Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking....
Are they insecure or arrogant? Neither
They tell the truth and they ridicule religion as it should be ridiculed, which is what I am doing now
Some of those guys are megalomaniacs and have mastered the smoke and mirrors of rhetoric straight in line from the classical tradition stemming from Demosthenes and Isocrates, e.g., Christopher Hitchens. He has become the deity to folks like Yell42, who think their form of thinking is so blatantly obviously correct that the rest of the world is laughable at best. Some of the others have a much more nuanced understanding of the divine. The truth of the matter is that the human condition is fraught with uncertainty and constant flux of reality and self understanding. Religion is a dynamic aspect of this human condition, and an attempt to even define what religion is requires rooms of scholars ranging from the vehemently dogmatic to the bordering on enlightened. Where does one draw the line of religious/spiritual and not? What is magic, and what is not? You obviously have come to juxtapose yourself with respect to religion via the scientific process or your self imposed personal power garnered through your identity as someone who knows what other less enlightened folks do not know, sees what what other less enlightened folks do not see, and acts in a way that other less enlightened folks could not. In short, you derive your personal power, and obviously flaunt it, more or less in the precise way in which adherents to ancient mystery cult would do. Nuance and flux is something young people never want to admit, because they know it all already, and something that scientists try hard to cover up or spend a lifetime researching and something that the intelligentsia exerts its creative prowess to explain. Glad to see you've got it all figured out, though.