I think that's true, but probably not in the sense that you intend.
You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?
Having said that, I do agree with you that some fraction of militant atheists do resemble religious fundamentalists. One simularity is both groups' burning passion about religion.
Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.
But the bible-waving fundies and the fire-breathing atheists do care. They care a whole lot. That's an important simularity between them.
Many of the louder atheists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time studying their bibles and quoting bible verses. But the intention now is to discredit Christianity, not to preach it.
More subtly, some of the militant atheists seem to read and understand their bibles in fundamentalist ways. These atheists are staunch upholders of biblical literalism and vocal opponents of allegorical forms of hermeneutics. Atheists can be just as opposed as the fundamentalists are to what both dismissively call "picking and choosing" which bible verses to believe and honor.
I still recall the rather memorable experience of being lectured by atheists on an atheist discussion board on what "true" Christianity is and isn't.
My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth.
I'm not implying that atheists should remain silent while theists preach. That's your interpretation of what I said, but it's not the case at all. I'm pointing out the fact that some atheists are preachy. I can see that you agree, but I'd like to point out a couple of things.
You ask, why should atheists be passive? You make it all sound as though there's some kind of battle going on. There isn't, not if you don't want there to be. If you want a battle against people with opposing views, you'll almost always find one, because preachy, self righteous people are everywhere and you'll always find a partner to do battle with. The typical error is when a preachy self rightous person assumes that everyone with an opposing view to theirs sees it as they do (a battle), and it makes them uncomfortable when they realise that their efforts to engage in battle are in vain.
You ask, why shouldn't atheists state their position and argue vigorously for it? Atheists are welcome to state their position. If they feel passionate and certain about their views, they are welcome to express themselves so. But many atheists cross the line and become preachy, and instead of just expressing opinions, they start arguing "for" their position, as though it's a game or a battle to be won or lost. It isn't. Seeing it in terms of a battle is the first sign of missing the point entirely. There really is nothing at stake, except pride for those who see it that way.
I love this paragraph of yours :
"My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth."
Very well put. They've left the religion, but the fundamentalism is still a part of their character. And it's amazing just how oblivious they are to that. They honestly don't see it. If we were to take a religious zealot and turn them into an atheist, because of their zealous character, you'd only notice the difference because the lingo would change. These militant atheists and religious fundies are not opposites, they are opposames. Moderate people, that means atheists and theists who have their views but don't feel any compulsion to convert the world are in the middle of the spectrum, while atheist zealots and religious zealots are on the extreme yet they are the same.
And you can usually tell a zealot a mile off because when this is pointed out, it is they who respond angrily.
