Religion
Related: About this forumFinally, atheists are no longer just old white men
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/03/finally-atheists-are-no-longer-just-old-white-menWomen are joining the atheist community by the millions and they are being joined by racial and ethnic minorities
Richard Dawkins is the face of atheism today, but not for much longer. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Murdo Macleod
Adam Lee
Sunday 3 May 2015 12.30 BST
When you think of atheists, the face that probably comes to mind is male, white, older and a little bit nerdy. Theres more than a grain of truth to this reputation. Atheist groups in America have traditionally been dominated by older white men but that may finally be starting to change.
The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, recently released their 2015 State of Atheism in America report. Based on a year of research on the non-religious demographic, Barna found not just that atheists and agnostics numbers are growing rapidly, but that theyre very quickly becoming more diverse.
The most important finding in Barnas report is that women are joining the atheist community by the millions. In 1993, just 16% of nonbelievers were women, but in 2013, that number was 43% - representing a nearly threefold leap. And this shift isnt because men are leaving the community, which would bring the gender balance closer to parity. Barna found that the absolute numbers of both male and female atheists have increased in the last twenty years, but the number of women has grown far faster.
The atheist community is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse as well. In 1993, people of color made up just 20% of nonbelievers. The change in these numbers hasnt been as dramatic, but theres been change nonetheless, with the number rising to 26% in 2013. Many of these religious skeptics have come from the Hispanic and, especially, Asian communities.
Rapid diversification of the secular community debunks the spurious claims by prominent white male atheists that the lack of diversity had biological reasons. The libertarian skeptic Michael Shermer said that atheism and skepticism are more of a guy thing, while Sam Harris infamously attributed the under-representation of women in the atheist community to its lack of an estrogen vibe.
more at link
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Sorry.
--imm
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Journeyman
(15,031 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that women are joining the atheist community in "droves"?
phil89
(1,043 posts)rational world views are becoming more popular. Hopefully religion will give way to skepticism and reality based world views.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)do agree that diversification among those that identify as atheist is a good thing.
Religious people can be quite skeptical and very comfortable with reality based world views. I would suggest that your particular perch is not superior to anyone else's, but it is the one you see the world from.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Women aren't "joining the atheist community" because they're kissing our asses, they're self-identifying as atheists because they don't believe in gods.
Its only in the past few years that major atheist and humanist organizations have started to make a collective effort to reach out to women and people of color, to include them, to listen to them and to take their concerns seriously. And despite the inevitable backlash, tantrums and harassment from atheisms regressive faction, this effort is bearing fruit.
It's insulting to claim that women are becoming atheists because we're being wooed. And it's even more insulting to imply we're going to stay believers because those nasty atheist men are trying to keep us from taking our place among them.
The author took encouraging data and used it as an excuse to attack Dawkins and other "old white men" instead of giving credit where credit is due.
Women identify as atheists for the same reason men do, we don't believe in gods.
We're not "joining" the club because they changed their marketing strategy.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)This is condescending as hell. There have always been and continue to be many women who are atheists, and among them stand some of the most impressive people in history.
Women are smart enough to figure out it's all a bunch of bs--I'd argue more than men, actually. The consistently bigoted actions of a violently patriarchal belief system make a good case for that. I know at least one woman who does not identify as atheist because it would probably not be a good idea in her situation. And just think about how many women have this crap figured out in places controlled by extremists--I'll wager quite a few women over there think it's all a bunch of crap and for some odd reason don't say so.
Too many societal and historical reasons for people not to identify as atheist for me to believe this is a sudden change and women are just now catching up to the rational, intelligent, logical men.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We're not that stupid, we know who's talking down to us.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's easier to be out when you are secure, and there is a clear correlation between religiosity and economic status.
So, I would anticipate some change, but maybe not a lot.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)for that to really happen in large numbers. Of course, if that happened, then the RCC couldn't tell said poor people to stop using contraception because it gives god a sad and they'd have to stop telling Africans that contraception causes AIDS.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is your reaction to any critique of atheism RCCarglebargle!!!11!!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)hardly any atheists in jail, therefore my explanation must be true, theists are predisposed to be criminals. Atheists are also smarter, studies show.
It's hilarious hearing an economically privileged old white man calling another group economically privileged as an insult.
rug
(82,333 posts)Elites stick together.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and I have other ways of knowing that it's true, how dare you challenge it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Also straight and Cis as well (from what I've read from you) You're like the paragon of privilege here, no wonder so many look up to you.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Just checking. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)by their religions and cultures. We must "civilize" them to secular, Western standards.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In particular China and Japan. Of course by continuing to ignore that data you are engaged in a racially biased argument.
rug
(82,333 posts)And you are ignoring the officially atheist policy, backed p by state power, of the Chinese government.
As it is, you are the one injecting racial bias. I wonder why.
Race rarely is the underlying explanation.
Returning to economics, Japan has the second or third largest economy, depending on the quarter.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)To make that claim one has to ignore east asia, where across the board people are atheist. Given the huge populations involved the claim of "white men" is laughable.
rug
(82,333 posts)What is laughable is your attempt to inject race. Although there are more accurate terms for what you're doing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)uh what the fuck rug? Please read the title of the op. Who injected race? Do you ever consider the arguments you are making *before* you post?
rug
(82,333 posts)Present company excepted.
Do you ever consider putting the actual words inside quotation marks?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)thanks for playing.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The article confuses the public face of atheism with atheism itself. We have long had the example of Madalyn Murray O'Hair as mentioned above. Not to mention, when Dan Barker came out on AM Chicago, he met his current wife, who was already in a leadership position in the FFRF.
Women have always been important in the free-thinker movement and have never been barred from leadership, unlike some institutions on the other side of the belief spectrum I can name.
The sorts of observances made in this article only expose general ignorance of the subject they're attempting to pontificate about.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)[center] [/center]
cbayer
(146,218 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)But I think it is worthwhile to remind people of a part of history that seems to get glossed over.
She was the face of atheism long before Dawkins and was labeled the most hated woman in America. She said things that make Dawkins et al look like religious apologists.
And she was a woman. A woman with ovaries of quenched carbon steel who spoke her mind no matter what people thought or said about her.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)with what is called the "new atheists".
I don't think she makes Dawkins look like a a religious apologist either. She took things very far for the time she was around, but she primarily focused on separation issues and civil rights for nonbelievers. IMO, she was not an anti-theist.
She was indeed a very strong woman and advanced the cause like no one before here. I don't think the article means to dismiss her in any way.
She has, in fact, been succeeded by old, white men (well, Harris isn't that old) who are seen by many as not being particularly friendly to those who aren't old, white men.
The demographic changes are good news imo, and I have long hoped to see some new blood begin to take leadership roles.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)There have always just been atheists. Then one day some idiot somewhere who hadn't been paying attention woke up and realized some of them were actually talking out loud, declared this to be some kind of radical departure because it's the first they'd heard of such a thing, and labelled them "new" and it caught on.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are old enough to remember her Cbayer. She was as reviled, in fact more so, than your anti-heroes. Not only was she an outspoken atheist, but she was a woman who refused to be demure. The hate piled on her by the Defenders of the Faith was astounding. You should be ashamed to be carrying that torch.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And yet as you note, here we are on a progressive website and see people willing to continue that hatred against vocal atheists.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)A lot of the atheists on this very site are women. The problem is that the people framing the argument (News, media, theists on this site, etc) stick to the same refrain and use a mischaracterization of the "4 horsemen" as the stereotype for all atheists.
So keep spreading this misinformation if it makes you feel better, I guess, but we'll be here warning readers that your posts contain no facts.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one can counter any of the "New Atheist" arguments, so it's ALWAYS been about ad homs. They feel better that way.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)What a bunch of condescending crap. Most atheists I know are female, and have been since we thought our own thoughts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do hope it is a predictor of things to come.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What's that?
Women atheists aren't falling all over themselves to join the Old White Men/New Atheists bashing community?
Could it be that the big scary picture of Dawkins didn't have the desired effect?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You know why it existed in the first place?
Because mostly only white men were privileged enough to get away with saying something as monumentally controversial as 'I am an atheist'. I say 'mostly' because that's not universally true, but mostly true. Start with a social subset, if you have a hundred outspoken female feminists, you're going to have about 10-17 of them being atheists on average, but how many of that subset are willing to step up and be an Emma Goldman? Or a Madalyn Murray O'Hair? How many willing to risk the outright dismissal of one political message, for lack of overt religious identity?
How many humans anywhere, have the strength to be a Goldman, and stand up and have a voice when that out of the mainstream? Oh, you're a feminist? Oh, you're an atheist? Oh, you're a socialist? Just three levels deep, how much of the audience has dismissed or attacked you?
Or, perhaps they were always unbelievers, but unwilling to publicly identify as such due to the outright hate and smearing that goes on when people do publicly identify as such.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that the non-believing community is more diverse than they thought.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)This is the second time recently that you have posted crap from this ax grinding evangelical "polling" firm.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)Is it just that the writer is so lazy that the word 'old' flowed from his fingers naturally, with no thought?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hitchens - 62 at time of death (not all that old, I would agree).
Dennet - 72
Dawkins - 73
Harris - 48 - (definitely not old, but male and white)
As he states, these are the faces one might think of when they think of prominent atheists.
But the point really is about the changing demographic and the increase in diversity, and I think that's a really good thing.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)not about the identities of people who wrote some books in the past decade.
"As he states, these are the faces one might think of when they think of prominent atheists."
If one were lazy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you asked people to name famous atheists, who do you think they would name other than these guys?
I agree that the doesn't make a clear distinction, but I think the changing demographics will lead to a changing public face.
And, again, I think that's a good thing.