What is so “wrong” with them? I’ve read a number of critiques, rants, diatribes and screes, mostly from the religious or spiritual, often from the fundamentalist who are their primary focus. Here is what is wrong with them.
They aren’t as formidable as the “Old” Atheists
You wouldn’t think this would be a basis for criticism. One might actually rejoice that their opponents were not a formidable as they used to be. They aren’t like Hume, Russel, and Spinoza. I’ve also seen Nietzsche mentioned. Those were the days when men were men and atheists were intellectual powerhouses, deep thinkers, quietly influential, if anyone read what they wrote at all at the time. The new atheist are brash Johnny-come-late-lys” without the intellectual acumen or the moderation of their predecessors.
It’s ridiculous to discount the criticisms of the New Atheist by saying Dennett is not a Russell or Nietzsche, Dawkins is no Darwin and Sam Harris is no Spinoza. I mean, who is? Perhaps they are not as original thinkers as these others. Perhaps their intellectual prowess is not up to these giants. They would probably agree. That does not mean their popularization of arguments against theism are to be discounted.
They are just as fundamentalist as the religious fundamentalists
Apparently it is not okay for atheists to be definite about what they think. All levels of certainty are equated to fundamentalism. Humble uncertainty in the face of the vast and unknowable universe especially where the “Big Questions” are concerned is more the fashion. Of course, the “Old” atheist were pretty definite. Just read Russell. Peruse Twain, dip into Nietzsche. Read some of the more common speeches and writings of Robert Ingersoll. None of these men were shy about what they thought. None of them failed to advocate for the truth of what they said and wrote.
This seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because the certainty espoused by the religious is noxious, doesn’t mean all certainty is equally to be avoided especially certainty about what is wrong. I can be open to the actual age of the universe while being certain it was not created in six days. If you read the New Atheist carefully you’ll see this sort of agnosticism.
They are just as evangelical as the fundamentalist evangelicals
It’s also not okay to actively seek to communicate what you think especially to the populace in general. While the “old” atheists wrote books, those books were not broadly consumed and are only being more recently appreciated. They didn’t have a very wide circulation and their target audience was not necessarily the “man in the street”, so to speak. The New Atheist are active, outspoken proponents of what they thing and active critics of fundamentalist religion. Of course fundamentalist religion as been doing this as a matter of creed for centuries.
In the realm of ideas communication is the key. Ideas that are not communicated die and have no impact. It’s not the evangelicalism of fundamentalism that is the problem. It is the content of what they are communicating. To borrow a phrase from Sam Harris, “it is the mother load of bad ideas”. What else is one to do when face with bad ideas but to counter them with good ideas; at least what you consider as good ideas.
Actually Schaeffer, while being critical, nonetheless hit the nail on the head.
“Most New Atheists are no more anti-religious than the atheists such as Russell who denounced faith as “regretful hankering after the past,”–they’re just louder. And for all their in-your-face “attitude,” the New Atheists are positively polite compared to the religious fundamentalists. Incidentally, if some of the earlier atheists (what I guess we should call the Old, Old Atheists), such as Baruch Spinoza and David Hume, were more polite than today’s New Atheists they had good reason to be: fear of bigoted religious believers ready to kill people who challenged their ideas.” – “Patience with God” Frank Schaeffer
Nonetheless Schaeffer goes on to criticize them in the ways I’ve outlined. He also echos the tired and clearly wrong headed criticism that atheism has been the cause of more killing and torture than religion in all it’s varieties naming Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro and “scientists”. If what he means is that fundamentalism of all sorts, dogmatism of all varieties can also motivate bloodshed. He is absolutely right. If he is laying this bloodshed specifically at the door of atheism or even secularism or humanism, he is, once again, very wrong headed.
Was Hitler and atheist? No, he was not.
“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.”  ~Adolf Hitler
“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out”  ~Adolf Hitler
Was Castro an atheist?
“According to Washington Post, former President of Cuba Fidel Castro‘s letters from prison suggest that he “was a man of unusual spiritual depth – and a fervent believer in God.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro%27s_religious_beliefs
Stalin was the only confirmed Atheist. Pol Pot was probably Buddhist. The issue is whether it was their religious views or lack thereof that motivated the bloodshed. In none of these cases was atheism in particular the motivation for their reigns of terror. Dogmatism of one sort of another was certainly behind all of these heinous regimes. Rational atheism and humanism was not.
Where Hitler and Castro, “true Christians”? Did they act in a way consistent with the supposed “love” of God fundamentalist Christians are so fond of espousing (a love that will send you to hell, BTW)? This is a species of the “True Scotsman” fallacy where every negative characteristic of which one is accused is laid at the door of “not being a true whatever”. The defense of atheism is different. Those like Hitler and Castro did not even espouse atheism. Those like Stalin and Pol Pot didn’t declare atheism to be the motivation behind what they did. They did not claim they were advancing the cause of atheism or non-theism by doing what they did. Perhaps they saw religion or theism as an obstacle to their goals, and so were anti-theist, but atheism and reason were not the stated driving force behind their reigns of terror.