What distinguishes many of the neo-atheists with paleo or classical atheists is (1) that their arguments aren't very weighty (this is probably due to the fact that they just don't have to be careful in what they argue since we live in a post-Christian culture that doesn't force them to be more careful) and (2) they are evangelistic. Their goal is to create an atheistic world, where "reason" (i.e., their personal opinions that are not based upon reason) will rule the world.
If they are wrong, most atheists fall back upon what most fall back upon in our culture: I'm basically a good person, so even if I'm wrong God should excuse my theology or anti-theology. This is why most people think that what we believe is irrelevant. If I'm going to go to heaven anyway, and one pleases God by being a good person, then what you believe in terms of your theology is not important.
Aside from this idea being anti-Christian, undermining the whole necessity of the gospel of salvation, it also does not heed the words of Scripture well when it calls all men in their unredeemed minds "murderers" (Rom 3:9-18).
But all the more so are those who are evangelistic in their efforts to either undermine the importance of theology or present an alternate theology or anti-theology that leads people away from the gospel of life.
If Christianity is true, then it is only through Christ and His gospel that anyone can be saved. To teach something that would lead people away from Christ and His gospel is to ensure their deaths. In other words, it is an act of murder.
Now, we all know of atheist dictators who are mass murderers in this age, and atheism lends itself to dictatorship that must commit genocide in order to conform everyone's opinion to the dictator's "for the common good" and according to his use of "reason"; but if Christianity is true, then the neo-atheist evangelist is far more of a mass murderer than even Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. It is one thing to take a man's physical life from him. It is something far worse if what a man is doing robs him of eternal life and damns him to eternal hell.
Every person is guilty of this type of murder, which is really worse than murder, if he undermines or speaks against the gospel of Christ; but the evangelist of false views is far more so than anyone else. He is a mass murderer. He is the hand of genocide.
Hence, atheism needs to bank on the idea that Christianity is not true. If it isn't true, he has nothing to worry about. If it is true, he cannot rely on his being a "good" person, since mass murderers are not good people, and as the Scripture says, "no murderer will enter the kingdom of God."
However, the same above cannot be said of Christianity if atheism is true. If atheism is true, Christians haven't murdered anyone in eternity. In fact, all Christians have done is teach people to have convictions, care for others more than themselves, and be more dedicated to a life well lived. Not that any of that really matters if atheism is true, but Christianity does seem to benefit society in this life and not just in the next.
Hence, to give a modification of Pascal's Wager, not because I think anyone should believe because of it, but merely to show what's at stake:
If atheism is true, Christianity has nothing to lose. If Christianity is true, atheism has everything to lose and nothing to gain. If atheism is true, Christians have committed no eternal crime. If Christianity is true, atheists are worse than murderers and are committing genocide when evangelistic in their atheism.
In essence, neo-atheists are putting all of their eggs in one basket, and better be right, because there is no backup plan of relying upon his goodness. All would be murderers in the eyes of God.