I'm pretty sure most folks that come to this section of DU know who Dawkins is, and which side of the logic fence he's on...

But give him time

I am an atheist, and no one represents me, which is exactly how I want things to be.
Dragging Dawkins out every time he says something stupid is like dragging out everything Creflo Dollar says. Except, of course, atheists have no "leaders" or pastors or any of that other stuff.

You may have no leaders, but plenty of other atheists look up to this guy and tout him as some kind of new model atheist. He may be a good biologist, but he just doesn't seem to have a handle on this 'dealing with people' thing.

While I don't think he speaks for atheists at all, I see it as a bad thing that others think he does.

And he doesn't seem to be getting the message at all, even though it is becoming increasingly loud and strident from within the atheist community.

"brown-eyed community" - except that lumping atheists into a "community" makes it easier to marginalize or demonize them.
I didn't really get the need for the lists of atheists movie stars or famous people or whatever. Who, seriously, cares?
Not being sarcastic, just mystified at the need to identify atheists. I don't care or need to know who is a theist, unless they want to inflict some theist stuff onto me. Never occurs to me to ask about that sort of thing, really.

note that there is also a growing number of "spiritual but not religious" people who also reject the idea of a community.

You may not be a member, but many atheists are lumping themselves into communities and I think their purpose is exactly the opposite of what you describe. I think they are doing it because it is empowering and gives them louder voice.

I posted the list of famous atheists because I think there will be less marginalization and demonization as people begin to recognize that some that they respect and even adore are nonbelievers. It worked in the GLBT civil rights movement and I think it can work here.

How dare he. Once again, he makes it all about him and in the most condescending, demeaning way possible. One can almost envision him patting her on the head.

Her bravery vs. his cowardice - stunning.

but recall that it's deathly dangerous to his theses to have examples of non-Taliban Muslims running about (heck, even demanding that Islam "reform" is begging the question, since there's numerous non-fundamentalist or -conservative strands of thought that have existed for centuries)

his problem is that he can never understand why anybody could *want* to be a Muslim, nor is he interested in finding out

she's doubtless heard she's "too young to know what Islam's about" too often for this to have effect on her (except maybe for some flashbacks to the bus)

Take the same person and raise them in a Christian society and they'll want to be Christian more than likely.

A nephew of mine is an Iranian redneck Southern Baptist of all things, with a little polishing he could go on the comedy club tour since he's got some really funny stories about people's reactions when they see him and when he opens his mouth in a South Georgia drawl and starts witnessing Jesus to them.

Does he do stand up?

He comes across sort of like Henry Cho..

I'm a big fan of stand up and have the utmost admiration for the brave individuals that do it.

The whole southern accent coming from a non-caucasian is comedy gold right there.

Dawkins isn't likely to. That's a marvelous pictorial comment up top. Past and future, a waning colonial patriarchy v. equality for all, including young women with dark skin.

If she is aware of him at all, he is probably a very weak spot on her radar.

He's probably not terribly high on her priorities list.

It may just be bad photography, lighted head-on and shot a bit low, but Dickie Darling is beginning to look a bit pixilated.

the subtext that more educated populations are less religious is ironic.

I thought it was kind of amusing that Dawkins was so condescending towards an incredibly brave young woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and was able to denigrate both her religion and her presumed lack of education at the same time.

Nobody does it better.

I explained what I thought amusing.
I don't think he was denigrating, since he has been an active supporter of hers.
It is a bit off color for sure, I still found it humorous.
Probably reflects badly on me.

You thought it was amusing that he said she wasn't educated enough and would drop her religion when that happened?

Whether he has been a supporter or not, his take on this is condescending and denigrating. She won the Peace Prize, but he still takes the superior, patriarchal position that she is just a little girl who will grow out of her religious beliefs.

Makes me nauseous.

Frankly, your support of this just comes across to me as a knee jerk reaction, so it doesn't really reflect that badly on you personally.