There are also many definitions of god, and Dawkins engages with all of them. Dawkins is much more strongly opposed do theism, than deism for example. He engages with philosophical ideas about god.

Dawkins argues that we don’t need god to explain the universe, life, or anything else. He further goes on to argue that religious belief in god trains people to be irrational fanatics, which damages society, progress, science. In the end Dawkins says, there’s no proof for the existence of god, and that we would all be better off without religion. However IIRC Dawkins recognizes that religious belief can have positive psychological effects.

The new atheists have become their own subculture with its own values. The online new atheist scene also attracts people who love to argue, provoke, and pick fights. Contrarians and skeptics are not the same, but can overlap.

There‘s also a pipeline that goes like this: new atheism > anti religion > anti islam > white nationalism

The issue here is that the left has abandoned its opposition to religion, especially regarding Islam, in the name of anti-racism and intersectional identity politics. So these people are rejected by the left and driven to the right.

I've never witnessed an atheist making such an argument. Usually it's the theists getting hung up on him because they are used to appealing to authority figures and project.

I unironically think the braindead atheism online greatly contributed to the rise of Christian nationalism we've been seeing in the past decade...

Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins' books as proof that there is no god

As was said earlier by someone else, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Isn't it? I mean I haven't read his stuff or otherwise cared that much but I thought that was the point.

I really don't know.

In general I don't quite understand the point of OP. How do you learn without learning?