I'm an atheist, but I have no interest in joining your 'movement'

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/i-am-an-atheist-but-not-joining-atheism-movement

I do understand the desire to feel like part of a community of like-minded believers: that’s what most people turn to religion for in the first place

Jaya Saxena

theguardian.com, Sunday 25 January 2015 13.52 GMT

I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member Photograph: Image Source/REX

Most atheists I know talk about their “lack” or “rejection” of religion– their active stance against belief in any higher power. But for me, it’s not active at all.

For a long time I felt the need to defend my passive atheism against believers and non-believers alike. Believers, of course, accused me of having no moral compass, or pitied me for apparently being too dumb to know what I was missing. In those moments, I could see why people would seek out atheist communities (of which there seem to be more every day). Given that, according to some recent polls, people are more likely to vote for just about any other candidate over an atheist, and about 73% of Americans believe in either Creationism or god-guided evolution, finding a gathering of like-minded people can certainly sound comforting.

But as defensive as I’ve gotten with believers, I’ve never actually been tempted to join an atheist group. Partly, that’s because it’s hard to avoid the white men ruining it for the rest of us by using atheism as just another platform for a macho power struggle. Atheism offers no guarantee of other shared ideas or philosophies – and when white male atheist leaders and communities act racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic, I find myself wishing that there were another way to describe my non-beliefs.

More to the point, though, I cannot personally see the point in aligning myself with people based on what you don’t believe – and I’ve almost always not-believed this way. When I tell people I don’t believe in any god they often assume it’s out of spite, like the only way you could come to this conclusion is through rebellion, but if it was, then I started young.

more at link

[edhopper]

1. Most don't

Most atheist groups are there for activism, keeping religion out of the government, etc... Or to learn about many interesting things associated with secular Humanism. I would suggest she look into some of the lectures given by groups like the Council for Secular Humanism.
I find the author condescending and insulting to those who are trying to make things better.

I don't own a gun and I don't belong to an anti-gun group, but i appreciate the work they do.

[cbayer]

2. You find her condescending and insulting? That is exactly the attitude that

keeps her out of some of these groups.

Suggesting that she look into some lectures and that her experience with "most atheist groups" doesn't reflect reality is what is condescending and insulting.

[edhopper]

3. I reread

it sounds different this time. I thought she was making jabs at atheist who do join groups. She's not really.
Though I don't know many atheists who think other atheists should join groups, and most atheist don't. So I don't know why she feels the need to explain herself.

That's all for now.

[cbayer]

4. Aha! This is why I so respect you.

And that is the honest truth.

Your capacity to step back and re-assess your position is admirable.

[edhopper]

14. Thanks

[rug]

5. This piece has the ring of experience.

An interesting woman.

https://twitter.com/jayasax

[cbayer]

6. I think she speaks for a lot of people and her tweets are hilarious.

I found her piece thoughtful and honest.

[carolinayellowdog]

7. Demographics explain her discomfort, in part

Out of curiosity in the wake of recent upheavals, I did some googling ISO statistical insight into the 2-3% or so of self-ID'd atheists in the US. Found that they are 67% male, 40% twenty-somethings-- both highly disproportional to these categories in the general population. Did not see a racial breakdown of atheists, but did see that only 1% of people of color so self-identify. (Will go find links later if this thread generates interest but am heading out the door momentarily.) So that means whites as well as males and 20-somethings are very overrepresented among US atheists. That alone may have something to do with the problems of misogyny and trollishness that have been described in said "community." Back when I was a 20-something white male, the aggressive unbelievers were Ayn Rand disciples and the demographics fit the same profile described above. (I see in the article she says she's not Canadian, but don't see her say she's American either.)

[rug]

8. She's a New Yorker.

http://uncommon-courtesy.com/who-are-we-anyway/

[cbayer]

9. The most comprehensive US demographic data I have see is this from 2012

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-demographics/

For the atheist/agnostic category it shows

42% under 30 (22% general population)

74% under 50 (57% general population)

44% college or post-grad (29% general population)

37% making $75,00 or more (29% general population)

82% white (66% general population)

64% male (48 % general population)

In general, this is a pretty privileged demographic, which is not surprising. Religiosity is correlated with lower economic status and the ability to achieve a higher economic status is certainly reflected in these demographics.

[unrepentant progress]

10. You have to be careful using Pew's "nones" to represent atheists

If you drill down into the Pew results, you'll see nones include atheists, the unchurched, and those who vague new agey "spiritual" beliefs who may or may not identify as atheists.

[cbayer]

11. I did not use the "nones". I specifically used the atheist/agnostic category

as I note.

I'm aware that the nones do not represent non-believers and include a wide variety of individuals.

[unrepentant progress]

12. My bad

I saw nones in the URL.

[cbayer]

13. It's interesting, though. If you look at the stats for the nones,

they move further towards the general population. Not surprising, but it makes these stats even more notable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. She's American, biracial (Indian and European), and still just about a 20-something, I think

An article she wrote:

The Five Stages of Being Biracial (If You’re Me)

My dad, who moved to Newark when he was 8, had long ago adopted a Jersey accent and demeanor, his actions indistinguishable from those of his Italian and Jewish neighbors. He cooked pork chops and pasta with meat sauce, and played country fiddle. He lit incense sometimes but so did lots of hippie parents. He hadn’t been back to India since before I was born.

My mom, with her freckles and red hair, was often mistaken for my Irish nanny. We can trace our first ancestor’s arrival to 1635, and by about 1740 everyone on her side had officially come over. She grew up on a farm and wasn’t afraid of killing the roaches that sometimes skittered around our apartment, and the only time she was called “exotic” was when she went to Scotland. Together, they were just my parents.

...
In 1995 I was obsessed with Gwen Stefani. All 4th graders were. But I had a special connection that no one else could claim — I could wear that bindi Gwen was wearing. I mean, if I couldn’t actually feel like the Indian I was told I was, I could at least fake it, right?

Read more at http://the-toast.net/2013/10/21/five-stages-of-being-biracial/#ZJkksJ4HAVcM15pH.99

I think that would make her born around 1985, wouldn't it? If so, she's about to turn 30.

[TM99]

16. What point are you trying to make here?

She is not 'white'. She is not 'male'. She does not fit the majority demographics of the New Atheist movement.

I definitely agree with her.