The confused article linked in the OP conflates Atheism with Skepticism, misrepresents the latter and mischaracterizes it. Richard Dawkins is not skepticism. Organized skepticism (which does reek sometimes just like any organization) is not skepticism.
Giving reasons why you are not a skeptic is exactly like giving reasons why you don't approve of thinking.
I'll admit he did go to great lengths to define his (non)skeptic label but he also went to great lengths to explain that did not mean he was changing his viewpoint. In that I would say there is still plenty of indication he was a thinking person, whether he stated so or otherwise.