Speaking as an atheistically-inclined agnostic, I think the New Atheists can be rather "motte & bailey"* with their arguments. The atheist bailey is the assert

Speaking as an atheistically-inclined agnostic, I think the New Atheists can be rather "motte & bailey"* with their arguments. The atheist bailey is the assertion "there is no higher being, no after life, and no spirituality", which is a scientifically indefensible stance, as the article states. It could be true, but this assertion is a religious statement of faith. Atheist discourse is largely centered here. The motte is the statement "Belief in a higher power or the after life is not supported by empirical evidence", which is scientifically defensible. When critics of atheism point out that any assertion about something which cannot be invalidated is non-empirical, even religious (e.g. "There is no after life" or "God does not exist in any form"), (some) atheists respond "'No God' is simply the null hypothesis! We just don't see evidence for it!" When the challenge is gone, atheists go on to write essays about how religious ideas are wrong and "There is no God" is clearly correct, and anyone who holds any doubt about this whatsoever is irrational at best. *I tried and failed to find a link to a discussion of the metaphor and fallacy of "motte & bailey" that was both concise, correct and politically neutral; suffice to say that it is a kind of strategic ambiguity. If it's new to you, I'll just quote the relevant passage from the Slate Star Codex blog: "[In a] medieval castle…there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along. "So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement."