Having been a very-atheist person in the past, I'd argue that the cult of personality of the new-atheist horsemen like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, etc, was more of a draw than science itself. Because at the end of the day, science doesn't make claims that are relevant to any educated or experienced theist's worldview. I would have wanted science to be on my side because it'd justify hatred of people's religions, which is a really immature worldview in retrospect but definitely an outcome from immersing myself in new-atheist drivel. Whereas these days I fully accept the contention that science and religions really do coexist.

Where the bourgeois and proletariat come into play, is when I look at the stark differences between someone like MLK and Kenneth Copeland. I'd not expect any MLK type to emerge from a theology like Kenneth Copeland's. And we know that the billionaire class does attempt to distort information on all kinds of things if those things are giving them immense power.

I'm reminded of how they did that with climate change for 50 years and various nutritional debates over the years. And many other things. The intention being to poison the public discourse long enough that they can exploit more.

Does this mean there was a concentrated effort to poison atheist v religion discussion as well? I've never been privy to conversations at that echelon of wealth so I can only point out that the results speak for themselves even if the results were never the goal. But personally if I hated humanity and wanted to keep my power to exploit, I'd do whatever it takes to make sure there's other interpretations of Christianity besides MLK's for example.