Finally, atheists are no longer just old white men

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/03/finally-atheists-are-no-longer-just-old-white-men

Women 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. There’s 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 they’re very quickly becoming more diverse.

The most important finding in Barna’s 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 isn’t 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 hasn’t been as dramatic, but there’s 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]

1. I have to report, that this atheist is still an old white man.

Sorry.

--imm

[cbayer]

2. Nothing to fear. You remain solidly in the majority.

[Journeyman]

3. It probably just shows my age, but the "face of atheism" for me remains Madalyn Murray O'Hair. . .

[cbayer]

4. Maybe at one time, but female leaders have been scarce since her.

[skepticscott]

5. So would it be fair to say

that women are joining the atheist community in "droves"?

[phil89]

6. Good to see

rational world views are becoming more popular. Hopefully religion will give way to skepticism and reality based world views.

[cbayer]

7. Recent data shows that religion isn't going anywhere, but I

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]

8. Do you EVER not wag your finger and berate those that don't agree with you?

[Starboard Tack]

9. Do you ever ask yourself that same question?

[cleanhippie]

10. Awww, someone got their fee-fees hurt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=195640

[trotsky]

44. "I would suggest that your particular perch is not superior to anyone else's"

[beam me up scottie]

11. The author is a condescending twit.

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.

The real reason for atheism’s monochrome public image has nothing to do with the subtle effects of testosterone on the brain or natural selection. The fault lies with past generations of leaders who didn’t address the issues that matter most to women and minorities.

It’s 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 atheism’s 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]

54. +1000

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]

55. And this guy claims Gnu Atheists are sexist?

We're not that stupid, we know who's talking down to us.

[rug]

12. I'm waiting to see if the socioeconomic demographics change.

[cbayer]

14. Could be interesting.

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]

15. Religion will have to stop preying on the poor

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]

17. That must explain why atheists as a demographic enjoy economic privilege.

Is your reaction to any critique of atheism RCCarglebargle!!!11!!

[Lordquinton]

18. They're also far less likely to commit a crime

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]

19. Or be prosecuted for one.

Elites stick together.

[Lordquinton]

25. Nope, I told you I interperted it to be less likely to commit

and I have other ways of knowing that it's true, how dare you challenge it.

[rug]

26. Well, being more experienced in criminal law, I'll leave you to your own devices.

[Lordquinton]

28. Says the economically privileged old white christian man

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]

24. "Theists are predisposed to be criminals". That's sarcasm or hyperbole, or both, right?

Just checking. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

[YoungDemCA]

53. Yes, all of those poor, undereducated, (largely) black and brown people are being oppressed

by their religions and cultures. We must "civilize" them to secular, Western standards.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. As long as you exclude asia from your demographics you have a valid point.

In particular China and Japan. Of course by continuing to ignore that data you are engaged in a racially biased argument.

[rug]

35. You are ignoring India.

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]

38. No I am not, as I am not making a claim that atheists are predominantly white men.

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]

40. Of course you are. Look at the economies and look at the governments.

What is laughable is your attempt to inject race. Although there are more accurate terms for what you're doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. "atheist are old white men"

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]

42. "atheists are no longer just old white men"

Present company excepted.

Do you ever consider putting the actual words inside quotation marks?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. the op brought up race, it is in fact the main point of the op.

thanks for playing.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. As if.

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]

16. Still, never mind, eh?

[LostOne4Ever]

20. Finally? Who was the face of Atheism before Dawkins?

[center] [/center]

[cbayer]

21. The article is primarily about changing demographics.

[LostOne4Ever]

23. I am aware

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]

30. I don't wish to dismiss what she did, but I don't think she has been associated

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]

43. The "new atheists" are a fiction.

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]

46. That is because she was the Old New Atheist.

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]

48. "The Most Hated Woman in America"

http://skepticism.org/timeline/june-history/6789-life-magazine-dubs-madalyn-murray-ohair-most-hated-woman-america.html

And yet as you note, here we are on a progressive website and see people willing to continue that hatred against vocal atheists.

[Lordquinton]

22. Atheists have never been just old white men

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]

29. Key words: "if it makes you feel better."

No one can counter any of the "New Atheist" arguments, so it's ALWAYS been about ad homs. They feel better that way.

[malokvale77]

27. Oh come on!

What a bunch of condescending crap. Most atheists I know are female, and have been since we thought our own thoughts.

[cbayer]

31. Your anecdotal experience does not jive with the available data, but

I do hope it is a predictor of things to come.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Please explain to us again why we must ignore China and Japan when evaluating your argument. nt.

[trotsky]

36. jibe

http://americanenglishdoctor.com/wordpress/jive-and-jibe

[beam me up scottie]

47. Maybe that poster is as sick of seeing sexist claims about women atheists as I am.

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]

32. Oh boy. A stereotype is fading. How quaint.

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?

"The most important finding in Barna’s 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."

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]

37. What's odd is how *disappointed* some seem to be...

that the non-believing community is more diverse than they thought.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. "The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm" - again Cbayer? Please check your sources.

This is the second time recently that you have posted crap from this ax grinding evangelical "polling" firm.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. When was there either a truth or stereotype of atheists being 'old'?

Is it just that the writer is so lazy that the word 'old' flowed from his fingers naturally, with no thought?

[cbayer]

50. Well he could be talking about the "horsemen"

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]

51. Obviously, he's not, because this is about the results of a poll, "finally',

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]

52. Not necessarily lazy, but perhaps just not all that interested.

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.