While the smoke is still coming from the error burn I might just add that the point of my reply was that atheisim did not make Dawkins famous, if anything it was the other way around.

I didn't read the original poster as saying that atheism made Dawkins famous. In fact, I thought your original reply was far more poignant. In it I thought you were making the point that Dawkins isn't only famous for his atheism. And that would indeed be true - he wrote other books where he is famous for his expounding of evolution and natural selection. But if your point was actually that "atheism did not make Dawkins famous" then I think that's missing what the original poster was claiming. He was merely claiming that Dawkins was famous for his atheism - much like a famous sports star is famous for their football. Dawkins is perhaps most famous for his atheism, but he is also famous for his ability to convey the ideas of evolution and natural selection.

I don't know the answer to the question about the assumed evolutionary advantages bestowed on theists. Is it more advantageous to follow the preist or the prophet, or is more advantageous to do a bit of both and let god/evolution sort it out?

Just to put my thoughts on the record, which I think are similar to your sentiments, I don't actually think that we can measure advantageousness in any meaningful way. If someone is born with 10% better hearing, they're not going to have a meaningful enough advantage that will allow them to pass their genes on in such a way that it spreads through the whole population eventually. And if it won't happen for 10% better hearing, it's not going to happen for the small changes that neo-Darwinism speaks about. I think it's quite useless to postulate about which behaviours or ideas should be spread more, because of presumed evolutionary benefits.

Ultimately it is too difficult for us to predict which traits will be most useful. I think if you're an atheist you really can't comment meaningfully about which traits are better for our race. There's simply too many variables, possibilities, and environments to consider. As you essentially said, let god/evolution sort it out! As a theist I don't think survival is the greatest good anyway. It's just interesting to see atheists act as though it is important that we identify which traits are most advantageous. Why should they care if theism succeeds? Obviously it's the most successful in this given environment if it succeeds. Let the chips fall where they may.

That is why he didn't jus put the computer in ther frezer - Instead, he set up the system to just cool the CPU and the GPU. Granted, anything that cold will affect the ambient temperature in the computer, but then didn't have it in a case, so the cool will disapate faster.