A. I didn't see a question, but I did see you use a lot of loaded language.

B. Mostly skimming, stopping to read certain parts that I find more interesting, that sort of thing. I rarely read any book from beginning to end. Don't have the time to do that. Let's take Dawkins' book for example. I'll admit that he's a good writer in the sense that he has good writing skills, fine prose. I find his argumentation weak. Same really for Hitchens, who in some areas I like. Hitchens seems to be the more caustic of the two, with a strong sarcastic streak. They both tend to attack people who don't act as they should and they attack straw men. Hitchens' work is more autobiographical in nature, more personal. That's fine, but mostly reads like one set of bad experiences after another more than anything else. Both are screeds, long-winded rants, are short when it comes to refutation. Both cited Michael Shermer, a Southern California atheist and skeptic who has written many books, but fails to understand certain important aspects of philosophy. This came through in a debate he had with Greg Koukl, where Koukle repeatedly tried to explain that one's epistemology needs an ontological foundation, but Shermer just wasn't getting it. Dawkins, I think, has a longer section on morality, and it has no foundation and ends up being subjective. He's aware of Antony Flew but only covered him in a footnote, but he should have read Flew's discussion on the is/ought fallacy since Dawkins falls right into it. I also noticed that they didn't include contemporary atheist philosophers such as Michael Martin, nor Christian philosophers like Greg Bahnsen, William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga. They discussed alleged Bible contradictions, but neglected to deal with the solutions that have been around for many years and put out there by scholars. Instead they take on old and weak arguments, sort of like a professional basketball team claiming victory after they beat a bunch of elementary (primary) school players. They had their chance to take on the grown-ups, the experts, but failed to do so.

C. Your point on religion is simply irrational. Bertrand Russell's teapot was one that circled the sun and related to the burden of proof. It's the ancestor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really an example of mockery and a straw man since no one believes it. Some viewpoints are less likely. Well, duh. Actually some viewpoints can be ruled out altogether as being impossible, some physically and others logically. I read Russell's creed many years ago, "Why I Am Not A Christian," and his basic point is that there was insufficient evidence. However, by showing the impossibility of the contrary (called transcendental argumentation) it is possible to show that the entire atheist worldview is impossible, then one is left with the contrary, which is theism.

D. Robertson isn't a fraud when it comes to charitable contributions, but his beliefs are out there for anyone to refute as well, just as I did on Dawkins and Hitchens. I'll even throw in Shermer and Sam Harris if you want. These so-called New Atheists don't have the same reasoning ability as the older ones and are more squishy, but unlike the older generation enjoys mocking and insulting people. If I wanted that I'd go see Don Rickles. At least in person Hitchens was more reasonable.

E. I am a nice guy, but in this country taking a piss means something else entirely! LOL