Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures?

[Jim__]

12. That is the conclusion of the argument.

Aquinas' argument is (in part):

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another
...
If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
...
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover
...
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

As to your question:

Are you saying its a warranted conclusion, and if so, where is your evidence?

Read my post #10:

... The whole argument leads to the conclusion that there is a need for an unmoved mover. You can call the argument invalid; but you can't claim the claim that the conclusion is an entirely unwarranted assumption.

...

This is not to claim that Aquinas' arguments are right. They have been rather famously refuted - for instance, by Kant. Dawkins could have just cited Kant.

As to:

As far as the second, no idea, have no interest in bullshit fields of study such as theology(or parapsychology like a BS posted in another post in this thread).

Your interest is quite beside the point. You asked why Dawkins was attacked. In this instance, his claims were attacked because he claimed:

Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.

But, as I stated in my post, Summa Theologica goes on to derive God's attributes based on the previously given existence arguments. Again, I'm not arguing for the correctness of Aquinas' arguments; just that to claim they are not even there is, to say the least, extreme sloppiness, and, as such, subject to attack.