Sixty years ago, a known atheist would be an academic, a Bertrand Russell type, and atheism regarded as a harmless eccentricity, the kind of thing would be discussed after dinner at high table, literally of academic interest.
The story was that recruiting sergeants faced with someone who said 'no religion' or the like would enter them as 'C of E', the default position. You were expected to have a religion, even if your adherence was on paper only.
But that has changed. Science has advanced; many of the deepest mysteries of evolution and medicine are mysteries no more; and with it are whole new generations of young people who understand more, question more, and have the evidence to doubt the proclaimed factual truth of religious texts and teaching.
The only 'new' feature of 'new atheists' is that more people are prepared to openly challenge the factual beliefs and tenets of religion. Faith, per se; the idea that there is some deity to whom one can pray for comfort; is harmless and seems itself to be a product of evolution. It is ancient and universal. But once the leaders of a religion claim to direct others because they, the leaders, speak for the deity, the harm is potentially great. That's what atheists, new or old, should be addressing, and do now.