"I can think of several alternate words and phrases to describe your participation in and starting of this discussion, but to call you them would violate the terms of use of this board. "

This is an insulting remark and typical of the religious reaction to non-belief.
It belies the objectivity that a true discussion of this issue would engender.

Actually the original premise of this thread is that somehow a "militant atheist"
which has not really been defined is somehow equated with a fundamentalist religion. There is no church, no ritual, no hymn, no profession of any kind of
faith involved in non-belief and as much as some would like to pigeonhole those as non-belief, the hostility it engenders far exceeds any supposed hostility to religious people by non-believers. Once again, I will make myself clear. Neither Dawkins or me are hostile to religion but it has to be questioned within the bounds of reason.

I don't hate religion personally. I have no hostile feelings toward anyone who is religious. Also, I think that their religious delusion doesn't reflect a delusion in any other part of their life. Religious people can lead productive lives and contribute immensely to society. In my view, this is despite and not because of their professed religious beliefs.

My interpretation of what Dawkins is saying is that religion can cause people to do awful things and witness what is going on in Syria right now. I see no hostility in Dawkins at all toward religious people. His approach is to interview them in order to understand why they believe the way they do.

As for his scientific creds, I think he has proven them. His book, "The Greatest
Show on Earth" is a love letter to Darwin and is beautifully done.

"The important phase, however, was when Dawkins, flattered by the success of his popular books, strayed to areas of "Social/Sociological Darwinism", which is an ideology not backed by science at all."

This is a disguised ad hominem criticism by maintaining that it is an ego-driven pursuit to be "popular" and how do you know he is flattered by anything?
I don't see that he has strayed to "Social Darwinism" which has been used by
Libertarians and traditional "moneybags" business people to claim a statement never uttered by Darwin, "Survival of the fittest" to justify their wealth at the expense of the poor.

As for scientific proof, there has been none offered for the "faith" by religious people. Since you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy), the defense of religion can't be offered on scientific grounds.

My reading of Dawkins is that he is more concerned with what religion does to people rather than of what it consists. The behavioral track record doesn't look too good.

There may be some possible disagreements that I could find with Dawkins and my point is that there is no unilateral tenet or creed among people of non-belief
that would make them acolytes of a "militant" idea. This is a total misunderstanding of the people of non-religion.

"Militant" has a pejorative connotation in the eyes of the defenders of "faith"
and thereby is a weapon contrived to discredit non-belief.

There are many different ideas about non-belief that belie any militant conformity.