Getting agnostics to admit that they are atheists.
One of the things RRS seems to be interested is getting agnostics to admit that they are really atheists. I'm personally half way there, perhaps just one more intellectual stumbling block for me to cross before I feel comfortable considering myself an atheist. (we'll get to that in a bit)
There are reasons why agnostics distinguish themselves from atheists, and although these reasons are flawed (IMO) all that means is we need to get good at exposing these flaws, right?
So here are some points that need to be addressed:
1) What it means to believe.
I can think of two ways to define 'belief'.
One is that 'affirmative feeling', the other is the 'would you act on this?' question.
If it's the former then I'm agnostic because I sometimes get that 'affirmative feeling' of something greater. Rationalising has lessened the occurance of this affirmative feeling but it's still there. People who consider themselves open minded will be open to these 'affirmative feelings' and think that they sometimes believe, making the 'atheist' tag seem inappropiate.
However, if we were to use the latter definition, the "would you act on this?" (it's often said that if you really believe in something then you act on it) then so many more people would be happier to consider themselves atheistic. Most agnostics act as if God isn't there. I also think that it would clear up other confusions e.g. someone who got an 'affirmative feeling' about a racial prejudice might be appalled at themselves and think that they are racist. However, there's a large difference between one of these feelings (that we've probably all had at some point or other) and a 'rationalised' thought out belief that one acts on (like a real racist who actively discriminates in practice).
(PS. If we settle this one here then I'm officially an atheist!)
2) Rejection of supernaturalism does not mean rejection of mysticism
The most common objection to Dawkins' or Harris' "religion is irrational/bad" stance is "what about Buddhism?"
As it happens, neither of them are against Buddhism.
We all know Harris' support of mysticism and although I can't think of an exact quote from Dawkins, his criticisms tend to be aimed at supernaturalistic dogmas. I'm certain he's said good things about the character of Jesus at some point or other.
Both are fine with religion myths as metaphor/culture and would definately agree that we can learn valuable things from religious teaching. What they are fighting against is practical disasters caused by delusion. The use of supernaturalistic dogma to make irrational arguments against stem cell research and condom use.
When you couple this separation of mysticism and supernatural with the refined definition of belief (i.e. acting on rather than 'affirmative feeling' then you might find that there's a lot of moderates who are in it for the mysticism and realise that they don't really 'believe' in supernaturalism...
These are the most important two that come to my mind. I'll be sure to post any more that I think of and you guys can add your own ideas.