First, vikarion, we can't know that you're in the line of apostolic succession of Hitchen's anti-theism (which is not only anti-theism but a much broader anti-religionism).
If you feel like you're called out as idiot, because Hitchens' is called idiotic in his anti-theism, then it's because you choose to identify with that starin of anti-theism, not because someone called you, personally, an idiot: There was no intention at all to call you an idiotic.
The anti-theism of Hitchens is, by the way, everything but moderate. It is based on a metaphysical materialism which isn't either based on 'empirical evidence' (and it can't be grounded in that in principle, because 'empirical evidence' (that is scientific evidence) is grounded in a commitment to methodological materialism: and thus trying to base it in such is begging the question, really) nor has it a foundation in common sense (because there are common-sense positions which are either at odds with materialsim or that materialism has at least a very hard time to account for).
Suffice to say, modern metaphysical (reductive/eliminative) materialism is actually a position that needs a lot of very sophisticated argument to make it a proper contender with other positions in metaphysics.
There is nothing obvious about the claim that one would need 'empirical evidence' for any kind of belief. Actually, it's misunderstanding of what religious belief is. It is also a misunderstanding that we need 'empirical evidence' to be justified in treating something as knowledge. The fact that, by definition, 'empirical evidence' is needed to hold a scientific theory (in natural science) to be justified, doesn't really at all, not even a tiny bit, imply that we need 'empirical evidence' to view all kinds of beliefs as justified enough to consider them reliable.
So, that's the first point in which Hitchens' anti-theism can be considered idiotic: It is self-defeating. to justify it you need to take recourse to non-scientific explanations, and reasons that are not 'empirical evidence' - but then the view disqualifies all non-scientific, non-empirical evidence and reasons. That doesn't work out, obviously.
As this is the case, those poeple that hold those positions are fundamentalists. They adhere strictly to that set of ideas and principles and they usually don't allow for any of those fundamental principles to be questioned.
The second point where Hitchens becomes idiotic in his anti-theism is where he mistakes freedom of speech as a license for hate-speech. It is not. Simple as that. Take a look at the laws or the declaration of human rights: Freedom of speech is limited by other right amongst which is the right to not be ridiculed and defamed. Hitchen's call for heaping ridicule and hate on religious people - and he did call out for that - is quite a-moderate and frankly, idiotic.
And the third point, and the last I will raise, while I'm sure there are others as well, where he describes religion and - more broadly - religious thought as a 'virus of the mind'. First, this is based on the 'meme' view of ideas, which is according to modern neuroscience not fitting to how brain-processes occur physically - at all. It is also at odds with psychological accounts of thought and also with epistemology. To make it short: There is so little empirical evidence for it, that one really should go for more fitting theories - especially if one places such emphasis on scientific evidence. It is, frankly again, idiotic to hold on to it under the given circumstances.
It is clear to me, that these three points are objectively idiotic views, in the sense that they are incongruous and inviting ridicule. They are inconsistent, and not in keeping with what is correct (something that is self-defeating can't be correct), proper (a position that depends on human rights, yet cherry-picks them is not proper), or logical (a self-defeating position isn't logical).
Your personal anecdotes are, by the way, no empirical evidence at all in that regard. They are stricly speaking un-scientific, because they are personal and subjective. Accepting the importance of them puts you, basically, in a paradoxical position when holding onto a worldview that denies the importance of personal and subjective experiences, if it is giving reason to religious belief.
All that, by the way, still doesn't mean that you are an idiot or that you are - in an unqualified sense - idiotic. It just means that you hold positions that are idiotic and engage in some idiotic behaviours.
So, unless you identify with the 'idiotic viewpoints' of Hitchens to the degree that you think that they make up the essence of who you are, you have little reason - if any reason at all - to feel that someone called you an idiot, here. Equally, unless you think that those idiotic points are at the core of your anti-theism, you have no need to think that your anti-theism has been called out as idiotic.
T bring this full circle: It doesn't matter whether Hitchens' attempt to get hate-speech justified by over-extending the right to freedom of speech is more 'convincing' than that of the anti-feminists: He is not the better spokesperson for freedom of speech because of that. And certainly the anti-feminists are not worse spokespersons for it, because of their anti-feminism, as Hitchens was similarly intolerant, even though his intolerance was directed at another group of people.
