From the popular New Atheist blog, SkepChick:
Hemant Mehta, aka The Friendly Atheist, has written a post characterizing “The Slymepit” as “online forum that frequently criticizes and mocks (PZ MYERS) and is populated by people he deems trolls (even though they correctly uncovered plagiarism on his blog network).” The Slymepit, in fact, is a forum that was created specifically to host hate speech directed toward me and other feminists after National Geographic refused to allow blogger Abbie Smith to host a discussion about what a cunt I am on their servers. For the past several years it has served as a place for misogynist atheists to gather and circlejerk over how much they hate me, PZ Myers, and other outspoken feminists.
So Mehta promotes an atheist document that publicly labels PZ Myers and his fans as haters (and worse).
In doing so, Skepchick notices that Mehta is promoting a place “for misogynist atheists to gather and circlejerk over how much they hate me, PZ Myers, and other outspoken feminists.”
In other words, Type A New Atheists claim Type B New Atheists are haters.
Type B New Atheists respond by claiming Type A New Atheists are haters.
Er….maybe they are both right. Told ya New Atheism is a modern day hate movement.
If only we could get the world to abandon religion so we could all become New Atheists. The world would clearly be a much better place.
Shadow To Light 
And the atheist wars go on and on and on and on.
I don’t want to give the appearance I know anything profound, each day that goes by I think I find the world more mysterious and nonsensical. One of the things I appreciate about believers is that many do in fact seem to ask questions. Many are skeptical of claims of transcendence in a way some people who claim to have it all figured out vis a vis science are not. What’s ironic about the so-called skeptic movement is that it has its own schisms, based in many parts by an unwavering belief that the process of science has or will reveal all or enough of the fabric of reality. As if any endeavor undertaken by man could ever be so reliable. What you have with the Watson crowd is one group of people claiming to know how man should conduct his affairs based on science and the Mehta group doing the same thing. I find both camps distasteful. Equally. While I can sympathize why women would not want abhorrent behavior justified based on evolutionary theory, I must grant that because both groups do seem to embrace a science answers all mentality, Watson’s crowd has trouble blaming Mehta’s for embracing a supposedly scientific explanation for human behavior that gives men a privileged status. Afterall, its science-based, right? It’s like slapping organic on red meat and calling it healthy. Both sides are claiming a basis for truth and is intractable in its own way. Personally, I think Watson and Mehta are caricatures of something comical but also frightening. It’s also sorta familiar right? Dogmatic groups fighting it out over ideas, hurling invective and digging in deeper.
It’s one of the reasons why I have left atheism in 18. The religious communities do have similar problems, but the problems in atheist communities are definitely so tense. We shouldn’t fight over our interpretations. I remember many Christians have been accusing rock music as the “creation of Satan”, but my godmother has told me that many rock musicians (especially Russian) were either agnostic, apatheist or religious. Telling that somebody is “atheist” was giving me a fork dilemma, whether this person simply didn’t believe in God, or he was an antireligious activist.