When an event is sufficiently puzzling we hypothesize the existence of invisible and even supernatural agents

Some argue that there is  a pervasive gullibility  characteristic of human beings and it is the exploitation of this credulity that attributes to the foundations  of religious movements

The New Atheists agree that, although religion may have been a byproduct of certain human qualities that proved important for survival, religion itself is not necessarily a beneficial social and cultural phenomenon on balance at present

New Atheists (Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) are quite explicit in their moral condemnation of religious people on the ground that religious beliefs and practices have had significant and predominately negative consequences. 

The examples they provide of such objectionable behaviors range from the uncontroversial (suicide bombings, the Inquisition, “religious” wars, witch hunts, homophobia, etc.) to the controversial (prohibition of “victimless crimes” such as drug use and prostitution, criminalization of abortion and euthanasia,  “child abuse” due to identification of children as members of their parents religious communities, and so forth). In this way, the New Atheists link their epistemological critique of religious belief with their moral criticism of religion.