I am one of the minority of atheist bloggers who do not buy into the Dawkins line that Atheism must replace religion. I know deep down that this view is flawed, arrogant, and just as intrusive as the evangelical dominionism I rail against. It is nice to find another voice saying some of the same things. Cosmic Variance's The God Conundrum is worth a read.
...Nevertheless, there remains a spot of controversy — it would appear that Dawkins’s rhetorical force is insufficient to persuade some theists. One example is provided by literary critic Terry Eagleton, who reviewed The God Delusion for the London Review of Books. Eagleton’s review has already been discussed among some of my favorite blogs: 3 Quarks Daily, Pharyngula, Uncertain Principles, and the Valve (twice), to name a few. But it provides a good jumping-off point for an examination of one of the common arguments used against scientifically-minded atheists: “You’re setting up a straw man by arguing against a naive and anthropomorphic view of `God’; if only you engaged with more sophisticated theology, you’d see that things are not so cut-and-dried.”