I think militant atheists like Dawkins, Atkins, Hutch, etc are emotionally feeble minded with their "it's either this or that" preaching. They are no better than any of the evangelical, beat you over the head with a bible preachers, or militant muslims that would like to fly more planes into buildings.
There are many avenues that lead us to knowledge. Science attempts to help us understand the environment that we live in. It investigates, measures, and ultimately attempts to explain the cause of things. When questions of value/meaning related to our cosmos and individual lives are asked, science has no competence in this area. People since the dawn of time have turned to religion for these questions. Intellectual giants of the past have shown us that the 2 areas compliment one another. It's laughable to see our new secularists beating their chests while attempting to outsmart religious fundamentalists who are no better than they are.
Humble scientists like Francis Collins experienced a deepening of his faith when heading the Human Genome Project. His scientific humility is a pleasure to experience. There are many brilliant scientists like him. It's silly to shout that atheists have more scientists than theists have. This is not some football game where the blue team fans are being counted to see if they out number the red team's gang of thugs.
Here is paleontologist, evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould's take:
I'm not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot know. Nonetheless … I have a great respect for religion. The subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the stunning historical paradox that organized religion has fostered throughout Western history, both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heartrending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger.
I believe with all my heart in a respectful, even loving, concordat between the magisteria of science and religion … on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic solution. [This] also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility leads to important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. We would do well to embrace the principle and enjoy the consequences.
We become intellectual midgets when we start saying things that are strictly to one-up someone with different views, values, and beliefs. I do not believe anyone is intellectually justified to give or not give another human being "a pass" for believing something different than he.