Admitting You're a Sinner

[SteveII]

...
This brings up a complaint about the New Atheist movement (an ideology) which seeks to aggressively eliminate religion (of any kind) and replace it with 'scientific reasoning'. Since scientific reasoning does not meet all the needs of people (as you are discussing), this is a dangerous ideology. If you create a climate where all religions are rejected, a significant part of the population is going to be left with a void they are going to struggle to fill. What is going to be the effect? I was reading last year that social scientists recognize this problem but are drowned out by the New Atheist ideology--which is like an exact mirror image of religious fundamentalists in its behavior.

Could you please elaborate on this New Atheist ideology?  It's not something with which I am familiar.  Thanks.

'Scientific reasoning' would be the replacement (upgrade?) for failed epistemology.  Namely, the big four:
Faith, Authority, Revelation and Tradition.

Easier abbreviation to remember... it equals hot air.

There are other aspects to religion that can be salvaged.  Casting aside Divinity Ethics would leave Community Ethics (unless you go for US-style prosperity-gospel stuff which is more aligned to Autonomy Ethics).

Divinity Ethics sans anything supernatural leaves ideology.  But I'm not seeing anything 'sacred' coming from atheists in general.

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

The Criticisms under the Wikipedia article give an indication of the problems:

The theologians Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with what they regard as "the evangelical nature of the new atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible." They believe they have found similarities between new atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities.[70]

Sociologist William Stahl said "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists."[71]

The atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has made the claim that Richard Dawkins would fail "introductory" courses on the study of "philosophy or religion" (such as courses on the philosophy of religion), courses which are offered, for example, at many educational institutions such as colleges and universities around the world.[72][73] Ruse also claims that the movement of New Atheism—which is perceived, by him, to be a "bloody disaster"—makes him ashamed, as a professional philosopher of science, to be among those holding to an atheist position, particularly as New Atheism does science a "grave disservice" and does a "disservice to scholarship" at more general level.[72][73]

Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, founder of Prometheus Books, was critical of many of the new atheists.[8] He said, "I consider them atheist fundamentalists... They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good".[9]

Jonathan Sacks, author of The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, feels the new atheists miss the target by believing the "cure for bad religion is no religion, as opposed to good religion". He wrote:

Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.[74]

The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci feels that the new atheist movement overlaps with scientism, which he feels is philosophically unsound. He writes: "What I do object to is the tendency, found among many New Atheists, to expand the definition of science to pretty much encompassing anything that deals with “facts,” loosely conceived..., it seems clear to me that most of the New Atheists (except for the professional philosophers among them) pontificate about philosophy very likely without having read a single professional paper in that field.... I would actually go so far as to charge many of the leaders of the New Atheism movement (and, by implication, a good number of their followers) with anti-intellectualism, one mark of which is a lack of respect for the proper significance, value, and methods of another field of intellectual endeavor."[75]

Atheist professor Jacques Berlinerblau has criticised the New Atheists' mocking of religion as being inimical to their goals and claims that they haven't achieved anything politically. [76]