Do we need some definitions and distinctions to facilitate this conversation? For example, what is "religion"? Is it fair to assume that we all share the same understanding of that concept/word? If an individual claims religious motivation for a terrible act, is it fair to blame religion? And is "dogma" the same as "dogmatism"? Is it possible to be either "dogmatic" or "rational" in accepting a "dogma"? The essential charateristics of "rationalism" - as I understand it - is its demand that a truth claim must be either - or both - empirically verifiable of philosophically/mathematically proveable. Can either of these demands be empirically verified or philosophically/ mathematically proved? If not, is it "rational" to hold them? Are they not equivalent to articles of faith?

One thing I have found is it is pointless to argue with religion, but one must be ready to defend oneself against it.
Religion is an aggressive social construct that "feeds" on basic human attributes: comfort, ignorance, greed, laziness and power.
One must banish them (the thiests) from rational discussions as they always resort to name calling and other rhetorical devices. This just sucks down the discussion to where they want it: non-intellectual point scoring.
The dogmatic mind won't ever get the subtlety and humility required to do science: They do not realise that maths and science are about as close to studying God as you can get (Yes, even closer than most "spiritual" practices)! Religious folk just don't understand intellectual humility at all. (got to wave the red flag! :-))
The "new athiesim" is well timed self defence. I can see the need for secular society to once again break free from the secretive machinations of the religious minorities.

"agree with the new atheists, religion is a problem, it distorts our view of the world. However Christian faith, in its purity cannot be confused with religion. After all, the history of Israel, as illustrated in the Old Testament, is a history of a nation’s flirtation with religion to its peril. Likewise, when Christianity entered the Greek world it encountered all kinds of religious notions that it had to deal with. The tragedy of Christianity is that from being the religion to end all religions it eventually succumbed and is now popularly counted as only one among the religions. A deeper analysis will reveal otherwise" - Sells

-- The Christian faith as preached by the Churches is a fourth century dogma at its foundation. Hellenisation [Koine] entered Christianity [Paul] not the other way around. The Greeks [Attic] that occupied the Holy Lands, are linked more closely to Alexander the Great than first century Rome. The emphasis on language is deliberate because the former is more likely what Jesus knew whereas the latter as stated, Paul.

The OT follows the typical pattern of tribal religions.

After thinking for years that I was a devout praticing atheist I have now been reclassified to become a 'New Anti- Dogmatist'. Wow!
My objection to organized religion also applies to sport. Both systems advocate noble principles then don't follow them.

Regarding the difference between religion and dogma, I think with religion you are looking at a belief in a higher being which cannot err (in contrast to the humans that believe in him/her/them/whatever). Dogma is simply a belief in anything regardless of the facts. Creationism is both a form of dogma and part of some people's religion.

Now, I guess you could say I "believe" that the Sun not the Earth is the centre of the solar system. But only provisionally - until it is refuted with evidence. So that "belief" is not dogmatic.

Does that help?

Of the authors mentioned, I've only read Dawkins, and only just finished The God Delusion recently, and so can comment only on him.
I think it's unfair to say that Dawkins is an anti-dogmatist: he's not interested in the finer details of theistic belief, nor whether the believer believes their stuff dogmatically.
Dawkins is against people believing stuff without there being good reason to do so. He's convinced that the scientific method gives people good reason to believe stuff in the scientific sense: regard conclusions as true until further evidence proves to the contrary.
Further, he's convinced that Darwin's natural selection provides good explanations of the religious phenomenon: much better than the other way around.
Dawkins can be regarded as spiritual, due to his response to the natural world, but desires not to use this or similar terms, so as not to be confuced with being religious.
As to wanting to convert, I think Dawkins is rather trying to innoculate people against falling into a theistic trap. That it may help people out of the theistic trap is also possible, and good, but people will have already travelled a little way towards unbelief before they come accross him anyway, and a little further still before they will be open to the arguments, I think.