I'll be interested to see how nuances like atheists may be disadvantaged as atheists but that most have other societal advantages that offset those disadvantages play out.

but I have seen these demographics before and they seem consistent. It may be that those with a certain amount of privilege are most likely to self-identify as atheist because it's safer for them to do so.

But the male/female divide is somewhat harder to understand.

Anyway, he seems thoughtful about this.

Will post his follow up pieces as they come up.

And agree, looks to be an interesting series overall. I appreciate his opening disclaimer. It's consistent with his bio profile at the web site.

The site looks to have some other good reads. Thanks for the link cbayer.

They cover a very eclectic array of religious topics and POV's.

Now, I just have to remember to watch for his next installation!

Just occurred to me reading another post here on DU.

A common phrase among gays at one time was "family" to refer to other gays. i.e. - "He's family." A stretch of an analogy, perhaps, but it crossed my mind. It was simultaneously inclusive and exclusive.

frequently. When marginalized, I think people wish to identify with others that share that position. And with good reason.

And it is both inclusive and exclusive - again, with good reason.

During the feminism of the 70's, sisterhood became very important - another example.

I think we all want to be a part of something, at some level, in some realm. And that may be any number of somethings. Religiously, socially, culturally, etc. Doesn't deny differences or diversity, just recognizes that we may sit in different seats but we're all on the same plane.

(blatant pop music aside) "We are family" by Sister Sledge was a huge gay bar dance hit in its day. Not sure how it related to feminism, per se, but it sure resonated among gay guys...

That's back when I used to frequent the bars with my friends. The song was empowering and allowed a release for many.

It was said...

by "lack of privilege" among atheists with regard to their religion. Can you elaborate?

(even though Christians might not realize it) and atheists don't have that privilege.

So what I was trying to say is that if that if atheists on average have many societal privileges (race, gender, education) as the author claims, then the lack of the societal privilege that comes with religion might be viewed more seriously. As cbayer mentioned, an atheist without these privileges (e.g. non-white, not-male, no higher education) might view the lack of privilege of religion as not a big deal.

--and upper income, well-educated white heterosexual males are very privileged in our society--tend to prioritize and seek further privilege and are frequently frustrated on the few occasions when society withholds it. Think of the gazillionaires whose whole ambition is to make more gazillions, the well-heeled membership of largely white evangelical megachurches which is largely heterosexual just by definition, all of whom seek political power in addition to economic and social privilege. I think we see the same mechanism at work with this question.

Recently read a fascinating book, 'Room', about a boy raised by his mom in one locked room with one window up at ceiling height. It's told from his perspective. His world was his mom, the room and the stories she told him. He had no concept of "outside" or "other" save for a man who brought them meals each day. Even the glimpse of a place beyond the room through the window was simply another story in his pov.

Eventually, it came about that they were able to leave the room. He was actually hesitant to leave all that he knew. And once outside came to find that many of his mother's stories were about this larger world beyond the room. His adjustment to the reality is a great read.

My point here - it may be that the privileged, the less privileged and those with little privilege don't recognize the "other". They may know it's there but have a narrow experience and a limited perception. It is what it is may be the world for some. Until that changes.

It's on-line at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.omelas.pdf and makes an interesting companion piece to the one you just mentioned.

I have many levels of privilege - american born, white, educated/middle class family, raised mainstream christian, straight. But I was a pretty strident (militant?) feminist for awhile.

I recently encountered a situation which was a real eye opener concerning discrimination against GLBT people. Sometimes you just don't see it when it doesn't happen to you.

Of course, anyone would be more sensitive to the areas in which they are the ones being discriminated against.

But if you are poor, black, etc., some aspects of your lack of privilege are probably not going to seem so significant.

so that study is flawed from the get-to. The definition of the word is "a-theist" - no belief in anything supernatural.

disbelief is one of the things I think he wants to explore.

Should be interesting.

FWIW, I am not sure all atheists would agree with your definition. While all would agree that the word atheist means no belief in a god or gods, some atheists do embrace other supernatural phenomena.

As in, way to go antagonizing believers right off the bat! It also set in the minds of believers what Dawkins was going to be like, i.e., anti-theist. Most believers aren't going to want to read the writings of an anti-theist, myself included.

I put myself in the "nones" or no religious affiliation. However, that only means I have no religion to which I belong. It doesn't mean I don't have beliefs in a higher power. Everything I've read recently still points to a 3-5% amount of atheists in this country. There should be a link to the Pew research on that around here somewhere. Cbayer may be able to provide it as well

The number of atheists in the US is indeed growing, but the total amount remains at or less than 6%. That's still a huge number of people, measured in the millions

It's not a book I'd ever read anyway, but if it sells, who's to judge that one way or another. Even titles we don't like can make us pick up a book and read it. The subject matter in this case just isn't an interest of mine, so bad title or not, it's not drawing me in.

Oh, here's a thread we had in March on the topic of the "nones": http://www.democraticunderground.com/126414