I'm in a weird position on that. I tend to agree with Sil, BUT, I see the value and even the necessity of a man like Dawkins. Hitchens I'm not so familiar with (thus being ignorant of his less then flattering comments) but Dawkins and his ilk are pretty much necessary, though at times very unlikeable. I mean, we're dealing with deeply set taboo here. You need to be able to de-mystify people towards the topic before you can have an actually beneficial discourse on it. Dawkins, 'The Dick', is the kind of person who can do that, but he isn't that great at what comes afterwards (the more reasoned debate I mean).
As neckbeard as it sounds, mocking has it's place. You think people would have had the discourse they are having now about, say, Christianity, if people hadn't still considered it to be some special, essential part of society? I've said this before, but somethings you just need a Dick to go for the throat and show everyone that it can bleed. That's when people will talk about it fairly.
