A few points of conflict with Jackie L's (Eilonnwy) article.

[theVOID]

It seems we totally disagree on the subject matter then.

This isn't my argument or anything like, but I'd still like to answer this if that's ok...

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

I can't see your first point... are you including hispanic there?

Sure am.

Historically, in western culture, the vast majority of so called 'privileged white males' have been and still are Christian, yet this has clearly not impacted the eventual adoption of Christianity amongst non-(white males). So to say that if Privileged person holds position X then the unprivileged person is less likely to adopt position X is fallacious.

This was the whole point of her argument, white men are inhibiting the prominence of atheism. It's false, even the ones who are in fact assholes, like PZ Myers, are still contributing to the overall growth of atheism despite their tone or 'abuse of privilege'.

Non white male adoption of Christianity serves the ambition of the non white male... seems to be little choice there. I heard on the radio last week some stats I'd never find I'm sure... that once introduced to 'civilization' hardly any natives returned to their own cultural religious expression, and most adopted Christianity.

Right, and this was despite the premise in Eil's argument. Therefore to conclude that because the premise is true in the case of Atheism it thereby affects the minority adoption of the position seems quite clearly to be completely unfounded.

So civilization rams 'Christianity' down the throats of anyone poor enough to not fight back... and that proves our western culture isn't guilty of imposing privilege?

I agree with you here that privilege was certainly used to indoctrinate Christians, however this seems to be the complete opposite of what Eil said, that being this privilege is hindering the adoption of Atheism.

Not only that, but she never clarifies what these privileges are. I certainly have some unfair advantages as a white male, namely in the workplace where I am more likely to be hired and paid more for equal performance and qualification - I hate that this happens, and as a future employer it certainly won't be the case for me, but the fact that this happens is something that seems to have no impact on the religious debate, in fact I am struggling to think of any privilege I have that is remotely relevant in the debate... Is the fact that non-whites suffer more from racist police relevant? Nope, What else? Eilonnwy never said which privileges these are, which is striking as it would logically be an essential part of any argument based on such a premise.