Some of us seem to be reading different books here. Ima sceptic seems to think Dawkins is an agnostic, but in 'The poverty of agnosticism' Dawkins states that he's an atheist, which is surely the gist of The God Delusion anyway. Ima also reckons that D.H.Wilson is simply an atheist-Dawkins-basher in disguise - having read the first couple of pages! - and tells him (her? it?) to attack Dawkins accurately and honestly if he wants "respect". An attack after a couple of pages doesn't earn my respect. I've read the whole of Wilson's "guide", and unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, he begins by explaining why he can't share Dawkins' atheistic faith in chance as the creator of life, heredity, new organs etc. (even Dawkins admits it's "very, very improbable"), and then goes on to explain why he can't share anyone's faith in the God or gods of the established religions. That sounds like agnosticism to me. As a fence-sitting agnostic myself, I'm sick of aggressive atheists and religious know-alls bombarding us with beliefs masquerading as facts, and I'm grateful to Wilson for giving me a rational explanation for why I feel so uneasy about other people's certainties. How the hell (oops! I must be a believer!) can c.souter say he (she) knows "for a fact, 100%, that there is no such thing as a god"? Mind-boggling. I do agree, though, with Mike that the crucial issue is how we can influence society for good, but I don't think this discussion is irrelevant. A plea for tolerance sounds more convincing to me if it comes from someone who doesn't insist that he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. By the way, I also agree with Maria that your spam checker is too difficult.