Quibbling. Ok, let's accept your position. They aren't fallacies if you choose to believe that the OP doesn't really have a problem with Dawkins' position. S

Quibbling. Ok, let's accept your position. They aren't fallacies if you choose to believe that the OP doesn't really have a problem with Dawkins' position. So what are they then? Derogatory assertions without offering any argument to back them up? Childish insults? And anyway, why is the OP so passionate about it all? Frankly, I doubt very much that he accepts Dawkins' factual claims. Why to I think this? Because he rejects the one factual claim that Dawkins is quoted as making in the article (40% of the western population holding creationist beliefs). You only have to watch Dawkins in action for 5 minutes in an interview to know that the guy weighs what he says and writes very carefully indeed, and will always have studies to back up these types of claim. This all leads me to believe that'fallacy' is the right word in responding.