That post of yours reminded me of Ninoy's speech in the US when he said never to use violence against others, for this act will justify their violence. I as a humanist also share the same sentiments of doing non-aggression to those who believe. Given we may call them retards, should we force speech pathological individuals to speak, or judge them because they can speak good?
An attitude of bitterness or hatred, as well as any sort of unjustified competition, as well as aggressiveness towards others is possibly a projection of our attitudes against those whom we insist to justify our violence.
However, on pointing out criticisms against religion, I think one must understand it should be straightforward and more informative rather doing often casual things like God-busting or religion-bashing. Whenever we read works like that of Dawkins or Harris we see that criticisms are precised and informative rather delivered out of personal sentiments of bitterness and hatred.
We never have to be intelligent or intellectual to be atheists. We just have to keep our reasons relevant and always searching for solutions.
Confidence is not arrogance. We have to stay informative. We have to impress people around us, (non-believers, strong believers, or teenage bandwagon jerks), with our results. We have to impress them with our finished products rather our persuasion that it is an "important product".
Anyway, what makes us humans different as atheists or theists? (I know some would butt in the latter is dumb and stupid, but its a senseless statement beyond reasonable doubt)
Surely what is obvious is what only differs is a pinch of our belief systems. Unless they are too fanatic to avoid atheists with their God-generated radar systems. But in a secular society, a Christian doing secular things and only leaving a few spaces for God (about 1%) to intervene, we can't judge them stupids agad.