Bit of a strange question .
One is either atheistic or not ... Atheism doesn't take up a lot of time does it ?

Change seldom happens quickly, especially when ti comes to human cultures and behaviors.

As an atheist, I embrace anyone who question regardless of whether or not they may still hold soem residual beliefs from religion. As long s people are questioning and nto blindly believing, we as a society are heading in the right direction.

"Enough?" Enough for what? Is it a litmus test, now? Only those who pass a certain threshold of non-belief get to continue non-believing? Makes no sense.

I never really understood the term 'new atheism'.
If you don't believe, you don't believe.
As Yoda would say "Do or do not, there is no try."

"The new atheists are not atheist enough - do you agree?"

No this is a really daft statement. Why? Because, atheism is not believing god claims always always always. If you doubt this ask yourself are there are any atheists who DO believe god claims? - Whatever else an atheist may or may not believe they never ever ever believe god claims. That is all. Always always always.

So in the light of this there's two problems with the claim that the 'new' atheists are not 'atheist' enough.

1. How can there really be 'new' atheists when atheists are people who don't believe god claims? People who don't believe god claims have been around as long as god claims have been around! It's as daft as saying there are 'new' flying saucer skeptics - no there aren't. Flying saucer skeptics are as old as flying saucer claims no more no less.

2. How can you be 'not atheist enough'? You either believe god claims or you don't. If you say 'I don't believe god claims' does it make sense for me to say to you 'Well you THINK you don't believe god claims... but I REALLY don't believe god claims a lot lot more than you!'

Both these claims are utterly ludicrous & it only takes is some serious critical thinking to see why.

Having read the article I have some major disagreements with what it says which I'll tackle piecemeal:

"I want to criticise new atheists – whether 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 – from the opposite direction: they aren’t atheist enough. They give an alternative to religion that inherits some of the most important features of religion. In short, they all urge us to have an unquestioning attitude towards some cause or project."

Nonsense! Whoever wrote this article clearly hasn't read much of Dawkins or Dennett or Harris or Hitchens. None of them (with the possible exception of Harris) are against considering attitudes they hold. That's the lesson which lead them to atheism: 'Could I possibly be wrong? Are there any short comings in my present day beliefs?' Ultimately the name of the game is openness to error even if it's a cherished project.

"Dennett and Kitcher merely replace religion with something else, while leaving our quest for “something bigger” untouched. In doing so, this new atheist position only superficially moves away from the general attitude towards religion."

I don't know Kitcher at all but I have a very comprehensive knowledge of Dennett's projects as a philosopher & I can say this observation is baseless which is why it cites no examples at all.

"Why is this a problem? Because while we all change throughout our lives, the religion or whatever “something bigger” we devote our life to most often doesn’t. Eventually there will be a mismatch between who you are and what you are devoting your life to – regardless of whether this is a religious doctrine or some new atheist’s “something bigger”."

Does it? Seeing as it's NOT a religion there's no reason why a non-believer cannot say 'OK enough of that it's now time to take a back seat & let others pick up where I've left off.' No reason at all.

"The problem is that the new atheists – both the radical ones and the more emotionally attuned 2.0 atheists – ignore the emotional complications that come with the way people change over their lifetimes."

Do they? These accusations are incredibly vague & lack any hard evidence.

"What should we do then? Is there a genuine, not merely superficial alternative to both religion and the “something bigger” new atheists talk about? I suggest that there is a very simple alternative: we should try to avoid forcing a straight-jacket on our ever-changing self – by religious doctrines or by one of these “projects” the new atheists talk about. We should accept and cherish our freedom to change."

Who's to say this option is off the table anyway though?

"For the new atheists, freedom plays a very limited role. You are free to choose what you devote your life to, but once you’ve done that, your life is on a fixed track – no more free decisions."

Really? Why? Where does this assumption come from?

"The new atheists’ “projects”, just as religious doctrines, put unreasonably severe constraints on our inner freedom."

Because you say so? No? OK how?

"The opposite of religion is not the slavish following of “something bigger” as the new atheists suggest. The opposite of religion is freedom."

Who said it was? The one & only 'new atheist' I know of who's suggested devoting oneself to 'something bigger than oneself' is Dan Dennett not any of the others & at no point did he say you need to do it slavishly OR forever & a day even if it takes a toll on your personal life. All these assumptions are highly speculative & not evidence based - something most atheists abhor!