
Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought - 6stringmerc
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/
======
ideonexus
A big part of the problem is public misunderstanding about what it means to be
an atheist. When people find out I'm an atheist, they often take it as a
personal attack on their belief in god. Coming out of the closet as an atheist
opened me up to all sorts of social problems. People defriended me on
facebook, others started attacking me in comments, and I still get books from
relatives who think I'm an idiot for not believing in god.

But I don't walk around all day thinking, "There's no god." The concept of god
simply isn't something that ever factors into my thinking. I believe in
science, rationality, the Enlightenment. I believe in all the human beings all
over the world who I rely on and who make my life wonderful.

But I am also painfully aware of "Religious Privilege" in America. I must
carry the words, "In God We Trust" on my money. My children are forced to
pledge allegiance, "Under God" every morning at school. At the Coast Guard
base where I used to work as a contractor, our group lunches and other
gatherings were opened with a prayer to "Our Lord Jesus Christ." I was even
asked to resign from our moral committee shortly after I requested we change
our "Christmas Party" to a "Holiday Party."

Is it any wonder people are reluctant to admit they don't believe in god?

------
Koshkin
From a modern rational perspective, the "god hypothesis" looks more and more
like the answer looking for a question.

~~~
simplify
The modern, rational perspective has not answered the question of "how did we
get here?". A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient
question.

~~~
eridius
Answering "how did we get here?" with "god did it" is just kicking the can
down the road. Where did the god come from?

~~~
foldr
If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the
explanation has to stop somewhere. From a cosmological point of view, the
properties of God are just the properties that any such terminus would have to
have in order to be a terminus. Anything that comes from something else isn't
God, so the question of where God comes from is moot.

~~~
nitwit005
> If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the
> explanation has to stop somewhere.

Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount
of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time.

No matter what explanation you pick, something came from "nothingness" at some
point, which suggests nothingness has some unusual properties.

~~~
foldr
>Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount
of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time.

That is a scenario where there is no ultimate explanation.

------
ianai
I personally go back and forth on this. It isn't so much that I do not believe
in god. I suspect the concept of god may be a product of a human world view.
i.e. If the universe were a simulation would the being(s) running the
simulation be god(s/desses)? Maybe the fundamental nature of the universe is
so complex that a god-being could both be defined to exist and not exist in
some Godel-incompleteness sense.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If there's an outer universe in which ours was created/came to be, and you
follow a realist version of the Copenhagen interpretation, then you could
maybe get both created and non-created versions of our Universe.

Good thought, I like it.

------
icanhackit
I don't have a religion or a personal God, so by definition I'm atheist, but
I'm also open to using the term God as a metaphor for a creating force
(anything that initiated the universe) which puts me in the new-age-y
spirituality and agnostic camps but doesn't anthropomorphise a God, define my
moral code or add magical/superstitious decorations. My moral code is based
around the Golden Rule, but not because someone or something said I should -
it's because it's logical and purest form of fairness.

So perhaps a lot more people come under the Humanist umbrella, which generally
share the same beliefs and moral codes when applied to the world around them,
whether they possess a belief in a non-anthropomorphised God or not. That
aspect of belief is just semantic.

~~~
vivekd
>My moral code is based around the Golden Rule, but not because someone or
something said I should - it's because it's logical and purest form of
fairness.

No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. If someone has something you
want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and
take it. If we wish to kill him while still being in a society where we won't
get killed ourselves the solution is to kill them in secret in a method that
makes it as likely as possible that you won't get caught while publicly
supporting laws forbidding murder.

Saying that morality is rational is a cop-out answer. If morality were
rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral
because they realize it would be irrational to do so. The reason morality is
even an issue is because immoral actions are rational where we can derive a
benefit from them and not face consequences (either because we are very
unlikely to get caught or there is no consequence for getting caught.)

The golden rule is nice and all but it is most certainly not a rational
principle - as evidenced by the fact that neither Jesus nor any of its other
proponents have every tried to offer up rational justifications for it.
Instead it was justified with "I'm God, do as I say," and that was the only
justification ever offered for it.

Even just now, you claimed it was rational but didn't even even attempt to
give logical arguments in support of it. You merely asserted it was "the
purest form of fairness" without either explaining why. Most definitions of
fairness would find "eye for an eye" to be fair, fairness requires good for
good and evil for evil. The Golden rule is not fair.

Also fairness, while something that many people value, is not a logical
principle, we do not derive the value of fairness from logical reasoning but
human feelings. . . The universe and the world is rarely fair and the desire
for fairness is often contrary to sound reason.

~~~
icanhackit
> _No it 's not logical, it's completely irrational._

Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it
couldn't come from human reasoning alone? “Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you” or in simpler, less frilly terms _treat others as you would
want them to treat you_ is a basic form of preemptive reciprocity which even
monkeys can grasp. Using deductive reasoning: if we can devise something as
complex as language to describe our ideas, we can devise simple maxims.

> _If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the
> rational thing to do is kill them and take it._

In a constrained game-theory setting where 1.) there are only two players and
2.) it's something critical to remaining alive and it can't be shared, then
you might have an argument. But squishy reality doesn't play well with half
thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all
be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind.

> _If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do
> anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so._

Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the
time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational.
Thankfully we have mechanisms to record our thoughts, including the odd
rational ones we have which can then stand up to the test of time and
consideration.

~~~
vivekd
>Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it
couldn't come from human reasoning alone?

No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying,
cheating and pillaging.

>But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory
scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead.

But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest. We live in a
world where most people dont lie cheat or kill, and thus its rational to lie
cheat and kill while maintaining the reasonable belief that others wont copy
us.

Some people, like those in severely war torn countries where there is little
or no government do live in a world where many people do lie cheat and kill.
In absolutely 0 cases have humans in that circumstance chosen the supposedly
rational path advocated here. In fact, in that circumstance, the supposedly
rational path of not killing in hopes that others won`t wont kill you seems
naive and foolish.

>Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the
time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational.

Maybe but we do make rational decisions most of the time, we dont need people
forcing us to behave rationally because thats sort of the default. If someone
offers ice cream for 1 $ and I offer the same ice cream for $ 100 people will
rationally choose my neighbors ice cream. This is rational.

How about stealing or hitting, do we have to teach kids that or do they come
to it by reason? Imagine a kid who is never punished for lying or hitting
other kids, will he or she naturally derive that its wrong through reason.

~~~
icanhackit
>> Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it
couldn't come from human reasoning alone?

> No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying,
> cheating and pillaging.

Then you'd fail at any game theory scenarios with a player base larger than 2.

> But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest.

Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where
most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just
because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the
Golden Rule is logical.

> do we have to teach kids that or do they come to it by reason?

You're making the error of suggesting I posited that logic is innate in all
people and even at the earliest stages in life - I never made that claim. What
I am willing to assert: we can learn things, and humans can build mental
frameworks which can be transferred to others by speech and text.

~~~
vivekd
>Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where
most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just
because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the
Golden Rule is logical.

You seem to have missed the point. I was responding to your objection that if
everyone killed we would all be in trouble so we shouldnt kill ourselves.

My response was that we dont live in a world where everyone lies cheats and
kills and there is no reasonable risk of others following my example if do lie
cheat and kill. The mere fact that I kill someone wont create a world where
everyone kills so your point about not wanting to live in such a world is
moot.

~~~
icanhackit
> your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot

I never made a _point about not wanting to live in_ any kind of world. Please
quote the exact piece of text where I said such a thing.

The original argument, made by you, was that the Golden Rule wasn't logical as
I suggested. What you possibly meant to say is that it isn't _innate_ \-- as
in something present in all of us from birth. I never posited that the Golden
Rule is innate.

Logic doesn't require all of humanity to follow it, to flow only within its
boundaries like a fleshy stream, to validate it. It exists in spite of us.

~~~
vivekd
>I never made a point about not wanting to live in any kind of world. Please
quote the exact piece of text where I said such a thing.

your initial reply:

>If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate
because we're gifted with theory of mind.

This is moot because not everyone is doing as I suggest. A murderer doesn't
think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in which everyone would
kill" because that's ridiculous and it won't happen.

Seeing as that's the only reason you can provide for the golden rule, and it's
not a very logical reason, we can conclude that following the golden rule is
not rational, regardless of whether it is innate.

~~~
icanhackit
> > > your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot

> > I never made a point about not wanting to live in any kind of world.
> Please quote the exact piece of text where I said such a thing.

> your initial reply:

> > > > If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we
> cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind.

You've failed to demonstrate what I asked: quote the text where I mentioned
_not wanting to live in such a world_

> A murderer doesn't think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in
> which everyone would kill"

And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is
irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical.

~~~
vivekd
>And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is
irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical.

I'm not seeing the logical flow, perhaps you can point it out to me:

John wants Tim's wife, Marcy. Marcy is not happy with Tim, and she is in love
with John. However, John knows that Marcy will never marry him while married
to Tim.

One day John and Tim are out for a Swim in the lake and Tim begins to Drown.
John can save him but decides not to knowing that he will never get caught for
the murder. After letting Tim die, John seduces his wife.

Before the murder, John has a consideration "wait, if everyone killed, that
would lead to an unpleasant world where I may get killed myself." Then John
comes to his senses and realizes:

1\. No one is going to find out so it is impossible that my actions will
influence anybody.

2\. This consideration of what happens if everyone kills is not relevant to my
current act of killing Tim as killing Tim is very unlikely to result in
everyone killing.

Thus, John realizes it is advantageous to kill Tim and John and Marcy live
happily every after.

Please point out to me the logical (not moral, but ___logical_ __) flaw in
John 's reasoning:

------
nitwit005
This sort of assumes that the people themselves know if they believe in god.
People are often in denial of their own feelings, or flip back and forth.
Plenty of priests will happily tell you about their personal doubts that god
exists.

------
willvarfar
If 1 in 10 Americans say they don't believe in God, and the true number may
actually be 10x more than previously thought... Doesn't that mean 100% of
Americans are atheist??

~~~
ianai
Being 538, they were discussing multiple polls at once. Some polls have it
down as low as 3% and others suggest it may be 30%.

------
6stringmerc
Based on living in Tornado Alley for the past 20+ years, the one thing I can
safely claim is that if there is a God with omnipotent powers, it hates
trailer parks.

------
reeboo
fivethirtyeight.com, weren't these the folks that predicted Hillary winning in
a landslide? I'll read this article with a grain of salt.

edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm just pointing out that the
title is misleading and maybe should be changed to "Way More Americans May Be
Atheists Than We Thought, Or Not". I think "An Analysis of Atheists in
America" would be a more appropriate title.

~~~
grzm
I recommend taking some time to read what they publish rather than what you
may have heard they publish. 538 consistently pushes for proper interpretation
of stats and predictions—particularly uncertainty percentages, which is often
not the case in other publications, even those that reproduce stats sourced
from 538.

In particular, the primary numbers 538 published for the 2016 election were
chances of winning, which can easily be misinterpreted as percentage of the
vote. As of Nov 8, they had Clinton having a 71% chance of winning (with Trump
at 27%), with 302 electoral votes, and 48.5% of the popular vote. This isn't a
landslide prediction, and the 71% chance of winning is much lower than what
was reported in many other publications.

[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-
forecast/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)

In the submitted article, they're quite careful in their language in support
of the title, which purposefully includes the operative word "may". This is in
keeping with what I've come to expect from 538.

------
stefanwlb
Atheists still exist? My my, the world really does turn slowly.

~~~
flukus
Was I in a coma the day that god clearly and unambiguously revealed himself to
the world?

~~~
zardo
Yeah... You should have gotten a pamphlet on your door that explains
everything. I hope you didn't throw it away.

