It's always interesting to see how Dawkins manages to make the defensible seem indefensible until you realize his antireligious tirades are based on an embarrassing amount of speculation and stereotype.

Whereas?

embarrassing amount of speculation and stereotype? As in what the Clergy and Mullahs have been preaching for centuries?

The point is that is, as you say, speculation and stereotype are somewhat expected of people who are defending their religion. This is one thing that Dawkins accuses them of, whereas he is the scientist that only believes as he does because of incontrovertible evidence.
I just find it ironic that in wandering out of his area of expertise and venturing to build a case on propositions about history, politics, economics, and sociology (claiming to show that religion is dangerous and should actively be fought against), he makes the same mistake, using to some extent the same methods of which he hotly accuses religious individuals.

he makes the same mistake, using to some extent the same methods of which he hotly accuses religious individuals.

Agreed, but the words "some extent" is critical though.

Ah, but would Dawkins even admit that much. I was actually studying at New College (his college at Oxford) when he spoke at the Oxford Union...as far as I can tell, he doesn’t give an inch either in print or in person, which may be part of his reputation as a "fundamentalist" atheist.

His counterpart seems to be rational, a little perhaps.

I wonder if Elton John and Richard Dawkins are buddies.

Hmm...XP as Dawkins counterpart?
Human and computer models of rationality?
Will Windows ultimately lose in the battle of survival of the fittest? (iE definitely loses to Firefox)
Or am I not getting it?

Elton and Richard...Both rich and British...I wonder if they ever get invited to the same parties.

elree, above I'm referring to Sam Harris speaking on spirituality, you've probably click on the wrong link, I didn't refer to XP or computers.

Ah, funny, your link took me to a Windows XP clipping...you see why I was lost.
Harris, yes, can you try sending the link again?

Any instrumental value of xianity (say, as a source of charity) is IRRELEVANT to its doctrinal truth claims.

"Theology is a subject without an object."