"Alot of different women are noticing the same thing about it"

ok, so it sort of feels like it is true, therefor it is true? seems rather insufficient for a conclusion.

"When you get the same thing happening, then it's time to start thinking it's more than coincidence."

more than coincidence? perhaps, perhaps not.
so the thing to do prior to coming to your conclusion is to do some data gathering and analysis. have you done so? are you familiar with any? i'm not aware of any studies that show atheist males are any more or any less sexist than other types of males. how about you Pavlova? or is that kind of verifiable evidence not needed when you sling mud?

If you can tell me a difference between atheist and "nontheist" then you can say it's a better word.

Since anyone who is not a theist is an atheist by definition I fail to see why it's better to use a second word that means the same thing as the first one.

So, if I understand your comment, we are all born as passive in the debate about the existence of a deity. Atheists, by extention, have become active in promoting/persuading/forcing others to the view that that there is not a deity. Do I understand you correctly?

Sure. Care to expand on your comment?

I have been reading Nietzsche, and frankly, while the vast majority of what he got wrong was heavily influenced by the culture of the time, even as he claimed to reject it, today he would be called a misogynist, and be right at the top of the Atheist+ list of people who where completely clueless, when dealing with women (who he thought where wasting his, and everyone else's time, as well as undermining their true purpose, by doing things like getting educated, for just one example).

His philosophy also rejected even the attempt at equality, social justice, etc., it fell well in line with the absurdity of modern Libertarians, that private charity could help those that really needed it, and everyone else just didn't have the right "will to power" to succeed, etc. He claimed that Christianity gave us Democracy, not the Greeks, and that it is indistinguishable from socialism, for bloody sake.

Here is the thing - New Atheism is the stance that its not enough to reject the idea that god exists, you have to have a damn clue what you are talking about too, therefor science has to be part of your atheism. Atheism+ says, "Its not enough to just apply science to the movement, you also have to recognize when your cultural stupidities are undermining your message, and future, and address those too." And, of course, every time someone has a dress, or breasts, there are 50 idiots that insist that the person that hit on her at some convention where not wrong, even when she did everything short of hitting them with a shovel, to make them go away, because, her mind isn't worth anything if you can't, after all, also get into her pants. Some of us think this actually *is* a problem, and that its one that needs to be addressed country, and even world, wide, and that it needs to start with **our** social clubs, not ignored in them, while pretending we care about when it happens every place else.

" if one believes that God does not exist, why would one spend any more time thinking about it? If one reads any Catholic website, those authors talk endlessly about the Magisterium and 2,000 years of rule-making."

Because, people like those Catholics spend idiotic amounts of time trying to argue that god does, and a specific one at that, then trying to demand everyone follow their rules, because of it.

Atheists have, btw, a rather wide range of opinions on those rules. This was the whole point of the "New Atheist" movement - "If you plan to argue against someone else's rules, from the position that they are silly, because they derive from a non-existent god, then you had better have a better way to come up with rules yourself, than that you just really 'feel', they are good. Otherwise, who does that differ from their position?" Again, Atheist+ seems to be a statement, "These are rules that some of us have seen work, and problems with still badly need addressing, so lets draw a line here, and ask, 'Do you agree that these are a good idea, and if not, what are your rationalizations for claiming that no problems exist, they shouldn't be addressed at all, and/or what reasonable alternative do you have, which doesn't treat the people effected like they are second class, or merely stage props for you?'"