New Atheists presadzujú sekulárny humanizmus.

New atheism a leninovský materializmus alebo nacizmus majú k sebe veľmi blízko v ich vylúčení religiozity zo sveta a výlučnom postavení vedy. Svoju ideológiu lepšie maskujú a vydávajú za univerzálne hodnoty humanizmu.

odporúčam túto prednášku http://historum.com/blogs/recusant/1364-new-atheism-lecture-john-gray.html

Končí s naznačením toho akože vedeckého, ale v skutočnosti religiózneho projektu:

But the Positivists did have this advantage: They understood that humans have religious needs. And that's not going to change. And therefore they came up with this absurd project of a new religion of humanity. There was even a Positivist pope for a while. Of course they were French, so he lived in Paris. There were Positivist rituals and liturgies, based on the science of phrenology. You had to touch your forehead several times every day on the points of progress, benevolence, and order. And if we all did that long enough and faithfully enough, we would gradually become more progressive, more orderly and more benevolent. It all sounds very absurd, but very important figures in the 19th century were very much influenced by this. For example, George Eliot, the woman novelist, was pretty well a Positivist. John Stuart Mill, although he came in the end—the greatest British liberal thinker—he came in the end to reject Comte's system. He wrote a rather good book about it. He was tremendously influenced by it, tremendously influenced by it. He even called his own view the religion of humanity, which was a Positivist phrase. It was hugely influential.

And I think (and I'll conclude on this point), I think that the present version of atheism is just a reversion to Positivism. Although most of them have never heard of it. That's to say, it's a mixture of the belief that atheism is based in science, and that the world is moving inexorably to a universal civilisation based on science, with the idea of the divinisation of humanity. That is to say, that humanity is a sort of fit object of worship. And that instead of worshipping a god, or gods, or some spiritual reality, we should worship an ideal version of ourselves. Now this is of course not explicit in the New Atheism, and they would probably indignantly deny it. But if you look at their writings, what a key in them is that humanity is imagined to be a sort of collective actor. Humanity does things. Humanity advances and retreats.

What if you think as I do, that there isn't humanity? What there are, are billions and billions of separate human beings with their own needs, desires, dreams, projects, illusions, fantasies, hopes, needs, and choices. And humanity doesn't really advance or retreat at all. I mean, it doesn't go around doing things. You don't wake up one morning and say, "I see humanity's got to Stage 5 now. Let's kind of get at it, and we'll be at Stage 6 in about 20 years." It's not like that. But that's the way they write, and I think this is a Positivistic notion. That one can interpret history as some kind of—the advance of humanity. Of course it also has the implication that we, or rather they, are the privileged representatives of humanity. Because they can look back at all of these earlier generations struggling in darkness: The pathetic, benighted Medievals, the ignorant Greeks, the uncivilised Chinese. All these ridiculous caricatures of previous civilisations. They can say, "We're superior to all of those." Even though, of course, we wage greater wars, we kill more people in genocides and civil wars than they ever did. And we've now reverted to barbaric practices such as torture.
http://historum.com/blogs/recusant/1364-new-atheism-lecture-john-gray.html