I have seen this term in a couple of essays now (see below), but I still struggle to "get" what it refers to. Is anyone familiar with what "new atheism' is meant to refer to?
http://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/fro...ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...can-left-wing-schism-islam-organized-religion
1) Salon.com is a garbage dump of stupidity and extreme bias, devoid of any kind of journalistic standards or integrity. Which is probably why
most of their good employees fled that dumpster a few years ago and why now Salon
can't even pay their rent. In my opinion, it's the far-left's version of Breitbart, so take everything there with a huge grain of salt (my best advice would be to avoid that website entirely).
They've made a habit out of trashing atheism and attacking so-called New Atheists all the time in a viciously dishonest way:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/nasty-atheist-bashing-in-salon/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...riticize-the-kind-of-faith-that-doesnt-exist/
https://thedailybanter.com/2015/12/salons-treatment-of-sam-harris-is-shameful/
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview
https://www.gspellchecker.com/2014/...tation-dubious-ethics-and-unoriginal-hackery/
2) As to what "New Atheism" is, the New Atheists would likely tell you that it's just atheists who don't remain quiet about their non-belief. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett are known (tongue-in-cheek) as "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" mainly because they all released books on atheism all around the same time (Dawkins' and Hitchen's books were rather aggressive, if not polemic).
These days, it seems to be used more as a pejorative against any atheist who pushes back against religious extremism or violations of church/state separation. In much the same way that people on the far-right seem to label everyone (even reasonable conservatives) who says things they don't like as SJWs, and people on the far-left label everyone (even reasonable liberals) who says things they don't like as "alt-right" (evidenced by the Salon story linked in your post), there seems to be a lot of people out there (on all sides) who like to label any atheists who say things they don't like as "New Atheists." That's just my perspective, though.
These new atheists also have this thing called “street epistemology,” where, under the guise of leading believers to more reasoned thought, they ask for concrete explanations for faith. On YouTube at least, these “SE practitioners” almost always come across as smug and disingenuous. And although SE is based on a book about “creating atheists,” new atheists always assure people that they are only interested in guiding them toward thinking more clearly and to embrace science.
To me, that seems like an incredibly distorted view. I know everyone's experiences are different, though. But, I just haven't perceived SE in any kind of an overall negative way. To me, it seems like an interesting approach to faith discussions. YMMV
Although Peter Boghossian (the person who coined the term "street epistemology") can come across as a bit of a blowhard, the guy who actually started the movement on
YouTube is Anthony Magnabosco, and I just don't see how any reasonable person could describe him as smug or disingenuous by any stretch of the imagination. However, I don't doubt that there could be jerkish SE's out there. On the flip side, there have also been some
Christian apologists who have willfully lied and misrepresented SE while talking to believers.
Here's an example of how he conducts himself. There is nothing smug or disingenuous about him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os
Here's another guy who calls his channel "Cordial Curiosity," and he also doesn't (to me) come across as smug or disingenuous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvz5fcuw9j0