I don't recall if this is one of the videos I've posted before, David Bentley Hart on the intellectual vacuity of the neo-atheists and, when he mentions them the late 19th-20-21st century variety of popular atheism.
He pretty much demolishes the predictable names, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris (who he notes is such a lightweight that there isn't any reason to go into much refutation) and Dennett whose tediousness makes pointing out his massive philosophical incompetence somewhat moot if the topic is the popular conception of such things. He includes a scant mention of Bertrand Russell who, I have to say, since more of his writing has been available to read online is probably the figure who, for me, has fallen the farthest. That could be because he, as a logician, was able to cobble together many semblances of arguments against religion but which fall apart when looked at more closely and when fact checked are more in keeping with the dishonest cherry picking and characterization that is so obvious with a non-logician such as Dawkins or Hitchens.
As I once pointed out in a post responding to a popular atheist source claiming Francis Bacon for atheism, he said
It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.
Bacon, of course, took the difference between truth and falsehood seriously, something which is mandatory for someone who takes the Hebrew religious tradition seriously must do, something which, when the concept of sin is rejected, goes out the window. After that everything is all a matter of what sells, not what's true. With atheism, once the vestigial cultural habit of truth goes out of your familial tradition - and here I will remind you that Bertrand Russell was the product of he British aristocracy - everything turns into a PR campaign selling slogans and narratives, intellectual procedures and algorithms which have a fixed result as their goal, not an open-ended process in which you are to discern whatever truth lies at the end of it. Wisdom is the product of wise guys and facile talkers, and in that we find the intellectual origin of online chatter and the cheapened and hypocritical politics as played by cynical wonks and players.
Compare that orientation with a reading from the Catholic liturgy the other day, from The Book of Wisdom
In Wisdom is a spirit
intelligent, holy, unique,
Manifold, subtle, agile,
clear, unstained, certain,
Not baneful, loving the good, keen,
unhampered, beneficent, kindly,
Firm, secure, tranquil,
And pervading all spirits,
though they be intelligent, pure and very subtle.
For Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion,
and she penetrates and pervades all things by reason of her purity.
For she is an aura of the might of God
and a pure effusion of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nought that is sullied enters into her.
For she is the refulgence of eternal light,
the spotless mirror of the power of God,
the image of his goodness.
And she, who is one, can do all things,
and renews everything while herself perduring;
And passing into holy souls from age to age,
she produces friends of God and prophets.
For there is nought God loves, be it not one who dwells with Wisdom.
For she is fairer than the sun
and surpasses every constellation of the stars.
Compared to light, she takes precedence;
for that, indeed, night supplants,
but wickedness prevails not over Wisdom.
Indeed, she reaches from end to end mightily
and governs all things well.
Which culture do you think is more likely to value the truth to look for it as hard as possible, as hard as necessary to find it as opposed to resting with what you want to be true?