This is a long critique of two new anti-New Atheism books that focuses mostly on socio-economic issues and "social justice" rather than on atheism itself. At least the rambling critique is honest enough to include some criticisms of the books. You could cherry pick what you want out of this lengthy critique, which has a rather unfocused conclusion, but beware of the Ad Hominem attacks of these books that distract from the actual atheist issues.

Have heard about these dangerous atheist militants. That billboard once a year in places like Omaha is really terrifying. ???

I completely disagree with the article, which is outdated and off the mark, in my opinion. The label ‘Islamophobia’ is a fabrication, designed to conflate racial or ethnic hatred with a legitimate scorn, if not loathing, of the concepts, doctrines, practices and dogmas of the Islamic faith. With every fiber in my being, I despise Islam, almost as much as I do Christianity.

And while the so-called Four Horsemen are the most well-known, if not infamous, atheists, I have read and listened to so many more, including Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Susan Jacoby, Jerry Coyne, Sean Carroll, Alain de Botton, not to mention the comedic personalities of George Carlin, John Cleese, Steven Fry, Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher (i.e., the Islamobphobe) and Jim Jeffries. Attacking the so-called ‘New Atheists’ is a waste of energy, and the premise of atheism being akin to a religion is preposterous.

Another utter load of crap.
Anything to sell books and make themselves feel important.

I wonder what the tax consequences of this new religion are.

Atheism is not a religion, and definitionally cannot be. It is far too narrow to define an ideology, a worldview, a religion, or an organization. If something has "become" a religion then it has become something other than atheism -- assuming it was ever atheism to begin with.

The strenuous efforts to redefine what atheism means without any effort to consult the dictionary or to ask actual atheists what it means to them, just highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of people who try to turn it into something they are willing to "understand" rather than actually understanding what it actually is.

The link is essentially the most boring book review I’ve ever started to read. Zzzzz

I rarely refer to myself as Atheist. Some Atheists are as obnoxious and zealous as a born again. New Atheists...what the hell does all that mean...we simply don't buy the god bullshit..we think rationally....why not just leave it at that

There are some people that take things to far, even Atheists. I read an article once of a group was trying to make an Atheist church.And others wanted to make an Atheist bible.
My only guess is that most of them were once believers and just miss that kind of community.

Here's my brain. How does one get a new no god. There is no god. Let's do it gain. There is no god. Well, that's new. It came after the other one!! I know. silly. Been smoking the wrong dandelions.

He called us "wayward" as if that was a bad thing.?

Thank you VERY much for sharing this. I have had some issues with what I call "angry atheists" and hope that if any of them are here, that they read at least this article and see that they're not solving any problems with this approach.

Atheism is the absence of religious belief, the absence of dogma. Ne-atheist is a bastard stepchild -- an attempt to create a new dogma around atheist. It is to be denounced.