This is a pretty rambling daitribe in itself. The author makes simple errors, such as confusing Hitchens and Harris (damn H names!), and they certainly don't address any inherent problems in Christianity (or any religion) that most non-believers complain of.Where is the response to Christianity's oppression of gays, women, or non-Christians? There is nothing of the sort, because this author is surprisingly content to lump "New Atheists" with clergy and preachers, and seems to end there. If you want to defend religion, you can't compare "New Atheism" to a religion, thereby discrediting it. What does that say of religion?Instead, this person clearly just wants to sow skepticism of prominent atheists, as if those who lack belief actually follow these atheist writers, or that "faith" in atheism will crumble if the "leaders" are fallible. That's what atheists have done to the religious for over a century. Not a very novel approach, and certainly not a successful one, considering the relative unpopularity of atheism. I think there will always be those with an inability to accept religion, just as there will always be those who need religion. The goal of most atheists is to stop religions from invading the lives of those who want nothing to do with it, and this author remains blissfully unaware of this modest and constitutionally defended request.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.