The new atheists have already spoiled their own project with just this kind of aggressive, now nearly fanatic challenge turned phony threat (a sign the movement is faltering). To me the question isn’t ‘god’, but the larger framework behind that question. And there the movement is third-rate to pernicious. Let’s consider, a la a credentials check, some of their larger views. Take Darwinism and the design argument. The movement has botched this issue. They must distort evolution to satisfy a design argument refutation, and the theory is false.
This is tantamount to a bad review: who can trust a movement that in forty years since the critique of darwinism began to take off has never once opened up to any discussion here. The wall of deception is not partial, it is total, a sign of a ‘totalizing movement’ that must banish dissent and maintain a rigid control of the thought of its members. This is an already failed movement, whose expansion can only do great harm.
If the new atheists succeed in doing what darwinists did to evolution, make dissent dangerous to social participation (viz. firing dissenters from universities) they will start a religious war, between two brands of atheism. Theists will not bother.
Incidentally, these people have botched the term secular, which does not refer to or equate with atheism. The foundation of modernity was the Reformation, a religious revolution.
We should be careful here. We already knew Ayn Rand was a dangerous idiot. But look at the ‘success’ of ‘smart’ people in dumbing down a whole culture by promoting her work, and succeeding up to a point. The new atheists could achieve a similar false success.
The issue of atheism/theism has always done best in a Kantian framework where the pitfalls of metaphysics are applied to both sides of an arugment