There is a lot to say here and we should produce our own book on this subject. The question of atheism can be of great help in ‘debriefing’ the confusions of theism, and their dogmatic fixation of belief.
The mythology of monotheism, including we must note that of judaism and covenental judaism and the horrendous outcome of Zionist Israel, too controversial and usually bypassed by new atheists, has become almost rancid in the legacy of ‘pop theism’ and the burden of theological belief that is still a dominant social paradigm. In fact the original ‘new atheism’ was clearly silent on the question of Israel and left a suspicion of bias in its confusion over 9/11 and the war on terror. Should ‘atheists’ propose the assimilation of jews? This hopeless issue has confounded the new atheists, to say the least. The whole new atheism more or less foundered at that point, for that and other reasons, and we should retreat to classic atheism and/or some form of ‘protestant revised’ secular humanism.
A further problem is the exploitation of darwinian mythology about natural selection to try to undermine the design argument, a la Dawkins. Here the new atheists/atheists are as mythological as the monotheists.
But in the end the questions of theism and atheism collide and almost kill each other off: atheism, once it has freed thinking of inadequate views of god, falls into its own interminable muddle. We cannot really decide the issue based on debates over the ‘existence’ of ‘god’ since the ‘god’ in any meaningful theological discussion would never been said to ‘exist’ since ‘god’ must be beyond existence. This sorry fallacy shows the way conventional monotheism was always a hopeless muddle.
The atheists should be more acquainted with Kant, and his challenges to metaphysics, which are two-sided. To say we have no evidence for the ‘god’ works both ways: we can be superstitious about fictions of religious myth, but in a good Kantian sense we can be superstitious about realities for which we have no proof save indirect intuitions about things that affect us very directly. An almost disastrous situation that condemns us to endless debate.
It might help to study the question of Kantian antinomies which lead directly to a domain of thought, neither atheistic or theistic, where both theology and conventional (science) empiricism fall into contradictions.
The question of ‘god’ is too amorphous for any resolution. We can deal with the infantile fantasies of theistic monotheism but then we are left, in a Kantian wonderland, with all sorts of rival definitions of god and/or godlessness…
The following is an excerpt from Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina. The book is available electronically on Kindle, Nook, and soon in print.