The article referred to "Militant Atheists", supposedly those who proselytize, and as I said in my original response, atheists very rarely do this. This is a straw man/red herring logical fallacy.

Let me modify this remark. After reviewing substantial literature, there is a concept of a "militant atheist". Unfortunately that concept varies widely between authors and philosophers. Some see "militant atheists" as akin to atheist fundamentalists, driven by hard dogma and aggressive in trying to convert theists to give up their beliefs. Dawkins is often used as an example, as he publishes his views widely. But as he protests, he is not trying to convert believers, he calls himself militant because he wants atheists to come out of the closet and argue for their position, and he lives this position through his works. But neither he nor Harris nor Hitchens nor Dennett push for the end of religion by force, as a fundamentalist of any faith does.

And the idea that atheists preach "certainty" is also a logical fallacy. Scientists do not say with 100% certainty that the big bang happened naturally, merely that all the scientific evidence, of which there is substantial, points that way. Similarly, atheists do not say with 100% certainty that there is no God, only that the evidence and reason and logic point that way. Dawkins had a great example: I cannot say with 100% certainty that there is a teapot orbiting among Saturn's rings. But I will not give equal weight to the infinitesimally small possibility that there is with the very likely probability that there isn't.

There is a very long, extensive, and thorough discussion of atheism and all its many forms in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and not once did the term "militant atheist" come up. There is discussion in other forums. My objection is having to read about, and respond to, logical fallacies.