Scepticism, class, and the 'New Atheists'

[rug]

Posted By Choccy
Aug 17 2013 19:44

I mentioned Chomsky's appearance on Skeptically Speaking in a previous post. It turned my thoughts to scepticism/rationalism/humanism and I had to split the posts.

I've been listening to this podcast a few years as it covers a lot of interesting science. I'd noticed that the host, Desiree Schell has some sort of lefty/radical slant but never looked into it. She'd interviewed the guitarist from UK Subs, tackled gender and science with Cordelia Fine, and done an episode on Kropotkin. Turns out she's a member of the IWW and works for a public sector union in Canada. She's discussed Joe Hill, the IWW, Emma Goldman and Kropotkin to audiences or 'sceptics'.

Normally 'freethought', 'scepticism', 'rationalism', particularly in its most vocal form as typified by the 'new atheists' has little to say about capitalism, class, or organised labour, and when it does, it's usually in the service of existing social relations (eg, Steven Pinker, EO Wilson, Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer).

It's hard to read much into one skeptic's commentary on labour history, but it would be interesting to see if the until recently very fashionable 'bourgeois rationalist' criticisms of religion will actually evolve into something more. Richard Dawkins' recent verbal flatulence about muslims does seem to be causing a split in the 'skeptic'/rationalist movement. and it certainly is viewed as a movement in the US; see publications like The Skeptic, Skeptical Enquirer, podcasts like Skeptically Speaking, Skeptic's Guides to the Universe, Skepticality, Rationally Speaking, organisations like 'THE BRIGHTS'.... and so on.

http://libcom.org/blog/scepticism-class-new-atheists-17082013

"Bourgeois rationalist criticisms of religion" is a dead on description.

[Laochtine]

1. I guess I'd have to follow

Which ever schism group pisses off the religionists the most. Thank the FSM they'll tell me what to label myself.

[rug]

2. Don't worry. Somebody will tell you what to call yourself.

[Laochtine]

66. At least the church can move its preditors and money around

No gold here bud Your avi would hate his likeness

[Laochtine]

67. That's a proud statment

just here to advocate for Catholicism? an old boys club lol

[okasha]

69. Talking to yourself, are you?

Good choice.

[Laochtine]

71. working out thoughts, you?

[dimbear]

3. New atheism hasn't much to say about capitalism because it is a completely different thing.

Atheism is a non-belief in god or gods. (Such a steep hill to climb.) That's all it is. It's not an economic system or a club.

[rug]

4. That's also because it comes straight from the brow of the bourgeoisie.

There is also a class privilege.

[okasha]

5. And a race privilege, which is related to it.

Last statistics I saw, atheists in the United States are overwhelmingly white.

[LostOne4Ever]

6. Which has nothing to do with this

Making this claim only marginalizes minority atheists and ignores that just because it is mainly white does not mean that privilege is inherent to it.

Some might be influenced by privilege, some may not.

Also world wide there are more asian atheists >.>

[okasha]

8. Sorry, but

class and race are intimately connected in the United States. Gender ties in with those factors, too.

Your world-wide stat includes compulsory atheism for members of the Chinese Communist Party. And membership in the Chinese Communist Party is itself a matter of economic and social privilege for those holding it.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. But they are not tied to atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. This says nothing of class or race. Economics or social values. Its simply about not believing.

Being black does not keep one from doubting. Being White does not keep one from doubting. One can be poor and doubt or rich.

The only correlation is that when one is financially well off they can fulfill more of their Hierarchy of needs and more easily access the point of self actualization and the questioning of ones beliefs.

Trying to say that atheism in and of itself is tied in someway to white privilege sounds like it is marginalizing the experiences of minority atheists in this country while making generalizations about white atheists without proof. While some may not, many white atheists are able to see past their white privilege.

If one wants to comment upon capitalism or race there are many groups and organizations that a non-theist can join. Secular humanism, the democratic party, etc. And many of us do just that.

[okasha]

13. But I'm not saying

that "atheism in and of itself is tied in some way to white privilege." There are, for instance, probably very few whites among the members of the Chinese Communist Party, which is both atheist and privileged within Chinese society.

Correlation is not cause. But denying, as you seem to be trying to do, that most US atheists are white and middle or upper class simply flies in the face of the facts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Communist party members: about 60 million. Chinese atheists: about 636 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China#Membership
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/atheism-rise-religiosity-decline-in-america_n_1777031.html
47% * 1353 million = 636 million

The number of atheists due to party membership is dwarfed by those outside the party.

[okasha]

16. Thank you for making the point

that not all Chinese atheists are Party members. That rather tends to reinforce the privileged status of atheism within current Chinese society.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. How does that 'reinforce' the 'privileged status'?

About half of the population are atheists. That just tells you it's common, not 'privileged'.

[okasha]

33. No, it speaks to privilege.

Despite the official line that there is complete separation of state and religion in the People's Republic of China, religion has been until very recently consistently and actively persecuted where it could not be strictly controlled. I.e., there has been an obvious and material social benefit to being atheist.

Specific penalties have been attached to the practice of various religions, or obstacles placed in their way. Chinese Catholics could legally worship only through a state-controlled "Patriotic Alliance" with no ties to the Vatican. Beijjing drove the Dalai Lama into exile and has imposed its own candidates for other leadership positions in Tibetan Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism was itself suppressed, though it is currently on the rebound. Currently, the Chinese leadership is doing its best to commit genocide against the Muslim Uighurs of southwest China. And of course, there was the Cultural Revolution, which did its best to wipe out all "foreign influence," including "foreign" religions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. You are introducing new topics

I pointed out there are about 10 times as many Chinese atheists outside the Communist party as inside. You claimed this " rather tends to reinforce the privileged status of atheism within current Chinese society". This is nonsensical. You now say "no, it speaks to privilege". Again, this is nonsensical. If about half of the population are atheist, it means nothing about 'privilege' for atheists.

You proceed to claim various problems some religions have in China. These may be true ("the Chinese leadership is doing its best to commit genocide against the Muslim Uighurs" is a huge exaggeration, and they're in the north-west, FWIW), but we have not discussed them in the thread before this.

[okasha]

39. Forgive us out typos as we forgive those who typo against us.

That should have been "southwesten Xinjiang Province."

As for introducing new topics, it's done all the time. So what?

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. So what? You can't say "thank you for making the point"

when I haven't said anything that "makes the point". You 'made the point' with some claims 24 hours later.

[okasha]

58. Actually, your statistics do make the point.

If a substantial number of Chinese citizens are atheist when they are not required to be, that suggests that there is some social benefit to being atheist. It's an interesting contrast to the ex-Soviet Union, where state atheism has been abolished and Russians are returning to traditional religions in large numbers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. No, it doesn't suggest that at all

It suggests that most Chinese atheists are atheists for reasons other than social benefit. The social benefit is got by those in the Communist party - and the benefit is from being in the party, not from being an atheist.

If there were few atheists outside the party, it would be fair to infer that the atheists were only doing it to get into the party. But that is not the case.

There is a substantial number of Chinese citizens who are not atheist, without such a requirement. This does not suggest there is a social benefit from not being atheist.

[LostOne4Ever]

24. Then I am not understanding the context of your or rug's post.

Rug started out by replying to the claim that atheism is separated from the brow of the bourgeoisie and then you brought up a race privilege.

How does race and class come into this when its pointed out that it has nothing to do with capitalism?

And while it is privilege in china, here in the USA you give up privilege by becoming an atheist. A white male protestant who becomes an atheist going from being the most privileged background imaginable to quite simply the most hated religious group in the country.

Denying? Where did I deny that most atheists in the US are white or middle or upper class? Can you quote me where I said that? I brought up the fact that world-wide Asians make up the majority of atheists. I also brought up the fact that one can be from the proletariat class or a minority and be an atheist.

What I am disputing is that there is any kind of inherent connection between atheism and privilege in the US. Again, no matter what demographic you belong to in this country if you become an atheist you are losing privilege.

Do you dispute this?

What are you and Rug trying to imply? That if you are an atheist you are privileged jerk? That atheism is some sort of trap created by the upper class to exploit the lower classes? That no one black person could ever be an atheist? No poor people are atheists?

I am confused. Would you mind clarifying especially in regards to the post that spawned this sub-discussion.


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]dimbear[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]New atheism hasn't much to say about capitalism because it is a completely different thing. Atheism is a non-belief in god or gods. (Such a steep hill to climb.) That's all it is. It's not an economic system or a club.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Oddly, atheists in Japan are overwhelmingly Asian.

[okasha]

56. Oddly, Catholics in Japan are overwhelmingly Asian.

Japanese vegetarians, too.
And Japanese human beings, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. It is odd, isn't it? Almost as odd as atheists in america being overwhelmingly caucasian.

[okasha]

59. Actually, it's not odd that atheists

in America are overwhelmingly Caucasian because privileged groups in America are also overwhelmingly Caucasian.

[Laochtine]

72. I fit all that

[LostOne4Ever]

7. Are you saying there are no proletariat atheists?

And even if it is "from the brow of the Bourgeoisie" that does not imply an inherent class privilege.

[cbayer]

9. One thing to consider is the fairly well documented link between

level of poverty and religiosity. Although I think the reasons for this are multifactorial, if one holds a position of economic privilege, it may be easier to be an atheist or even to acknowledge that one is an atheist.

Atheist demographics are very interesting and tend to reflect a level of privilege on many levels - race, income, sex. But exactly why that is may be harder to pin down.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. I get that and understand that

Im just saying that class and race privilege are not inherent to atheism.

One can be poor and lose belief. One can be a minority race and lose belief.

Claiming that these privileges are inherent to atheism only marginalize the opinions and experiences of minority atheists who face their own set of challenges and biases.

Its also not fair to those white atheists who have learned to see past their privilege and tries to divide us on an unsupported assumption based upon a stereotype.

[cbayer]

14. Not inherent, but predominant.

There have been complaints within the organized atheist community about the lack of diversity and even complaints about discriminatory treatment. The onus really lies with those in positions of authority to recognize and address these issues sooner rather than later. You will see denial of these problem right here on DU. Those denials are primarily being made by white, male, straight, educated, employed atheists. That's where the privilege comes in. It's hard to see it when you sit so high above it.

IMHO, the criticisms need to be targeted towards those in positions of authority within organized atheism, not to the community as a whole.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. The link between education and income is very strong

"Secular" are a bit above the average educational level and income; some religious groups, eg Anglicans or Jews, are further above on both.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/15/magazine/15-Leonhardt.html?ref=magazine

Full tables that are the source for that here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf (p.78 onwards for income, p.84 onwards for education)

If 'atheists' are broken out from 'secular', they are 42% college graduate, 43% above $75 income. Which puts them very close to Presbyterians, and on the general trend line.

Education (<HS HS_grad some_coll grad post-grad):
Presbyterian 8 28 24 22 18
Atheist 8 28 23 21 21

Income (<30 30-50 50-75 75-100 >100)
Presbyterian 21 19 18 16 26
Atheist 21 20 16 15 28

We don't get threads about Presbyterians being 'bourgeois', of course, let alone Anglicans or religious Jews.

[cbayer]

19. Thanks for the links, Muriel. Interesting data.

If someone publishes an article about Presbyterians, Anglican, Jews or any other religious group being bourgeois, I will be sure to post it.

I don't see why there would be a problem with looking at the demographics of a growing "religious" group (including believers and non-believers). There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be defensive about this. It's merely observation and discussion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I never hear 'bourgeois' used as anything other than criticism

or 'class privilege'. I'm not saying you're using those terms; it's rug who went with 'bourgeois' right from the OP. I replied to you because you were more likely to be interested in figures than him.

[cbayer]

21. I wish you two could get along. I like you both very much.

Anyway, I looked at the stats and they pretty much confirm what I had seen before - primarily white, male, well educated, upper income, non-immigrant population, although I believe that is shifting. Not surprising that some of the mainline protestant populations and the jewish population also share some of those demographics. They also tend to be the more liberal/progressive groups, like atheists.

There has been some interesting analyses of why this might be true. The one that rings most true to me is that people with privilege may have more freedom to leave religious institutions or be more open about their atheism.

Privilege is a word not infrequently used around here to describe christians. I think it's fair to look at the other forms of privilege associated with religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

[LostOne4Ever]

25. I can accept that

And I agree that many organizations NEED to work harder to appeal to both women, minorities, and the lower classes. MUCH MUCH HARDER.

Just I find something grating about someone saying


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]dimbear[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]MNew atheism hasn't much to say about capitalism because it is a completely different thing. Atheism is a non-belief in god or gods. (Such a steep hill to climb.) That's all it is. It's not an economic system or a club.

And seeing replies to the above quote saying atheism is from the the upperclass and rooted in white privilege, especially seeing as no matter what background you come from going from believer to non believer is a loss of privilege. And also given that an atheist can come from any class, be from any ethnicity, and has been around since the dawn of recorded history those comments seem off.

[cbayer]

32. Excellent point there - going from a believer to a non-believer would

generally involve the loss of a privilege. Perhaps one of the reasons for the rather striking demographics is that those that hold several points of privilege are in the best position to give one of them up.

Does that make sense?

I suspect, when it comes down to it, that atheism knows no color, sex or economic lines and is most likely a pretty consistent number over populations. BUT, the ability to be open about it or give up some of the tangible benefits of being a part of a religious organization may skew the numbers.

Otherwise, it is hard to explain the demographics.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Except of course for east Asia and Europe, where atheism is widespread.

The claims fall apart when the entire world is taken into consideration.

[cbayer]

47. While I think you are correct about Asia, I'm not so sure about

Europe. Any data?

It's not about claims, just data.

There is no question about the US data and it's pretty striking. The interesting questions are about why that is and what it means.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. I can find some for Britain

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/how_fair_is_britain_ch12.pdf

p.486: %age of employees with gross earnings less than 60% of the hourly median
Christian 14
no religion 13
Muslim 23
(others are from a smaller base with lower precision)

p.472: Median household wealth (religion of 'Household Representative Person')
Christian £222,900
No religion £138,500
Muslim £41,600

Wealth may reflect that older people are more religious. But for those in the low pay sector, Christian and no religion are as good as equal.

[cbayer]

49. There is a recurring problem with the "no religion" category, as it can not

be assumed that it represents atheists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Buddhists are separate, so we don't have to worry about them as atheists

The question is "what is your religion, even if you are not currently practising?" "No Religion at all" was answered by about 20%.

A 2010 poll showed 25% of Britons "do not believe there is any god, spirit or life force" ("don't know" was 5%; 37% believe "there is a God"; 33% believe "there is some sort of spirit or life force&quot . It seems reasonable that nearly all of the 'no religion at all' fall into that atheist category; there will be a few atheists who nevertheless gave a religion (presumably they were not currently practising it).

You could argue, I suppose, that believing in a spirit or life force but not 'God' is also atheist; in which case we would need to separate out all the "Christians, but not currently practising" who don't believe in God.

[cbayer]

51. I think we will begin to see much clearer data as people are specifically asked

what category they claim and specifically given the option of atheism.

Right now, it remains murky. As the most recent survey breakdowns have shown, some that say "no religion" do not necessarily consider themselves atheists. And the whole "spiritual but not religious category" further muddies the waters.

The PEW link that you put up is good because it specifically reports on atheists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Pew reports on Americans who use the term 'atheist'

The Eurobarometer poll asked people if they do not believe there is a God, spirit or life force - ie people who are atheists, without asking if that's the term they use. I think that is the better question to ask to find atheists.

In the USA, there are significant numbers of people with no religion who believe in God. In the UK, there are significant numbers of people who say they are Christian, but don't believe in God.

However, we still see that those with no religion and Christians are basically the same in terms of low pay, and while there may be some athiests inside that 'Christian' category, they won't form a large part of the category of atheists, and there's no reason to think they are significantly different from either the 'no religion' category or the rest of the Christian one, as far as income goes.

So in one European country, there's no significant difference in income between Christians and atheists (there is for Muslims, of course).

[cbayer]

53. So the demographic differences in the UK are not that striking,

at least in terms of economic categories.

Why, then, do you think they are different in the US?

And it continues to baffle me as to why the UK clings to the rather startling overlap of religion and government, in light of the data.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. I put it down largely to education, as in the stats in #17

There's a very good correlation between education and income. I think the link between education and belief is more complicated - there's culture and immigration (Hindus in the USA are largely well qualified immigrants or with recent immigrant ancestry; Jews have a tradition of valuing education very highly; Anglicans are largely long-established, which tends towards more people going into higher education than average), and the causes may well be in both directions (a higher education exposes people to more cultures and religions, and that may increase the number of atheists and Unitarians, for instance).

The UK can be very culturally conservative - many Britons stick with the status quo, even when it's pretty silly (eg hereditary lords in parliament). The monarchy helps keep this in place (being patriotic means to most people supporting the monarchy, and the monarch is the head of the Church of England, and also the most obvious example of the hereditary system, and so they end up accepting the existing established church and its powers).

[cbayer]

55. And the data I have seen also shows a strong correlation between levels

of poverty and religiosity, which complicates things even further.

I have come to understand some of the complexities, idiosyncrasies and what appear to be markedly conflicting political positions from living with a Brit.

Despite having a markedly populist stance on most things and even some extreme views about things like the dangers/evil of patriotism, he is a monarchist and supports the House of Lords concept. This baffles me at times. And compared to some of his UK friends, he appears quite progressive in these areas.

It's been quite a learning experience.

[rug]

12. Doubtless there are but its current articulators are far from proletarian.

Can you name one who is?

You also severely underestimate the prevalence of class privilege.

[LostOne4Ever]

22. Madalyn Murray O'Hair jumps to mind

If we are looking for people still alive Pen Jillette was born to a secretary and his father worked at the county jail.

Do these two work?

How am I underestimating the prevalence of privilege? I did not say a word one way or the other about its prevalence. What im trying to argue is that the two are not connected. You don't have to be from any specific class to disbelieve.

[rug]

23. Madelyn's life defies category.

Jillette cannot be both a proletarian and an advocate for free-market capitalism.

Prevalence is probably not the best word. Manifestation of class privilege is better. The most recent example is Dawkins use of Trinity College Nobel winners as a demonstration of the paucity of a religion held by a seventh of the world's humans. There's a romneyesque quality to it. Relating to NASCAR fans by reciting anecdotes of your friends who own NASCAR teams is another example.

No, you don't have to be of a certain class to believe or disbelieve. Nevertheless, there is nothing remotely proletarian about these writings.

Normally 'freethought', 'scepticism', 'rationalism', particularly in its most vocal form as typified by the 'new atheists' has little to say about capitalism, class, or organised labour, and when it does, it's usually in the service of existing social relations (eg, Steven Pinker, EO Wilson, Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer).

Class, and its effects, is not even on their radar. That is usually the case when someone is untroubled by something that mightily troubles others. And that placidity is the gift of their own class privilege.

[LostOne4Ever]

26. But its not bourgeoisie either

It is agnostic to both.

I find it like criticizing the vending machine for not fixing your laptop when it breaks down.

The purpose of a vending machine is to vend, not to fix laptops. Atheism is just about disbelief. Of course class and its effects are not going to be on its radar. That is something that belongs in secular humanism's court, and it does have alot to say about it. There are humanist charities that try and help the poor and the working class.

While Dawkins does have his followers and fans, he does not speak for all of us.

[rug]

29. No he doesn't, thank God.

[okasha]

34. You're doing your best to divorce atheism from privilege,

but look at your own wording: "There are humanist charities that try and help the poor and working class." However unconsciously, you've just drawn a bright line between "humanists" and "the poor and working class." The class division is there, even as you deny it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. What a load of tosh

If we say "there are Catholic charities that try and help the poor and working class", that does not mean there's a bright line between Catholics and the poor and working class. If we say "there are American charities that try and help the poor and working class", that doesn't mean there's a line there either.

[okasha]

38. Wrong.

If we say, "There are Catholic charities that try to help the poor and working class," we say it with the knowledge that "the poor and working class" will include Catholics--in some areas will be majority Catholic. Same with "American." When we say, "There are humanist charities that try and help the poor and working class," we do it in the knowledge that very few if any of those "poor and working class" people will be "humanist." It not only draws a division but is condescending in a way that the other two examples are not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. 'very few if any of those "poor and working class" people will be "humanist"' is wrong

You haven't bothered to look at the figures, have you? You've just assumed it. Which is incredibly condescending of you. Not to mention divisive.

[okasha]

61. According to The Atheist Scholar's

article on Atheist Demographics, "Income level for Atheists 25 years old and over showed 60.4% at $50,000.00 while 24.1% earned $100,000.00 or more.

http://www.atheistscholar.org/atheistpsychologies/atheistdemographics.aspx

In other words, 84.5% of American atheists over 25 can reasonably be considered affluent--at least middle class,. That leaves only 15.5% to divide among atheists younger than 25, atheist individuals who earn less than #50,000.00 but belong to families with two or more earners, and atheists who are actually "poor and working class." I believe these figures support my statement quite well.

What's divisive about stating economic realities?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. No, the 24.1% is included in the 60.4%

Look at the stats in reply #17; follow the link to the full Pew Forum report.

60% of Presbyterian families earn above 50k. 26% earn above 100k.
(taking just mainline Presbyterians, it's 66% and 29%)
59% of atheists earn above 50k. 28% earn above 100k.
67% of Anglicans earn above 50k. 35% earn above 100k.

21% of atheist families earn less than 30k (which is 2 full time minimum wage jobs). For Presbyterians, that's 21% (17% for mainline Presbyterians), and for Anglicans 18%. I think they can definitely be called 'working class'. If we use your 50k cut-off, it's 41%.

Atheists are, on average, a bit better off than the American average (the total population figures are 31% < 30k, 48% >50k, 18% >100k); but not as much as Anglicans.

So, this is why I state, again, 'very few if any of those "poor and working class" people will be "humanist"' is wrong.

Your assumption that any group that donates money to charities that benefit people only outside the group is 'condescending' is, however, appalling. You are calling all overseas charities 'condescending'. Do you really think, when looking at a charity, "this won't benefit people like me - I won't give to it"? That would be ... Republican of you.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. There is no difference

I don't get why you hate atheism so much but the bias here is obvious.

There is no difference at all.

There are people from poor backgrounds (O'Hair) who are atheists. This in and of itself disproves your assertion. And by saying that you are the one being condescending to every atheist of any minority ethnicity and ever gender and marginalizing their experiences.

Again what group GAINS privilege from becoming an atheist in this country?
WHERE in the BIG BAD BOOK of atheism does it say ANYTHING about class or ethnicity? ANYTHING?
You said that "few if any," implying that you think its possible that no atheist is from the working class? You base this on what? Wild speculation? Interviewing every atheist in the country?

The best you have come to proving your point is to allude to a correlation between class and atheism that is not universally true. Again correlation does not mean causation.

All atheism means is a lack of belief in god(s). There is no way to extrapolate from that to class.

[okasha]

62. See statistics in post #61 above.

And no, I don't hate atheism. Or atheists. I doubt there's anyone who's taught at the college and university level who doesn't have friends and colleagues who are atheist. (Except for religiously-supported schools, that is.) How does it follow that pointing out demographic characteristics is somehow "hate?"

Of course there are people from poor backgrounds who are atheists. There just aren't very many of them, and some of those may no longer be poor.

[LostOne4Ever]

64. Then why are you insistent on a connection when you can't show anything other than suggestion?

Could you please show me what about doubt requires privilege? What about it infers privilege? How it leads to privilege? Why is it that atheism causes a loss of privilege?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Of course there are people from poor backgrounds who are atheists. There just aren't very many of them, and some of those may no longer be poor.

So what is the cut off point and how do you arrive at it or how did you decide on that particular number for the cutoff? Are Anglicans, hindus, and Jews who are right there with us connected with class privilege?

On average 30% of the population makes less than $30k and 20% of atheists make less than $30k. Where is the number that makes a group related to privilege? Again why that number?

The only thing I am seeing is a correlation and no causation. As you said in post 13. Correlation is not cause. Maybe its because at higher incomes more of our needs are met and we can engage in the self actualization needed to question ones beliefs? Of course one need not be upperclass to reach that explaining why there are some atheists who earn less than $30k? It would also mean that the two concepts are not related.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

page 58-61

The very fact that there are people from a poor background shows that atheism is not "from the brow" of the upper class. I find it funny that the term bourgeoisie was used as atheism was originally suggested in marx's thesis. But again, where in the big book of atheism does it say a word about class?

Show me how atheism is related to privilege. What about not believing requires privilege? Why are there so many poor nonbelievers? AND AGAIN, tell me a single group in the US that does not incur a LOSS of privilege by being an atheist. If atheism is privileged why does it result in a loss of privilege for EVERY SINGLE demographic?

This is a thread on skepticism and im skeptical. I have seen nothing to answer these questions. How do you account for this?

[Laochtine]

68. Fuck it lets rob everyone

gotta kill baby rapers, the rest behead, just a thought

[MellowDem]

27. In the US....

Where religious privilege is so great, those with other privileges will be more likely to give up one privilege in exchange for intellectual honesty by being out about their atheism, or even having the time to think about philosophy.

Meanwhile, much of religion continues to prey successfully on the poor and ignorant, as it always has, and is used as a wonderful tool to get the poor and ignorant to vote against their interests, especially in the US. It's no wonder that churches are expanding rapidly in places with terrible governments and desparate poverty while fading in wealthy socialized countries. And it's no wonder the progressive movement has substantially more atheists than the conservative movement.

Basically, the fact that the privileged in the US are much more likely to be willing to part with religion belies the privilege religion still has, and the power it holds over the poor. When people rely so heavily on private religious charities, not to mention their religious communities, because the US has a terrible social safety net, then that's what you get.

In other countries, being an atheist is less tied to privilege, if at all, because religion has substantially less power and societal privilege itself. You won't find many of those who are already disadvantaged in the US rushing to join the most distrusted group in the US, where there are still laws against atheists holding office and where few politicians consider it safe to be open about their atheism, especially when it's easy to keep in the closet about it, go with the motions, and get what benefits you can from a society that is still under the thumb of religion in many ways.

[rug]

28. I think Lenin's take has a lot more clarity.

In all capitalist Countries throughout the world, the bourgeoisie resorts to two methods in its struggle against the working-class movement and the workers’ parties. One method is that of violence, persecution, bans, and suppression. In its fundamentals, this is a feudal, medieval method. Everywhere there are sections and groups of the bourgeoisie—smaller in the advanced countries and larger in the backward ones—which prefer these methods, and in certain, highly critical moments in the workers’ struggle against wage-slavery, the entire bourgeoisie is agreed on the employment of such methods. Historical examples of such moments are provided by Chartism in England, and 1849 and 1871 in France.

The other method the bourgeoisie employs against the movement is that of dividing the workers, disrupting their ranks, bribing individual representatives or certain groups of the proletariat with the object of winning them over to its side. These are not feudal but purely bourgeois and modern methods, in keeping with the developed and civilised customs of capitalism, with the democratic system.

For the democratic system is a feature of bourgeois society, the most pure and perfect bourgeois feature, in which the utmost freedom, scope and clarity of the, class struggle are combined with the utmost cunning, with ruses and subterfuges aimed at spreading the “ideological” influence of the bourgeoisie among the wage-slaves with the object of diverting them from their struggle against wage-slavery.

From The Bourgeois Intelligentsia’s Methods of Struggle Against the Workers, Prosveshcheniye, No. 6, June 1914.

Every ideology, including religion and atheism, is susceptible to this. Islamophobia and elitism are but symptoms of this. Whenever you see a movement based on division, watch out.

[MellowDem]

31. Atheism is not an ideology....

and I'm not sure where "Islamophobia" is part of atheism. There has already been numerous discussions about how many accusations of Islamophobia are similar to accusations by the Christian Right that they are victims under constant attack. People can't see the difference between harshly criticizing the tenets of religion and outright bigotry because religion is so privileged in the US and treated with kid gloves. People must step lightly when discussing it because of the power it has. What's sad is that the right does use real bigotry against all sorts of groups, and then when atheists harshly criticize a religion, which itself is inherently bigoted, some on the left resort to the right's tactics of using the privilege of religion in society as a bludgeon, because some on the left are still heavily invested in the idea of religion as a positive force.

I don't think atheists, as a group, are "elites", atheists are a more varied group than that. They may have more privilege generally, at least those that are out, but they are not unified by one ideology. Most lean left rather than right, and many who lean right are of the libertarian sort, the kind who rarely recognize that privilege exists, ironically. I remember asking one atheist who was conservative whether he felt slighted when Newt, in the 2012 primaries debate, said that he would never vote for an atheist because they couldn't be trusted. The guy could care less. Why? He was well off, and a white male. It's an annoyance rather than a real issue when you have enough privilege.

[rug]

35. Sure it is.

It has its own prism to view life just as any other ideology does.

[MellowDem]

40. From every definition I've seen of ideology...

It's a comprehensive set of ideas. Atheism can make up a part of one's ideology, but a lack of belief in gods is not a belief system, like most religions are. Most religions are a comprehensive, if somewhat contradictory, set of ideas. Likewise, theism, in the most basic sense, is not an ideology either.

[rug]

42. Unless that opinion is based on a whim, it is the result of thought and methodoology.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Now you've got your cart in front of your horse.

So now your argument is that the system of thought and methodology by which someone arrives at the answer to the question 'is there a god' is an ideology?

Rubbish.

Atheism answers a single question. Is there a god yes/no? It answers nothing else. And there are only so many ways in which one can ask 'is there a god', to get a 'system' of answers greater than 1.

Atheism is not an ideology, and anyone who tells you it is, is selling something.

[skepticscott]

83. You have a lot of clueless people on this board

and elsewhere who can't make the elementary distinction between atheism and anti-theism. And unfortunately, a lot of them write extensively and not very intelligently about it as a result.

[rug]

88. There are also clueless people who believe who believe distinctions can be made in a vacuum.

And then write repetitively and not very intelligently about it.

[skepticscott]

89. Feel free to point to even one example

Unless you're reluctant to soil your hands with evidence and stuff like that.

I'm betting on another "evade" here.

[rug]

90. "Atheism answers a single question. Is there a god yes/no?"

Answer that in a vacuum.

I'm betting on another non sequitur here, tinged with another ad hom.

[skepticscott]

91. Who has ever claimed or tried to answer that question in a vacuum?

The fact that atheism deals with a single question doesn't mean that the question isn't answered without consideration of many things, over a long period of time. Show us where this alleged "vacuum" is.

Sorry...you've failed to provide even a semblance of an example of what you claimed:

There are also clueless people who believe distinctions can be made in a vacuum.
And then write repetitively and not very intelligently about it.

Who are these alleged people and where have they written "repetitively" about this?

[rug]

92. When you concede you are not answering an intellectual question in a vacuum, you concede an ideology

[skepticscott]

93. More fail...more dodge

Just a declaration of what you're trying to prove, but without any evidence. Can the question of whether lemons or apples have more vitamin C be answered in a vacuum? No. Is the answer an ideology?

Nice try, ruggie. Class dismissed.

[rug]

94. Well, I see by the use of smileys you have no answer other than lame personal insults.

[skepticscott]

97. You missed the answer, ruggie

Read again. It was your attempt at a response that was laugh provoking.

[rug]

98. Does using "ruggie" contribute anything to discussion?

Or are you simply once again turning a discussion into a pissing contest?

[skepticscott]

99. Nothing could be richer than that accusation.

Or more ironic.

[rug]

100. And there's the answer.

[skepticscott]

101. Does

"Speaking of vacant..welcome back" Sound familiar?

Does that kind of snark and veiled insult add anything to a discussion? Yes or no?

[rug]

102. No it doesn't. Now, does your appellation contribute?

[skepticscott]

105. Well, that's twice in one day

that you've admitted to being snarky, condescending and insulting. So now you have your answer to why your accusation directed at me was so rich and ironic. I responded to your one-line, passive aggressive snark on multiple occasions by requesting you to engage on the facts, and you came back with more of the same.

You reap what you sow, wouldn't you agree?

[rug]

106. You haven't answered the question.

[skepticscott]

108. As I said...you reap what you sow

After multiple attempts to keep the facts foremost, and letting your snide "Speaking of vacant, welcome back" comment pass in an attempt to try to keep things above that, I saw that you had no interest in being civil and I decided to descend to your level. That you would now imply that I had no right to do so is, as stated, deeply ironic. I regret getting down in the mud with you, and I won't be joining you there again.

[rug]

110. Glancing at your transparency page, it looks like you're the one who's been doing the sowing.

[cleanhippie]

111. Take no responsibility for you actions rug. Stand tough!

Who cares what the jurors on your last couple of hidden posts had to say, right? Fuck 'em, you know better. While you're at it, disparage a few other posters for doing the same fucking thing you are doing and stay classy.

[rug]

112. What are you going on about?

[rug]

87. See 86.

The notion that atheism is about one question and nothing more ignores reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. No, it ignores the baggage you conveniently want to attribute to it.

In fairness, some atheists ALSO conflate atheism with philosophies or belief structures like secular humanism.

Doesn't make it so.

[rug]

114. The baggage is what it got there and the baggage is where different people want to take it.

See Atheism+, the theory that atheism is based on the absence of observable evidence, and the various other positions allegedly based on the conclusion that there is no supernatural existence.

You're ignoring the reality of the phenomenon. Make no mistake, it is a phenomenon just like any other human contrivance.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. So, now you've gone from Ideology to Phenomenon.

Again, does not make it so, however convenient it might be for you.

Again, an ideology is a system of beliefs. Atheism is a single idea; a LACK of belief in the supernatural. Nothing more. Anything beyond that is simply something else. (Again, I cite the example of Secular Humanism, an IDEOLOGY.)

[rug]

116. An ideology not based on phenomena is fantasy.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG

*trap sprung*

[rug]

118. Existence and nonxistence are not fantasy.

A scientific view is a view limited to scientific conclusions.

(steps over something in the path)

[AtheistCrusader]

119. And neither condition requires or precludes a supernatural creator.

[rug]

120. Ahem . . . . ithat's what I've been saying all along.

It does not preclude it.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. And?

You've wandered quite far afield of your earlier attribution of Atheism as an ideology, and done nothing to support that initial claim.

I've already offered you one example of a secular ideology. I'll offer you a second: Anti-theism, such as Dawkins/Hitchens. Again, a bridge beyond the simple proposition of a-theism: without respect/recognition of a god.

[rug]

122. No, I've just been following you so you don't get lost.

Now, here's your problem:

You're confronted with the question of whether there is or is not a god(s).

What do you use to answer the question?

[AtheistCrusader]

123. My senses. History. Reason.

[rug]

124. You already determined that you can not find an answer by using something you can't detect.

You have selected naturalism, an ideology.

You approach it from another angle. What does history show is the fruit of religion? You are answering the question by critiquing religion, which is not the same thing as theism. You are also using a tool which is riddled with the biases of the conqueror and is not nearly as rigorous as your first choice, i.e., scientific observation.

You have selected historicism, an ideology.

Reason is a fine tool but the logic of reason omits intuition, synergy and knowledge by happenstance, a la penicillin. No one, even assuming fail proof, consistent logic, can reason his or her way to the answer to the question presented. Otherwise the debate would have been silenced millennia ago.

You have selected rationalism, an ideology.

I'm not saying there is anything bad about ideology. To the contrary, it's how we developed and it's how we live. It is the stuff of everyday life, whether it concerns driving past Walmart or eschewing meat.

But it exists nonetheless. Atheism is no exception.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Complete tripe from stem to stern.

I am armed with senses, reason, etc. I am capable of interpreting the things around me.

If no one had ever told me (another human) that there is XYZ god/supernatural creator, I would not have tripped to one on my own, as there is no evidence for such.
People claim, to me, that there IS a god, and do so without any evidence at all.

That is the sum total. As I said before, I cannot state that there IS NO GOD, because that is a positive claim I cannot prove without evidence I do not possess. Just like the people telling me there IS a god, cannot prove without evidence they do not possess.

Therefore, my default position on the question of whether there is a god or not must default to 'no/unproven'. Since, after all, I am not the one making the claim, having no need for such things myself.

Rationalism isn't part and parcel of Atheism. No matter how desperate you are to bolt on things you can critique, Atheism remains a singular question: Is god real Yes/No. That is all. Period. End of story. How I arrived at that does not make Atheism MORE than a single question. People not dependent on rationalism may also answer that question the same way, for unrelated reasons.

[rug]

126. Lol!

You're on your own now.

Good night and good luck.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Typical.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. No, it doesn't.

It is a Boolean yes/no question: Is there a god.

Atheism answers that question "no" and supplies NOTHING else.
It is a single idea, not a system of beliefs.

Secular Humanism is an ideology. This is very simple English language stuff here, not deep philosophical questions.

[rug]

86. There's a lot wrong with that statement.

The answer does not emerge in a singular Boolean act of creation. It is, presumably, based on a reason. That reason can vary from person to person.

A person may not believe based on lack of observable evidence. Another may not believe based on the concept of god encountered. Another may not believe because of the organizations that form around a particular belief. One size does not fit all.

The reason why you're wrong, that nonbelief does not simply float detached like a monad, is that the path to that nonbelief is based on some ideology. Likewise, what does with that nonbelief going forward, is also informed by the ideology that led to the nonbelief.

You can't have it both ways.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. I disagree. You are trying to roll more into Atheism than it allows.

Atheism doesn't tell me if I should be nice to my neighbor, or murder him in his sleep. Doesn't tell me if I should leave someone else's stuff alone, or if I should take what I want.

There may be processes and ideologies that lead one to view a set of evidence as supporting or not supporting religion but it is not part and parcel of atheism.

Atheism IS a Boolean question only. Everything else, is more work beyond. It doesn't matter that two people followed two paths to answer the question the same, for different reasons. The path isn't part of Atheism.

[Laochtine]

70. 99 years, bet

Your law suits go longer

[dimbear]

30. If all that were true, then our neighbor and friend to the north Canada would be much more atheist

than we are.

Guess what.

They are.

Spot on post.

[LeftishBrit]

65. Well, as I've said before, explicit atheism tends to be associated with education...

and as education is obviously associated (both as cause and effect) with higher social class, it's not surprising that atheists tend in some countries to be of higher social class.


This means neither that atheists are intrinsically more intelligent (as suggested in an earlier thread) nor that atheism is just some sort of mark of privilege, or upper-class affectation.


I would add that in places where a religion is highly dominant, people may need some backing in terms of social status or connections to feel that they dare admit to atheism (or membership of a minority religion). Thus, in some places, rich atheists may be more likely than poor atheists to admit their atheism publicly!


But it depends where one lives. In the UK, though there is some association between class and atheism, there are lots of working-class atheists. Of course, atheism is much commoner generally in the UK than the USA. In fact, I'd say that in the UK there is much more of an association of atheism with age than with class: younger people are much more likely than older people to be atheists.

[edhopper]

73. Oh good

while we dismiss atheist as nothing more than over privileged dilettantes, let's also find condescending things to say about the 93% of Scientist who are atheist and agnostics.

[cbayer]

74. 93% of scientists are atheists and agnostics.

While the number is clearly higher than the general population, it's not 93%.

Making up statistics is highly unscientific, Mr. hopper.

[edhopper]

75. I just read that in an article

let me recheck and if i am wrong i will correct it.

[edhopper]

76. After checking

The 93% belongs to members of The National Academy of Science. Which could be considered making up the elite of the scientific corp.
Other more general studies have it at around 70%.

I think my point about the dismissive language used for atheist in this thread holds.

Maybe portraying atheist as bored, privileged brats, rather than people who, through the graces of their social position, have more time to think about the God question, is just dumb.

[cbayer]

77. I found the link about the NAS survey

That statistic is highly questionable as you can see. The "study" appears to be highly biased and does not appear to have ever been replicated or peer reviewed. I would suggest not using it (unless you are aware of something more definitive).

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The stats are all over the place and what one considers "science" has a lot of bearing on the results, as one might expect.

Anyway, I've seen the numbers from 50 - 70%. Quite different than the general population, to be sure.

[rug]

78. "the graces of their social position" sounds so . . . . Victorian.

[okasha]

79. Pass the crumpets and Devonshire cream,

if you please, Mr. Carpet.

[rug]

80. I'll summon someone for you, my dear.

[edhopper]

84. More condescension,

how surprising

[rug]

85. That's your description. Were you acccurately quoted?

[edhopper]

95. If you are going to be snarky

and condescending, you should at least own up to it instead of pulling a "who me?"
It really makes you look small.

[rug]

96. You're right. I withdraw the remark.

My apologies.

[edhopper]

103. Your a Christian and a Gentelman

See I admit that was snarky

[rug]

104. Maybe, but I suck at both.

[edhopper]

107. Depends on the rules.