“On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.”

I am not suggesting RD is lying, but he ticks the boxes for:
a) arguing from a prejudicial framework
b) attempting to deconstruct theological arguments whilst refuting that theology is a valid scholarly pursuit or one that he ought to acquire a working knowledge of, and
c)presenting the ‘evidence’ in accordance with a prejudicial bias, amplifying the negatives, negating the positives.

In this discussion, Richard Dawkins is the person expressing the opposing argument. You are belittling the opponent not that issue being under discussion. (You can probably guess where we are going with this). That’s ad hominem in my opinion (or more exactly it’s poisoning the well).

AC1

He presents a worldview and defends it akin to its being a ’cause’.
He uses agressive/dismissive terminology about those who disagree with him. (Even he concedes that).
Both of these fit with the etymological variant uses of the word militant, which comes from the latin ‘militare’ meaning to serve as soldier for a cause.

I use it as a perjorative and am happy to do so and in the context of the post specified that it was used in context and not in general against atheists per se.

And with regards to your post: yes any person or institution who tries to influence peoples opinions with recourse to polemic, ridicule, abuse and so on should be termed militant. I happily extend that moniker to atheists, theists, politicians, journalists, preachers alike.

To influence by subtler or gentler means is not akin to militancy.

I hope I have clarified my use of the term militancy and demonstrated that it is a very useful term when written and read correctly.