This isn't a bad little book, but it's annoying the way it goes on so much with the false moral equivalence between religious fundamentalists and Gnu Atheists. This is lazy, unfair, and (by now) boring.
There are also other occasional oddities among what is mainly solid discussion. One is this claim (bear in mind that we're talking here about a new book, with a 2010 publication date): "In fact, it's become a convention among the New Atheists to refer to unbelievers as 'brights,' with the accompanying implication that believers are dim(-)witted."
This is simply false. There is no such convention. Admittedly, a couple of folks tried on this idea of "brights" as a positive-sounding name for non-believers, though those people were not Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The idea never really took off and it is just false to say that it's a convention adopted in Gnu Atheist circles. I can assure Walters that you can hang round in Gnu Atheist circles as much as you like without encountering any such "convention". In fact, you'll be very unlikely to encounter the usage at all.
This sort of outright misinformation, doubtless unintended, gives the impression of an author whose finger is just not on the pulse.