It turns out atheism isn’t a gene. It’s more of a meme, or an idea that can be spread through a population. The author mentions Dawkins, so you’d think he’d have heard of this concept, as Dawkins invented the term.

He probably read the words, but that does not mean he understood them.  You are assuming that closed, indoctrinated minds can actually comprehend concepts opposed to or merely outside their dogma.  Evidence for this hypothesis is inconclusive.

Surprisingly, atheism is spreading even in spite of the fact that sterile, neutered pandas outbreed us. It’s almost as if atheism spreads in a manner that doesn’t involve sexual reproduction. Who would have thought that?!

There is a downside to this:  if atheism removes genes from the gene pool, variants which are less susceptible to it have an evolutionary advantage.  In particular, if there are genes for a personality type which is highly traditional (prone to “groupthink”) and inclined to us vs. them thinking, and is part of a group which reproduces more often than others because it does not catch the anti-reproduction meme, it will come to dominate over time and force the meme out.  It would probably also force out things like science, engineering, the capability to make accurate medical diagnoses and recognize new diseases, etc.

I think we can agree that this would be a bad thing.  Besides, what better way to take the wind out of the idiot’s sails than by proving them wrong?