in no way strengthens the case--and so if that's where you want to leave it, I will sleep soundly tonight.
Polemicists can stay in my good graces while employing occasional ridicule. If a disputant's considered position can be summarized as 'I'm rational; you're idiots' then I am
calling the person a nut--which for me means a person whose views are eccentric enough that they may be disregarded by upright people who care about pursuing truth.
Dawkins does not positively affirm the non-existence of 'god[s]'; he argues that there is no credible evidence for such a belief--and that the known arguments in favor of such belief are unconvincing and logically flawed. I have not witnessed Dawkins ever claiming 'to prove the nonexistence of the most abstract concept of god'.
If believers feel offended by Dawkins' words, I would like to see the specific quotation. Until then, I am unsympathetic to their predictable I'm offended
caviling. Alternatively, I don't see atheists taking refuge in their wounded feelings at the hands of religious people.
Were I to learn Dawkins was about to dramatically soften his rhetoric so as to hurt religious people's feelings less, I would be severely--lo, mortally