Why? Because people generally don’t like to define themselves negatively, by what they aren’t rather than by what they are.

Evidence for this at all? Or only the opinion of the author. This is of course a red herring, since no atheist defines themselves by their non-beliefs, anymore than i define myself by eating chocolate. The author even recognises this and so I fail to understand his point.

That’s the trouble with the new atheism of the Dawkinite, occasionally ranting, intolerant variety – it is seeking to create a movement based on a non-belief,

That's not the case. Professor Dawkins has a website called "For Reason and Science". Where is the evidence to suggest we are building a movement based solely on atheism?

The article is so ridiculous, based on fallacious reasoning with no evidence to support it.