seem to be a sloppy classification. In fact, I think one would be missing the point of atheism if they only consider it to be a negative classification - the absence of religious belief. I think of atheists (and myself) as being devoted to the observable universe and rationalism. That's a positive classification (here I mean negative and positive in their classification orientation, not qualitative senses).

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam