I observe a strong resistance from atheists towards being “lumped together” with others who share their particular worldview. Considering that many of the most prominent atheists of the past century were such charming characters as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, I can understand the reticence. However, I do not observe the same aversion from atheists towards lumping all other religions together – and thus to Richard Dawkins, it seems that every theist is automatically equivalent to a young-Earth-Creationist / Islamic-Jihadist suicide bomber (depending of course on whether he wishes to conjure an illusion of ignorance or fear at that point).
Personally, I don’t lump atheists together because of similarity of lifestyle or personality. I’m not so concerned with whether or not the fervent and aggressive preaching style offered by Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. is distasteful to a particular atheist. I am concerned more with whether there is an overlap in the substance and justification for their beliefs.
Let’s take an example of a similarly influential and prominent Christian writer, C. S. Lewis. There are certain viewpoints which Lewis expresses in his writing that I would disagree with, but I cannot object to being “lumped in” with Lewis as a Christian, because in the core articles of our faith we are virtually identical. There may be secondary issues of faith (trans-substantiation, for instance) that I disagree with the Pope about. There may be personal viewpoints which differ greatly between us. For that matter, although I would love to chat to him on matters spiritual, I don’t know how much I’d have in common personally with the apostle Paul. But the foundational doctrines of our faith: the divine creation of the universe; that God’s involvement in His creation is continually ongoing; the divinity of Jesus Christ; the redemption for sin offered by God in the death and resurrection of Jesus; the universal availability of that redemption to all who turn to Him … these we hold in common. And we also hold in common the acceptance that secondary theological issues are exactly that – secondary.
Now, if someone wants to quibble about whether young-Earth creationists are being scientifically disingenuous, or whether there is sufficient theological support for the doctrine of intercession of the saints, that’s fine. But to expand that sort of secondary issue as being an argument for or against Christianity is to elevate a very under-represented viewpoint to the position of official Christian straw-man, and does not do any credit to the discourse.