Well, I certainly disagree with his idea that religion is primarily motivated by fear, that morality can arise on developmental models, and with the very idea of 'progress' that somehow religion retards. Similarly his belief that religion only arises from emotion, as if it dissipates when only facts are considered - is silly beyond belief, as if any objective value can be determined.
In general, atheism was very pessimistic and a dark view of the world. That everything is Selfish Genes and Nature red in tooth and claw, that altruism is a sham if you look deep enough and only a advantage gained, real or imagined to the organism, can elicit an action on his part. On axiomatic grounds it is clear to me that the world is Good, and that a real value that one thing is better than another, feeding a child rather than killing it say, is true. I don't see how this can be reached on any developmental models; and any such are at heart either just someone who enforced his will, a justification a posteriori of facts on the ground by hook or crook, or religious garb dressed-up as secular - like Robespierre's cult of Reason. I still respect Bertrand Russell, but I think he is almost completely wrong and utterly unable to even realise it himself or self-examine his inconsistencies. It is the "has ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see" at heart.
