I confess that I really don't understand 21st century atheism. I always had respect for philosophical atheists as they could logically argue the development of their world view and place it in historical and sociological context. [On the other hand, I always found agnostics to be a bit squishy in their thinking; unwilling to intellectually commit to a world view and always passively waiting for proof of belief or disbelief].
However, contemporary atheism is far less philosophical and far more an extension of superficial aspects of psycho-therapy. For example, a few years ago a body of atheists were hawking an "anti-baptism liturgy" designed to reverse the trauma of infant baptism. First, it was obvious from the description of the "liturgy" that it was a rather adolescent rejection of parental values rather than a philosophical expression. Second, if I may wear the hat of an atheistic philosopher*, why would I need to reverse something which does not exist? The creation of a "liturgy" to counter-act a sacrament would, obviously, mark the power of the belief rather than its absence. To offer a parallel, if one doesn't believe in demons, one doesn't need an exorcism.
[*As I can find no photo of either Sartre or Camus wearing a hat, I may have to not wear the hat of an atheistic philosopher. Yes, I split an infinitive, but it was for the sake of art.]
It appears that atheism is not to be contained to the merely psychological now, but also to the political, as in the following article:
Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military
A note: This article is found in the New York Times, so viewing it will deduct the number of free views you will have this month from the Times. At least, I think that's how it works. Who am I, Lippman?