As for the zeal of atheists: I somewhat agree, it is very, almost ideologically militant nowadays. I am myself a concrete atheist, but I think what dawkins and the other great voices of atheism has misunderstood, is that religion in it self is a harmless thing. But it is like taking the lid of off a petri dish, the base is enourmously susceptible for bacteria. In this case, the bacteria in my view is unquestioned idealism.

Ideals too important for anything to get in the way.

On that note, atheism might well be a bit safer, since the petri dish in this case has a lid of reasoning and skepticism, however frail that might prove to be it is still better than none.

As for the wording “pro-evolutionary front”, that is just making a solid scientific theory, that has not met any biological phenomena that could not be explained by it for almost 200 years, sound silly and rebellious.

As for secular social cohesion, join a sports club, throw a party..

What does the lecturer think about Buddhism which is not theist?

Religion obviously fulfills social functions. What are you going to replace these means of strengthening social cohesion with? I see the secularisation of society in the UK as speeding up social disintegration. Religion provided a strong social glue which has not been replaced satisfactorily.