The people behind the so-called 'Atheism+' (still sounds ridiculous) are a bunch of online bullies who gang up to attack anybody who does not conform to their very narrow extreme feminist and humanist dogma. Atheism actually plays no role in their thinking - it is a completely political movement.

Over the last year, many of the leaders have bullied and harrassed other atheists, skeptics, humanists, etc. for even "daring" to disagree on trivial points in their masterplan. One of the bloggers was even sacked recently for sending threats of violence to another one of their own bloggers!

Quite why the New Statesman would give these clowns any publicity is a mystery. They contribute nothing to the atheism and skeptic movements, and can only ridicule, demean and bully the people who actually DO contribute.

As an atheist, I believe that mythologies are interesting and often useful, just not factually true. Norse mythology, Christian mythology, whatever. That so many people treat the legends and rules of other religions as cute myth while insisting that the the legends and rules of their own religion are different--I've never understood how people do that with such sincerity and a straight face. However politics are orthogonal to atheism. The simple ability to notice that myth systems are different from each other and from reality doesn't predetermine one's other behavio(u)rs or beliefs.

I became an "aggressive" atheist because I didn't want myself, or others, being told what to think and how to live. Why, then, should be part of a movement that tells me I must accept some very ropey claims about feminism and other matters before I can be accepted?

I've stood on a platform with David Davis, I'll stand on a platform with feminists, I'll join forces with a lot of people I don't in the normal run of things agree with if there's a nasty enough foe to unite against. I will not be told that I must be approved by Jen McCreight before I can be aceptable.

"...why we’ve been having these problems in atheism and skepticism." has to be the most idiotic generalization that can be made. There's simply absolutely nothing gender dependent about them. Do we say capitalism is sexist? The question simply malformed. How do we get from Atheism to "boy's club" anyway? what possible logical pathway do we provide to arrive at such absurd conclusion?
And to say "To remember that not all atheists look like Richard Dawkins." is just failed attempt at slur. Didn't Dawkins admire feminist movements as inspiration of new Atheists movements? Didn't he personally support there's probably no god campaign? I'm sure Ariane Sherine doesn't share McCreight's insecurities.

Of course Atheistic movements, like any other movements, need refinements, but does it really help to make a imaginary front line to attack?

The growth of any organism depends on stages of separation, but how can any group who "questions everything" agree for long? The RDF's R Cornwell proposes a stance on abortion and RDF members bicker pedantically over R's sources. The RDF changes its online discussion format and RDF members flame it atrociously. A meeting is held to commemorate Hitchens' life and a woman speaker calls his habit of kissing her hand "grotesque", to the irritation of Hitchens' friend Salman Rushdie. You can't expect sensitive people to be attracted to a heaving scrum of acerbic criticism. A group which sets itself against any leadership - Divine or human - from the start, is built to fragment.

If, as Atheist Experience claims, atheists pride themselves on "having more reasoning power than anyone else", it explains why they're always bickering; have they ever experienced compromise and acceptance? The new offshoot is a positive step because it attempts to base itself around it.

The "atheist community" never has been a community of all atheists. There is a significant minority of Ayn Randian stylee libertarian atheists for example who have never been embraced by the "new atheist" movement.
But the liberal, equality concious atheists tend to be in the majority precicely because it is the rational position. And yes, if atheism+ purges our growing movement of its sexists, racists and otherists so be it.
This is not designed to exclude middle aged, middle class white males, a demographic that I sit squarely in myself, it is intended to expand the representation to make atheism a safe landing for women, people of colour and LGBTQ individuals as well as the likes of me and RD.

The real problem with this movement lies not with its political aims (which sound - broadly speaking - laudable) but with the fact that it gives further food to the pernicious myth of atheist/sceptical=left-wing and believer=right-wing. While it's certainly true that many prominent left-wing thinkers and activists are atheists (or perhaps open-minded secularists) and nowadays many religions tend to adopt social policies which sit easier with the conservative right, this is a simplistic distinction which irritates me. I am a Catholic and am sick of, when people find this out, them almost immediately asking me "but how does that sit with your left-wing views?" Certainly there is a problem with small-c conservative religious believers piggy-backing on right-wing social themes (or vice versa) but to throw that back and create an atheist movement which explicitly links non-belief in God with a progressive agenda (as if one follows from the other) is not going to make things better.