After unpacking the notion of collateral damage and contrasting it with the notion of double effect this paper moves to a discussion of the normative boundaries that ought to contain the contributions of public intellectuals to public discourse. With this apparatus in place the paper makes a case that due to its polemical nature and a surprisingly blasé attitude to facts and accuracy much New Atheist discourse not only fails to inform the public it addresses but distorts and clouds that discourse. As such they risk misinforming their readers or leading them to hold views based on distorted or inaccurate claims. The paper suggests that this is not simply an unfortunate and unintended side-effect of New Atheists pursuing their polemical cultural-political agenda but best described as collateral damage produced due to a disregard for proper intellectual standards in the prosecution of their polemics.