One way people try to dismiss claims of anti-atheist bigotry is to argue that atheists in America are too well educated, too privileged, and too well off financially to be the victims of anything awful. How can people whose demographics tend to be better than average complain about being victims? Such arguments are just red herrings, however, because there is nothing about education or income which will necessarily prevent a group from experiencing bigotry, hate, prejudice, or discrimination.
It is true that studies have repeatedly shown a correlation between atheism and education levels. The more education a person receives — especially in the sciences — the less religious they become and the less likely they are to remain theists. The exact nature of the relationship between atheism and education is a matter of dispute, but the existence of some sort connection is clear and not really debated.
It is also true that higher education levels generally correspond with better income — the more education a person has, the more they will earn over their lifetime. The connection between education and income is even less controversial than that between education and atheism, but it suggests that in America, atheists tend to be a bit better educated and probably tend to make more money that the average. Usually, it is assumed that people with more education and money are privileged, not the victims of bigotry and discrimination. So what's going on?
This isn't a sign that there isn't any bigotry against atheists. Jews have tended to do better than average in terms of education and income, especially in America, but not only is this not a sign that there has been no bigotry against them, but in fact these very qualities have been used as excuses for bigots to spread their hatred. The same is arguably true about atheists as well, because one of the accusations leveled against them by anti-atheist bigots is that atheists are too "elitist" in their attitudes, perspectives, and arguments.
Apparently, atheists can't really claim to truly understand religion because they are so privileged economically, socially, and academically. They haven't lived alongside regular religious believers, especially poor ones, who gain so much from their religions and religious beliefs. Like so many other myths, this completely misrepresents atheists. Does the fact that a person inhabits an academic world or that they are well-off financially have any implications for their arguments about religion? No, those are thoroughly irrelevant factors.
There is also a double-standard here because the people making this accusation about atheists don't seem to make the same accusation against theists. Many religious theists who are prominent critics of atheism are equally privileged academically and financially, but that doesn't appear to contaminate their criticisms of atheism. Many religious theists who defend and promote religion are similarly privileged academically and financially, but I don't see anyone complaining that this makes them elitists whose arguments cannot therefore be accepted.
The claim that atheists are "privileged" thus serves two functions: it serves to encourage people to dismiss atheists' criticisms of religion, and it serves to dismiss atheists' complaints about bigotry from religious theists. Both of these goals involve dismissing atheists in one way or another because atheists are more and more refusing to just sit down and shut up — atheists are no longer content to remain in the closet and keep their opinions to themselves. Religious theists certainly never have, so why should atheists?
