This does not seem like an accurate reading of the post. "Aware and disdainful of the specific arguments against it"? The woman in the story is portrayed as unfamiliar with atheism and atheists, not familiar-yet-hostile.

First, the term was disdainful, not hostile. And my point only required that she was aware of people seriously believing they found contradictions in holy texts and people holding evolution-related beliefs in contradiction of creationists accounts, both of which she deemed insufficient. That's familiar enough for the point I made.

So I take it that you've been to Cairo or other modern middle-eastern cities, or read extensively about them?

Read.

I also factored in his past tendency to embellish facts.

What past tendency? Do you have links?

Of course. I didn't list them the first time around because I (and most well-adjusted people) don't feel the need to list every piece of evidence influencing every belief they express, especially when it would come off as a "let's list all of __'s past misdeeds!" party.

But since you ask, here you go:

In this article, it's apparent he's been made incompletely aware of factoids and takes licence to hype them up to the extreme without checking them, especially the All Sex is Rape line. (Yes, I though the attribution was close enough not to matter, but I would have presented the more nuanced view, which I spelled out in comments.)

Here he took his knowledge of Eliezer Yudkowsky's and Adam Frank's views on religion and extrapolated them in ways that neither would approve of. (He originally called the characters Colonels Yudkowsky and Frank, then changed them to Colonels Y and F after this was pointed out.)

Here Yvain sees an ambiguous letter-to-the-editor from a woman with a plausible, non-stupid interpretation and then proceeds to characterize her as the worst possible example of the fallacy he was demonstrating. (Link is to my comment on that article, showing what's wrong with his interpretation.)

I don't mean this to be a general indictment of Yvain; he's contributed excellent material to Less Wrong, has earned a heck of a lot more karma than me, and would truly be irreplaceable if he left. But, like everyone else, he has the occasional bad habit, and lots of red flags went up when I saw the claim I've just questioned.