not get bogged down in definitions of "atheist" or "heathen"
Which is why I didn't include that in my first post.
Personally I would agree with much, but not all, of the points in the article. But I don't think that is the point. More importantly I do think there is a case for re-assessing the manner of public discussion of atheism and irreligiosity for many of the reasons cited in the article.
I certainly think that discussions about atheism should be less about attacking religion, and more about demonstrating how unecessary and irrelevant it is and can be.
I think Dawkins does a reasonable job of this, although I personally find his manner a little irritating.