I did. You’re ignoring other definitions of the word and demanding that only one be allowed.
Atheism is a religion, a system of beliefs. His belief about a deity is that non exist, but it is taken on faith as much as anyone’s belief that God DOES exist.
In behavior, he is a just another fundamentalist religious fanatic. He is NO different than those he condemns.
*************************************************************
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles *Islamic fundamentalism* *political fundamentalism*
Main Entry: re·li·gious
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity *a religious person* *religious attitudes*
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : fervent, zealous
Main Entry: fa·nat·ic
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion *they’re fanatic about politics*
*************************************************************
Dawkins fits the definition.
>>"I am sorry. Richard Dawkins is perfect. I never should have criticized him."
Apparently, I did not make myself clear. I in no way defending Dawkins. For the record, Dawkins is a "fool."
Psalm 14
1The fool has (A)said in his heart, "There is no God "
metmom: your use of the *secondary* definition while ignoring the original and *primary* definition seems a little disingenuous: (from your source)
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
----------------------------------------
Intending the secondary and derivative definition (derived from nearly a century of pejorative false usage) instead of the original meaning, especially in a discussion of a religious subject, could cause someone (who did not know your intention) to imagine that you were only intending to perpetuate the media slur against a large number of your brothers in Christ.
Furthermore, the secondary usage could refer ro many Catholics, as well as many others.
Therefore, the original statement regarding Dawkins is so ambiguous as to convey no determinable meaning.
DG