Wouldn't it be a lot more useful to consider whether the claim is true or not: that religion is a last resort of the poor and atheism is a luxury of the privileged?
................
Of course the claim is true.
So's this claim:
There are poor people who aren't religious. There are privileged people who are very religious. There are degrees of belief.
Here's the heart of things, with all the complex verbiage tossed: you want non-believers to take believers' feelings and circumstances into account when they critique religious thought. Sounds reasonable. We should (almost) always be more polite.
If, for example, Dawkins was a gentler fellow, less fond of arched eyebrow condescension and more prone to softly whispered debate, you might have sweeter things to say about his atheist proselytizing efforts.
But he says harsh things without regard for how badly my Grandmother and yours might take it.
A year or so ago, Chuck Grimes spoke about God in an unflattering way. Chip Berlet spoke up: 'that was rude to believers', he said. 'You're alienating potential allies', Chip said.
There it is, the real center of this and every LBO debate about belief vs. non-belief: be nice, speak sweetly, people need this stuff. You're abusing your intellectual "privilege" if you're rough on faith.
.d.