The main common ground between atheists and non-atheists, is the belief that assumption are a self-evident truth. Whether one believes in a God or not is immaterial. As though belief has any measurable importance outside politics. The sociological attributes you mention are ubiquitous probably in all groups.

I think its odd that intelligent people, with lovely minds, would go through such great lengths to fit in with a shared belief of a larger group. And that this group identity offers herd logic that is somehow superior to actually learning the world for yourself.

It's called having a conscience. Not many have that anymore. If one can go to bed with a clear mind knowing all is good and they haven't done anything wrong in a sense to cause harm onto someone else, then they can take comfort in that alone.

I'd agree with you that "both sides" (presumably humanists and the religious) see themselves as embattled minorities. Is this true though? Is Christianity still the dominant culture in the USA (where I live)? Should I look to statistics to answer this? Or personal experience? Or a combination of both?

"If there is one thing that ought to set atheists apart from the credulous it is the ability (and the willingness) to scrutinise our own motives and beliefs."

In principle yes atheists 'ought' to scrutinize their own beliefs & motives & some do BUT I'm not so sure that most really do. I mean you don't have to be Einstein to see that religious claims aren't supportable do you? - So does that in & of itself guarantee a far better grasp of reality? No way. It may help but I'm not convinced that an atheist couldn't be just as prone to all sorts of alternative prejudices as most other people too. I'd hate to think that an identity as an unbeliever makes me immune to delusions because in truth it probably doesn't. It's just not believing god claims & that's all.

'With that in mind, what attitudes do we have in common with them?'

Well I try to distance myself from identifying as 'atheist'. Not because I'm not but because it can often become an egoic identity & we just don't need that so I see no more requirement to identify as someone who doesn't believe god claims than mermaid claims. It says next to nothing about what I do believe does it & is it all that much more important than not believing in mermaids? Maybe a little but not much really.

"I'd suggest that both sides take comfort in seeing themselves as embattled minorities;"

Some do but here in the UK 53% of people aren't religious so it's no big deal really. It's as everyday as not believing in flying saucers.

"both sides see themselves as victims of repressive social forces; both sides see that the salvation of the world depends on their views gaining general acceptance. What do you think?"

Well it's clear that in the first world religion is clearly on the way out. Once atheism becomes the norm it can't seem so 'special' any more but it shouldn't seem any more special than not believing in mermaids really so why make it a big deal? I've heard the argument that in America it IS a big deal because too many atheists are in the closet & therefore don't get politically represented which I can see is important yes but I still think it's taking the spotlight away from the religious claims which is where the focus ought to be as soon as I say I'm an atheist & all of a sudden the questions aimed at me become 'Can you prove there isn't a God?' & 'Why not say you just don't know like agnostics?' etc... which is a great way theists can turn the tables so all of a sudden THEIR claims appear to be just one half of the story when they actually aren't. For example if I were to get a lot of influence in society telling people to prepare for an alien attack & this has gone one for generation after generation my claim can seem justified if I can paint all skeptics of my claim as making a counter claim because that muddies the waters if my position is the norm. I can point out that you can't prove we won't be attacked by aliens & shift MY burden of evidence onto YOUR shoulders as if you ought to share it too (I've even had disagreements with people on THIS website about this issue & this IS a website for people who don't believe god claims!!!) So why give the claimants any rope to hang us? I say keep off the subject of what we don't believe & stick to the content of THEIR claims instead. That may seem difficult but all you have to do is keep out of the trap of adopting the atheist identity. Not because there's anything wrong with not believing god claims but because it allows the opposition to use this as a smokescreen & change the agenda at hand: Why oh why should we accept unsupportable god claims? I stick like glue to that agenda if I get into religious debates but I don't focus on atheism I focus on one thing: That there's no demonstrable reason to believe god claims & leave it at that. If they disagree they HAVE to say why there is but they never ever can justify it without resorting to BIG assumptions & that's what I take them to task on! I say 'Well there might be LOTS of gods for all I know but why believe in yours?' That ensures they are where they belong: on the defensive not on the attack. That's also a good tactic in chess & weakens your opponent IF you can keep the conversation about THEIR unsupportable claims & away from any you may be tempted to make yourself.