Oddly enough I agree with Josep here although I think he's too hard on Steve Shaw who in my opinion has articulated his point-of-view with clarity.

Mao and Stalin were atrocious tyrants.

Atheists have a right to defend their position without being belittled and called "a pain in the ass". One person's concept of "overzealous" might just be another's reasonable expression of concern.

Ron Davis, Richard Dawkins doesn't need to sell books to correctly identify why religion has in many cases changed the brain and corrupted logic and reason. That's the old ploy when you don't agree with someone. "Oh they're just trying to sell books". He passionately believes what he writes about and your accusation that he is somehow insincere and just wants to make money from his ideas is specious and ridiculous. If he wanted to make money he could write a book called "The Purpose Driven Life" although Rich Warren may actually believe the garbage he writes.

Hitler decried atheism in the same way that the Pope does today. They had that in common.

It should be mentioned that many Agnostics are Atheists. It's a big tent.

Darwin was never talking about religion in any of his scientific treatises so that the idea that he was an agnostic was never really verified. At the time, it would have been dangerous for him to declare any form of atheism. This is true with many scientists who worry quite reasonably about their public acceptance and ability to procure grants for their research. In this, he was not that far away from Gallileo.

Einstein, however, thought that organized religion was not useful. He was closer to a pantheon view of religion like Spinoza and would have considered Christianity useless particularly as a method of interpreting science.