I only know of Dawkins' work, but by interacting here I notice there seems to be a missionary zeal about him, wanting to transform 'religious people'. Some of his rhetoric seems a bit inflamatory. Am I reading this wrongly?
I've responded to a couple requests for recommendations, but I don't generally include him. It isnt that I don't like him (I do), but he can strike a reader as antagonistic, and thus perhaps less persuasive.
That was my thinking also. Glad I'm not alone on that
The people who express the most vitriol on this site are the posters who have been victimized by their former religious organizations. They are also the biggest supporters of inflammatory Atheist writers as well. I view both inflammatory Atheists and Religionists as two sides of the same coin. Neither represent the highest form of human thought, but both are experiencing necessary stages toward our highest human expression. Our highest form of expression is that which demonstrates complete and perfect understanding.
Actually, I misspoke slightly. I do view vitriolic Atheists at a higher stage of evolution than vitriolic Religionists. So they wouldn't be on the same coin, they would be on the same side of different level coins.