Since I am a genuine Atheist and I have been attacked numerous times by New Atheist in this forum, I have to put out some simple facts for the Dawkin followers. I have been going to University for the last 9 years studying cultural and social Anthropology in order to meet some cool people and learn about religion and hopefully get closer to the truth.
Let us start with what Wikipedia has to say about those two breeds of Atheists.
The New Atheists:
"New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck), along with Victor J. Stenger,Lawrence M. Krauss and A.C. Grayling. Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism."-Wikipedia
Atheism:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism,which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.
Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality."
Best LOGICAL criticism of New Atheism ( new age satanism if you ask me, but well you need some years of wasted time in the library to understand why I say this):
Cardinal William Levada believes that New Atheism has misrepresented the doctrines of the church. He described New Atheism as "aggressive", and he believed it to be the primary source of discrimination against Christians.
The theologians Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with what they regard as "the evangelical nature of the new atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible." They believe they have found similarities between new atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities.Sociologist William Stahl said "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists."
John Lennox, a mathematician and philosopher of science who is currently Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, is committed to argue against the various ideas and criticisms written in the books of the "Four Horsemen", as can be seen in his book "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?". Lennox has debated with Richard Dawkins on Dawkins' views expressed in his book, The God Delusion." (actually Lennox crushed Dawkins and his pop-culture arguments, it is pleasing for a real Atheist to see the arrogant Dawkins reduced to a mumbling child ).

Now lets post some Atheist quotes next to some New Atheist quotes.
Atheist quotes:
"I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any."-Lao Tzu
“To you, I'm an atheist.
To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Now some New Atheists brain storms:
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” ― Richard Dawkins
“All thinking men are atheists.” ― Ernest Hemingway
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.” ― Aleister Crowley
And for the big final the "great" philosophical mind of the biologist Dawkins:
We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
I am sure that Plato will be proud of Mr. Dawkins and his Fox News Logic.

So here you have it. New Atheism is not Atheism and I will very happy if you guys ( the new atheist trolls on this forum ) stop kidnapping our identity !

Thank you.

So what will you choice- hate or respect for your fellow human beings? Can you hate a child for being ignorant ?
Atheist answer to his 11 years old son question "Why are girls like that" -"Girls are hard to understand my son."
New Atheist answer to the same question - "All girls are hoes my son."

H,mm I'm an old atheist. I was born this way.

Me two I was born in a country where the Communist pretty much destroyed religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJPdPR1z-n0
The great and only Mr. Dawkins and his real agenda.
Not for New Atheist whit weak hearts !

Thomas Jefferson was a deist.

Crowley was Stanist/ New Ager. I mean the comment is atheistic, Lao Dzu was Taoist... etc. But thank you for the correction.

New atheists are genuine atheists. As in whatever else is added to get "new atheists" to distinguish them from ordinary atheists, they certainly are genuine atheists. Both your characterizations and criticism of new atheism seem rather disjointed, perhaps this is why you seemed to miss the above point.

I am a bit surprised that in your nine years of university nobody ever taught you to hit that old enter button twice when making paragraphs.

You may want to do something different after 9 years if you're just lifting that from Wikipedia.

Another characteristic of the gang of New Atheists: they are ahistorical and essentialize religion. Religion, to them, is a negative essence that pollutes everything it touches. Religion causes this war and that atrocity. They cite it as a single cause rather than a player in contingency. When asked, they say of course religion is not a monocausal source of calamity, of course history is complex. But when they actually write, all they talk about is how irrational religion mucks things up. Sam Harris is the worst. Glenn Greenwald's takedown of his neocon pseudointellectualism: "Sam Harris, the New Atheists and anti-Muslim animus."

This is an odd thread. The OP seems completely confused.

Umm. New atheists are.... atheists. The title only denotes a newer class of outspoken atheists. The fact that they're outspoken doesn't change their atheism.

The rest of his posts are rathar muddy. I'm really not sure what his issues are. I'm going to assume that since he doesn't get that new atheists are atheists (one of the clues to that is the word atheist used right there in the title) that the problem is not in my comprehension but instead with his writing.

As I see it, the danger of the New Atheist agenda is not the destruction of religion but rather the destruction of diversity of thought. Faith must go because it does not pass muster as properly Rational per the New Atheists. Anyone less than fully commited to the properly Rational per the New Atheists is functioning suboptimally and thus a hinderence to humanity as a whole. Therefore, everyone must be convinced to adopt and fully commit to the properly Rational per the New Atheists.

So success for the New Atheist agenda is complete uniformity in governance of thought - Uniform group think for humanity governed by the properly Rational per the New Atheists. Trouble is, like the lack of genetic diversity, the loss of diversity of thought carries dangers of species extinction if somewhere down the line the wrong kind of view is found to be implied by the properly Rational per the New Atheists. We've seen more than one example of such a thing on small scales in the recent past - based on other premises but enabled by uniformity of thought enculcated in cults. The fatal view need not be mass suicide. For example, the properly rational might be found to imply that everyone should stop having babies.

Faith is a revolutionary act.


PairTheBoard

This is completely false and a flagrant misrepresentation of our ideals. In fact, a perfectly functioning society needs uneducated drones to carry out the menial tasks with which we elites don't want to bother ourselves. Far from aiming to raise your kind up to our lofty intellectual heights, we plan to keep you all in blissful yet mindless servitude with 24-hour gameshows, cheap alchohol and megachurches.

Hope this puts your mind at rest.

This is of course completely accurate, but I don't see why you want to let the unwashed masses know about our Bright Masterplan. I question your devotion to the Atheist Agenda and will be raising the matter with Messiah Dawkins personally.

Come on man, I used words of more than one syllable... they'll never crack that code.

Back to OP's question, I propose a counter-question; what's the difference between a genuine atheist and one masquerading as one in order to provide an implied moral high ground when carrying out one's agenda by criticising atheists online?

...and if they do, they reveal sufficient intelligence to be ripe for conversion to the Sacred Truth of Atheism! Very cunning brother, I stand corrected.

Diversity of thought on important issues is not necessarily a good thing. For instance, there is currently a diversity of thought on the issue of women's rights throughout the world depending on where you live. Clearly the world would be a better place if there was no diversity of thought on this issue, and women had equal rights everywhere.

What was your point in posting a link to this terrible video?

His disdain for the effect's of religion is common knowledge. As for the interspersed clip from 'Expelled!', how difficult is it for you to believe that a creationist film used deceptive Q&A / editing, something that Dawkins has spoken about before.

PS Dawkins is a world-renowned biologist, and is not, nor has ever claimed to be, a philosopher. His position at the head of the 'New Atheism' movement is less about what he actually said, but more about helping to open the doors previously labelled "Don't talk negatively about religion". In fact, I'd wager that Dawkins is much less popular amongst 'New Atheists' (at least in terms of what he chooses to say) than those outside of the 'movement' would think.

I'm using lots of 'quotes' because 'New Atheism' and 'movement' just seem silly to me, even thought they are popular terms, both inside and outside of it.

Who are you? Is your last name amazing? Lol
GG

So much win.
Then again its like religion. There's some who call themselves religious but sin and gamble and do hookers and go to church on Easter.
Then there's the ones who go to church twice a week minimum, talk about god to others not interested, tries to convert others, etc.
There's atheist like that too. Some say I'm a atheist and I don't give a **** about god or nor I want to talk about it.
While others say god is silly and you are too for thinking about it and will get into discussions with theist about silly things since we know religion is silly now.
5000 years ago it was ok.

In my experience,"new athiest" has become a pejorative for pop athiests like dawkins and harris. There doesn't seem to be any real distinction as far as I can tell

You are basically just describing anti-theism here

We should be profiling atheists!

They are not Atheist, they are post-modernist. But well we can't all spend time to actually read books. Can we?