They have yet to master doorknobs, and therefore have yet to gift me with anything raw or wrigglin’.

Over here in Europe (Germany) we generally don’t have (round) doorknops, but handles. These are mastered quite expertly by them (if they go easy enough to be operated by their weight …).
Opening cabinet doors is a sight to behold! I hope I can one day make a video of them opening my cabinets. They put a paw to the handle, standing on their hind legs and then take a few steps backwards – et voilà – open is the door.

Hydrogen requires an enormous and specialized infrastructure, and seems to be geared towards supporting the same crooks who are now ruling the oil industry.

Electricity is generally already available in many of the areas which most need change, and within the reach of anyone with a modest degree of specialized knowledge.

One of my down-the-list somewhat projects is the conversion of either a Honda Odessey van with the towing package or else a 1990-or-earlier Mistubishi Colt to electricity.

They have yet to master doorknobs, and therefore have yet to gift me with anything raw or wrigglin’.

However, a friend once had a cat that had been separated from his mum too young. He knew how to catch things, but left the killing to her.

He also couldn’t groom himself, which meant that my friend had to pull the slugs and other riders from his fur.

In such manner she came to loathe garter snakes, frogs, salamanders, and many other beasts of field and woodland. As well as, eventually, cats.

She once said that it would have been okay did he not drop whatever tasty morsel he brought into the tub while she was showering. Her husband became adept at arising with wrathful broom in hand almost before the despairing wail was out of her mouth.

I’ll get my neck wrung for this, but oh well.

No, you won’t. As an atheist, I generally don’t run around wringing other people’s necks because they believe things that I don’t believe.

you can examine for yourself the disconnect between what Richard Dawkins claims one particular verse of scripture means vs. what Jesus himself says it means.

I’ld be quite astonished if Richard Dawkins and I would agree on some specific interpretation of a bible verse, which – by the way – is not a single verse, but appears several times in the bible. Incidentally, the first appearance is Leviticus 19:18, which reads something like (I’ve never read an english version of the book, but several german translations):

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

This clearly is linked to the children of thy people, so regarding the first appearance of this concept, it is hard to not interpret it as meaning love another jew.
You’re surely right that most of the other umpteen mentions of this concept refer to strangers (at least those being around) as well.

Regarding

what Jesus himself says it means

I could not care less. Why should I care about a suggested interpretation, that some of the apostles credit to Jesus, written down hundreds of years later by unknown authors? Large passages of the new testament are explanations of what was possibly meant by verses in the old testament, specifically what Jesus supposed they should mean.
Sure, Dawkins probably is not the first authority to do biblical exegesis, nor am I. But both Dawkins and I are able to see a contradiction (either written in the bible or appearing in how some believer or other condescends to interpret it, depending on the occasion).
Thank you for your attention.
Yeti