Religion is often popularly characterised by atheists as a consolation. One can turn this around and ask what are the consolations of atheism?
To answer this question correctly is to mirror the usual atheistic one. That is the worldview comprehensively takes the religious and without giving perhaps their due straight out says that why they believe is that it is the site for unconscious consolation.
This needs to be turned around and asked how the atheistic one is an unconscious consolation from a religious view (not necessarily from a Christian one).
I'm not positing that there actually is an unconscious motivation (though if one believes in Freud much of our behaviour does); it's a hypothesis to examine the suppositions of atheism and understand its contours and limitations.
It surely makes a difference if one is examining a consolation from a Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or Hindu viewpoint. Modern Atheism is not the first time a reaction has developed against a state religion: The Lokyata in Vedic India and Epicureanism in Greek antiquity. I'm sure that there will be others.
What I'm performing here is a Derridean deconstructionist move. Consolations of religion is a notion that is a traditional charge against religion from at least Epicurus's time.