The difference between agnostics and atheists is that the latter do have "a faith", by which I mean a settled belief about how the world works. If it's only provisional, a matter of "probably", or even "almost certainly", they are agnostics.

An "atheist" who professes absolute certainty is not a proper atheist, just a twit. So, going from that and from what you say, there are not really any atheists at all. Certainly, Dawkins doesn't fit the bill, and neither do I. But I'm not bothered. In any case, "atheist" is an unfortunate word with negative undertones and I'll shed it without regret if you insist. But that leads to your next problem in that what you're left with, "agnostics", is woefully inadequate in expressing the spectrum of convictions from the debating almost-certain thinking near-atheist right down to the don't-give-a-shit-about-none-of-that-stuff bloke down the pub, with plenty of in-betweens. My view is that "agnostic" bears too much connotation of unsure fence-sitting blending to apathy. There a brand of lily-livered-ism, too, that passes for "agnostic", the insurance policy brigade. Just a thought. I can't really be arsed to argue the point, to be honest.   

While in many parts of the world atheists may reasonably see themselves as battling against "a massive tide", that is hardly the case in England, at least in metropolitan England if anything it's the other way round, it. Is believers who are in that situation.

It depends on whether you open your mouth. In our local paper yer in Cornwall where church and chapel hold sway, a brave chap frequently gets an atheistic polemic printed in the letters pages (lovely chap though he has too little regard for outcome, unfortunately). He gets plenty of flak and not a lot of support. I know we don't get shot at much or locked away for heresy these days. I'm not especially aware of believers having to fight back the tide. Not round here anyway. One thing you do NOT bring up down the pub is religion.