It's interesting that the discussion is in terms of God exists/doesn't exist. I think that already includes a pretty significant context. It's worth also considering the relevancy of the belief; the degree to which one's beliefs operate within that context. For example, that there is (or maybe there isn't) a guy on some planet somewhere named Booglifoog -- it makes no difference to me -- the question is irrelevant.
It's like skiing in the trees; if you want to succeed at this, focus on the spaces between the trees, not on the trees. Dawkins, for whatever reason, is distinctly focused on the trees.
I had a similar thought when I read about Dawkin's axis (which I didn't know about). It implies either an active embrace or rejection of god - particularly of the abrahamic god - that doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was born in a very non-religious setting.
It's like skiing in the trees; if you want to succeed at this, focus on the spaces between the trees, not on the trees. Dawkins, for whatever reason, is distinctly focused on the trees.