Okay rcrocket, I remember you said you were reading it. I've got complaints too. I was totally bored with the chapters on the possible origin of religion and what traits might have been selected (in terms of evolutionary psychology). It was nothing new, just the same old speculations, and really unnecessary to the overall argument. But it seemed to be included for the sake of completeness. Thank goodness it came in the middle of the book and not as part of the final chapters.
Mean-spirited emails from Christians show some of the persecution atheists endure. It's another piece of data, complementing the poll showing that, in terms of presidential candidacy, atheists are viewed with the most prejudice and disregard of any segment in America.
The focus on Hitler was an embellishment, made possible by the fact that there is evidence for some Christianity in him. The more important point is that a few bad apples don't prove a connection between atheism and monstrous leaders. It's basically illogical, right?
I remember a bit more about Thomas Aquinas than you apparently do. Some of the basic claims FOR the existence of god were claims that originated, or were formalized, by Thomas Aquinas. Dawkins covered Aquinas in those terms. But your right, he didn't sufficiently ad hominen Aquinas and that's probably why you aren't remembering.
You previously mentioned his section on the "Moral Zeitigeist." Basically, he argues for the progression on knowledge and education, and that we live in enlightened times, and we don't need God to improve. That is a very naïve view of history. Islam was once the most enlightened civilization and religion in the world; now look where it is.
The bold part is good support for Dawkins' point that we don't need God to improve.
I have another problem with the "Moral Zeitgeist" though. It's fine for looking back and seeing what has changed, but if you look around today and try to predict where things will go, it's as much as a rorschach test where you see what you want to see. If I think veganism is the morally correct lifestyle, then I'm going to think that in the future the Moral Zeitgeist will move that way. So it's actually a somewhat limited idea.
I've read some of those authors. Karen Armstrong is very good, but mostly I don't spend my time reading books that are purely atheism. So "The God Delusion" was a diversion for me, principally because I've been a fan of Dawkins ever since we read "The Selfish Gene" with Scott Woodward at BYU. I do like his logic and style.