I'd say it withered due to the opposite trend, which largely focused on a woman being awkwardly hit on in an elevator and complaining about it. It turned out that some of the New Atheists and those they inspired were still European/Christian supremacists, although being atheists they defended it as Judeo-Christian/Western culture, rather than traditional heretic-hunting and Crusading.

It started with Objectivist Michael Shermer, when he started debunking the existence of poverty, racism and sexism rather than quacks and ghosts, was exacerbated after 9/11 when that group (and notably Hitchens) found that they would rather direct invective at brown people overseas than their own parents (it certainly paid more), and the elevator incident simply finalized the Incel tripod, leading into Gamergate.

As I recall, it was the "atheism+" schism that killed that movement. So: probably, yes.

I thought Elevatorgate killed the movement.

There was also Richard Dawkins etc. advocating 'the Brights' and Alain de Botton proposing atheist churches, amongst a lot of other cringeworthy ideas.

Thanks. A DDG search for that term gives me all the background I wanted.

It's a popular story. But I think people shifted their focus after the atheist cause stalled. And the framing assumes their activism wasn't motivated by social justice all along.

Just an anecdote on this, a few years ago (in a university town in the US) I was in a bookstore and overheard a small group discussing what sounded a lot like New Atheism. What stood out to me was one of them arguing passionately for greater group solidarity, saying that they shouldn't squabble over whether they call themselves secular humanists or atheists or whatever. So these people are still out there. Of course, in this same town social justice activism is much more prevalent, and there was something pitiable about this group, as though they knew that their brand of politics isn't in favor anymore. But I was struck by how strongly some of them still wanted to change that. I'm not an atheist, but I think groups like this can provide a healthy counterbalance to the kind of fervor being discussed here.

Secular humanism can be quite indistinguishable from religion.

Except for the lack of magic, I suppose?

I don't believe most educated, rational believers call their faith equivalent to a belief in magic, so that's kind of begging the question.

Anyway, if we start inventorying our personal beliefs and the rational, empirical basis for each of them, I think we all probably practice magical thinking to some extent.

I imagine some perfectly rational, omniscient alien interrogator questioning my most deeply held beliefs about, say, free will, or my individuality, or why the world is the way it is, and placing me somewhere on a continuum that includes witch-burners and cavemen, rather than in a completely separate category.

Depends, if a secular humanist believes that time, space and matter appeared out of nothing, which is indistinguishable from magic and on the grandest possible scale.

It's definitely less of a magical explanation than that everything was created by a magic personality of endless love and ruthless judgment, whom you know personally through auditory hallucinations and the writings on ancient scrolls.

Ok, but what about literally every other scale? Because those are the ones that matter re: morality and how we show up in the world.

Saying "both sides can't answer this one question" as though that implies that both sides are equally invested in magical thinking is a bit unfair.

A secular humanist probably defers to the physicists on that question and is fine with the answer "we don't know".

You would really have to stretch the definition of religion to breaking point to justify that comparison though. Secular humanism is fundamentally different in the way it was born, how it tenets are formulated and how it's practised compared to say to Islam or Christianity. Reducing both religion, as practised by billions of people, and a secular belief system to just philosophical systems does neither justice.

Secular humanists are fundamentally sceptical, whereas theists are fundamentally credulous ... is that how they are distinguished?

To clarify: sceptical in the sense of doubtful / needing to be convinced by compelling evidence, and credulous in the sense of being prepared to believe something with uncertain or only minimal evidence.

OP said secular humanism and religion were indistinguishable - my point is they are distinguished by their fundamental attitude to evidence.

Maybe this?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godles...

Roughly halfway down: "I think it seamlessly merged into the modern social justice movement."

Thank you, this is exactly the post I was thinking of and I'm happy to have found it again. I'm sorry that your comment was unfairly downvoted beyond all others as I write this.

Did you notice the author said he didn't have a great sense of how this era went?

Whether the author's claim is right or wrong is immaterial. I was looking for the claim itself, and the OP helped me find it again.

The strongest interpretation I can see is you thought I was responding to the part about votes. I was responding to the original claim and its source.