I've read Armstrong--didn't find her or her arguments particularly compelling.

Taking on fundies would indeed be going after the low-hanging fruit. One friend compared the practice to picking on the autistic kid in class. And if that were what Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens (and Dan Dennett) were up to, I wouldn't find them particularly interesting either.

They're more like ditch diggers, publicly doing the heavy shovel-work that most doubters (and/or opponents) of religion fear to do. "Coming out" as an athiest is a daunting proposition, with the potential to isolate someone from those he/she holds dear. Imagine, for example, someone running for high political office who had once put up a Youtube video explaining his/her athiesm. Mind-numbing shows of piety would be the opponent's very first weapon of choice.

We are programmed to give respect and not to challenge religions, so even people who themselves are not particularly religious will often take great offense at the pronouncements of those who deem religions as worthy only of great scrutiny, critique, even outright rejection. Even the term "athiest" can only be grudgingly accepted--but many dislike its use, claiming that labeling someone "athiest" is like describing someone as a "nonstampcollector" because he doesn't collect stamps. (Here's a chap who has taken that on as his handle, and who makes fun videos.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0&p=7420408E36541DA4&playnext=1&index=13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CweL5dlzTA

In my opinion, Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett are doing important work--not ranting. They are carving out a space for free inquiry that previously has been very difficult to locate.

Herring405