Why do many atheists hate the New Atheists?

One thing I don’t fully understand is the depth of rancor that many atheists have towards the “New Atheists,” especially people like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens. We’ve all seen it, and I’ve written about it many times. One example is a new book by An Atheist Who Shall Not Be Named, The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, discussed on The Godless Spellchecker‘s site. (Hemant Mehta has just written his own take on the book.)
The critique of New Atheists by other atheists seems to consist largely ofad hominem accusations, distortions of what they’ve said (Sam Harris is particularly subject to this), and, most of all, complaints that they dare criticize religion publicly. As Nathaniel Comfort said in the comments section of his own Nature review of Dawkins’s new autobiography:

I do say. You’re making an absurdly large leap and insulting the many atheists (including myself) who are perfectly happy to leave people alone with their views if they let me alone with mine. Dawkins, et al. are evangelists for atheism. That’s what I’m criticizing. Just as not all straight people are homophobes, not all atheists are eccesiophobes. And you can be scientific without being scientistic.

This is an explicit statement that if you publicly and passionately criticize religion, you’re the Wrong Kind of Atheist. You’re insulting the Quiet Atheists.
Now I’m perfectly happy accepting that it’s not the style of some nonbelievers to openly declare their atheism, much less to publicly criticize religion. But why go after the ones who do, especially when they’re simply articulating the reasons why the non-vociferous atheists have rejected religion?
I can think of a couple of answers. The first is simple jealousy: some atheists haven’t achieved the fame or public profile of people like Hitchens, and so attack their character rather than their arguments. It’s also a way to get attention for yourself if you feel unappreciated.
The second is the feeling by the Quiet Atheists that “New Atheists don’t represent me,” and so they must be called out. But since when have prominent New Atheists ever said they represent all atheists? They are representing their own views, and I doubt that any of them have said that they speak for all nonbelievers.
The attacks by atheists on New Atheists stand in strong contrast with how religionists act when they disagree. Christians, for instance, don’t spend lots of their time attacking the character and arguments of other Christians like William Lane Craig or Pat Robertson. Yes, I know that there is some criticism along those lines. But I can’t think of a Christian or a Muslim who makes their living writing article after article criticizing individual coreligionists. Nor, do I think, do believers try to damage other believers by consistently misrepresenting their positions or questioning their characters. When they do engage in such criticism, they’re usually straightforward about their disagreements, not prone to distortion, and are rarely snarky.
Finally, believers who do criticize coreligionists—Maajid Nawaz and his criticisms of radical Islam, for instance—usually don’t engage in character assassination or personal attacks: they go after what they see as the palpable dangers of extremist faith.  If your response is that “well, some atheists see New Atheism as extremist, too” I’d reply that the New Atheists aren’t even close to damaging society in the ways that Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ISIS organization are. New Atheists just write books and give talks; they don’t urge their followers to kill people, forcibly impose their views on others, or urge the murder of those they oppose.
These are just some tentative thoughts, but the rancor of atheist criticism about New Atheists repeatedly surprises and saddens me. And I don’t fully understand it. Readers are invited to share their opinions below.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/why-do-some-atheists-hate-new-atheists/














Well there is another explanation as to why some Atheists attack the New Atheists.
As these same atheists, of which I was formerly within that camp. Fail to separate the rights of individuals to that of beliefs. The former should have equality under the law. The later no such protection from criticism. In other words of those who do condemn them, as people who hold conflicting views that continually conflict. If you are an atheist, then your outlook of al religions should be one of immediate dismissal. One thing is for sure the New Athiests also have a large following which continues to grow. 


The article is right, as how often have articles been posted written by some of the names above and immediately nothing is debated from the article, but where those on here who hold conflicting views which defend some of the religious beliefs. Claiming even worse, that to be critical of religions when it comes down to Islam. Those who do are immediately labelled falsely as racist, prejudice, bigoted etc. Not only does that poorly try to shout down and deny the ability to challenge poor beliefs. Now correct me if I am wrong, do this and others who's views conflict on this, make the same assertion over beliefs like racism and homophobia?


Do they claim its wrong to do so and that we should as suggesting in the quote above. Leave them alone with their views if they allow those non racist to have their non racist views?


Now of course these same people will be the first to stand up and rightly challenge and be overtly critical of such bad beliefs like racism and homophobia. They also fail to grasp that it the ultimate goal of every Muslim or Christian, is for everyone to convert to their faith and be led by these poor beliefs. In other words, daily religious people certainly do not leave us to our atheist views and have been for centuries arguing all other religions are wrong, and only theirs is right. Of course these very same people will also have absolutely no problem with criticism of Christianity, as they view that as fair game and its very unlikely you will be blown up or stabbed to death for doing so. So this stand point fails from the offset and I have no issue with religious people attempting to convert people. Even worse, where for years people stood up for the rights of people and challenged religious control. over coming countless hurdles to bring about progression. They want to give up, when the job is not completed. These same people have learnt zero from history. 

These same atheists who clearly do not champion progression, but instead want to sit back and allow the status quo to continue. They are doing this because they have succumbed to fear, which is evident by the view to leave people to their own devises. terrorism and poor reasons have allowed them to conclude poorly that if we intervene is okay anywhere else in the world, but Islamic nations they want  to give them a wide birth a wide birth. That is why they fail to stand up to Islam. As they have allowed terrorist attacks to succeed in their regard. These same people are like pacifists. Happy to sit back whilst numerous people suffer and will then continue to suffer based off their surrender to fear.. So as seen their stance is driven by fear. It fails to recognize religious, certainly do not leave people to themselves and will continue to convert people. Which they have every right to try and do. So that to me is the core issue and it stems from those who are hypocritical and are highly critical of many other repressive beliefs including Christianity, but recoil in fear at questioning Islam as they have bowed down to terrorism. No free thinking person would hold such a contradiction over beliefs. Either the stand point is no belief has a right to any protection or all beliefs including racism and homophobia should be decriminalized, as they would have to defend all beliefs.

So they need to make up their minds

i fully agree with

I do say. You’re making an absurdly large leap and insulting the many atheists (including myself) who are perfectly happy to leave people alone with their views if they let me alone with mine. Dawkins, et al. are evangelists for atheism. That’s what I’m criticizing. Just as not all straight people are homophobes, not all atheists are eccesiophobes. And you can be scientific without being scientistic.

you are not progressive by behaving the same way as previous fundamentalists.
you cannot demand others champion progression or expect all atheist to believe the same social, political or moral code that other atheists do.. there is no reason why an atheist cannot also believe that homosexuals are wrong or that women are property.
If we are to believe that new atheism is not a religion then surely it has no moral code or set beliefs or dogma, including progressive ideals.

being progressive and being atheist do not have anything to do with each other.

Once all theological ideas have reached a critical mass they develop a fundamentalist sect, 'new atheist' are just that to the atheist theological idea...
Many quiet atheists are secular first and foremost, so see theological fundamentalism as the greatest threat over mere regressive ideas that are worn away by time and technology.

DAWKINS is a dick;  and a bit of a prig...


AND HIS  TV shows as boring as batshit..
HIS droll monotone must be the best cure yet found for insomnia !      

And as seen both fail to back or reason why they agree with the view made that was flawed and wrong to let people get on with themselves. As this view was formed by fear and not to champion liberty and freedom of thought. religions have and always have had done. By not respecting his or miy views, They rightly have a right to challenge and be critical in order to convert people to islam.
So if my views formed from reasoned logic around objectivity, to then lacj any reasoned accusations made to me. Has to aplly their same methodology to those who actively challenge other beliefs looking to then convert


Now as of now and the future if people fail to address my numerous points and fail to do so by the next post. I now will cease any further debate on that topic with them. As its pointless continuing when the points i raised already b y yet again poor unfounded accusations wrongly made.

This discussion is over until either address my points
Back up and reason their unfounded accusations. the this debate ceases on this thread between us

There is no athiest code, its just non=belief, they just also have a varied difference in many different political and social views which vastly back equality under the law

i will allow you both one more chance to read , digest, and reason if you think they are wrong.

I am not interested in debates which fail at the off  by accusing me of being a fundamentalist, when i do not even have a dogmatic stance on atheism. Hence poor claims are made as if to deflect the many points I made.

Debate the points I have made, and back up with sound reasoning claims and accusations.

Many atheist only share one single trait, no belief.
They like countless people differ politically and socially, showing the accusations made to be false

Sorry chaps,. but the new me is not going to be drawn into posts offered up, that lack reason, evidence, ignore many views made, accusing to deflect my reasons amde

Hope you both reply

If not, sorry but the conversation on this thread will stop as there will be little point continuing

There is no athiest code, its just non=belief, they just also have a varied difference in many different political and social views which vastly back equality under the law

that is among western atheist that are the minority of atheists.. although the majority of new atheists.. so you can see that from the perspective of someone standing back it seems awfully similar to previous time westerners have asserted their theological view over others.

IF there is no atheist code then an atheist can believe and support women having to be covered head to toe only being able to see through a mesh covered hole...
Atheism has no moral superiority over anything because it doesn't have any morals by your own claim that it's only code is non-belief.

Plus not really discussing with you just correcting the ignorant one-sided assertions of the OP

You are making a very ambiguous, subjective and fundamentally unfounded reasoned claim that sitting back  will allow for the very same situation you claim happened before, where people sat back, when western cultures was exported and conquered by the sword.
There is no atheist code. If you want to be left to your own views, the same happened before. So not one single person who claims they are athiest, would then knowingly defend a belief, Not even claimed to be born from the Qurand. So the practice and belief to wear, when nothing reasonable backs and defends the need to do so. is rendered not even a choice, as its claimed to be an obligation. The choice then is over the religion itself