7 ms·

Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought

29 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

willvarfar 9y ago
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??
- NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago
  you are 110% right, my friend that means there are no gods at all or that 100% of Americans believe in a god that fits the discription of the god they heard about and I believe that people think about gods but really what are gods?
- ianai 9y ago
  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%.
ianai 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
Koshkin 9y ago
From a modern rational perspective, the "god hypothesis" looks more and more like the answer looking for a question.
- simplify 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Answering "how did we get here?" with "god did it" is just kicking the can down the road. Where did the god come from?
    - simplify 9y ago
      Who could answer? If a being created time and space, we, constrained within that time and space, might not have the capacity to imagine what it's like exist outside of them, only that, as the creator, it is possible.
      - HeroOfAges 9y ago
        I've always found it hard to believe that any human being that ever lived would even begin to understand the intentions of such an entity. It would be like the ants that you've placed in an ant farm claiming to understand why they were placed in the ant farm in the first place and using that knowledge to control the other ants.
        foldr 9y ago
        That is why most religions have a revelatory component. Hardly anyone thinks that you could figure out from first principles what God's intentions are. But he can tell you his intentions if he wants to.
stefanwlb 9y ago
Atheists still exist? My my, the world really does turn slowly.
- flukus 9y ago
  Was I in a coma the day that god clearly and unambiguously revealed himself to the world?
  - zardo 9y ago
    Yeah... You should have gotten a pamphlet on your door that explains everything. I hope you didn't throw it away.
    - flukus 9y ago
      Must of got lost between all the gay agenda, liberal agenda and globalist agenda pamphlets.
- sctb 9y ago
  Nothing interesting ever comes from comments like these. Please don't.
icanhackit 9y ago
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 9y ago
  >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.
vivekd 9y ago
The definition of believing in God can get murky. If asked "do you believe in God" many people will say yes. . . but when the belief is tested the numbers become much smaller. For example if you believe that God exists and rewards those who follow his commandments, people should tithe continuously on the belief that God and not financial well-being will provide for their future. However, when you look at it, very very few people tithe out of their own volition. This is true so much so that some denominations have made tithing mandatory and started tracking it. Take away the tracking and tithing becomes miniscule. As do serious giving to the poor, charity, dong your best to stay away from masturbation and things forbidden by God that people may not find out about. People blame modernity and science on the decline of faith, but I am relatively certain that this trend would hold true in the past. We can see this in historical events like the Catholic church accepting money for indulgences, an absolute no-no if you believe in a higher power, but perfectly acceptable if you are going about the Earthly task of building a working social institution. People have always used religion as sort of a fashion, a show of social virtue. Very few people have actually used it to seek God. So I think when you find those who would simply say "yes" when asked if they believe in God, the number will be high. Those who attend church will also be a high number. But when you look for people who take even the simplest, smallest and most minimal steps consistent with the belief in a higher power who wrote the bible, the numbers become smaller. This applies across religions. For example, I was shocked when talking to Muslims about their faith and why the follow it. Their most common answer is "it provides for the social order." Which is an absolutely bizzare reason to follow a faith. If God exists and told you to do something wouldn't it make sense to do it even if it was not consistent with the Social order. This theme plays out among all religions. Most people do it to maintain the social order and appear as virtuous people. There are a few people who are there actually seeking God. These people are few and far between and I suspect much smaller than anything anyone would have guessed.
reeboo 9y ago
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.
- flukus 9y ago
  Nope, they were the ones getting flack for giving trump an absurdly high (30%) chance of winning.
- grzm 9y ago
  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.
nitwit005 9y ago
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.
6stringmerc 9y ago
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.
ideonexus 9y ago
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?

29 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

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??

NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago
you are 110% right, my friend that means there are no gods at all or that 100% of Americans believe in a god that fits the discription of the god they heard about and I believe that people think about gods but really what are gods?
ianai 9y ago
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%.

ianai 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.

Koshkin 9y ago

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

simplify 9y ago
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 9y ago
  Answering "how did we get here?" with "god did it" is just kicking the can down the road. Where did the god come from?
  - simplify 9y ago
    Who could answer? If a being created time and space, we, constrained within that time and space, might not have the capacity to imagine what it's like exist outside of them, only that, as the creator, it is possible.
    - HeroOfAges 9y ago
      I've always found it hard to believe that any human being that ever lived would even begin to understand the intentions of such an entity. It would be like the ants that you've placed in an ant farm claiming to understand why they were placed in the ant farm in the first place and using that knowledge to control the other ants.
      - foldr 9y ago
        That is why most religions have a revelatory component. Hardly anyone thinks that you could figure out from first principles what God's intentions are. But he can tell you his intentions if he wants to.

stefanwlb 9y ago

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

flukus 9y ago
Was I in a coma the day that god clearly and unambiguously revealed himself to the world?
- zardo 9y ago
  Yeah... You should have gotten a pamphlet on your door that explains everything. I hope you didn't throw it away.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Must of got lost between all the gay agenda, liberal agenda and globalist agenda pamphlets.
sctb 9y ago
Nothing interesting ever comes from comments like these. Please don't.

icanhackit 9y ago

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 9y ago
>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.

vivekd 9y ago

The definition of believing in God can get murky. If asked "do you believe in God" many people will say yes. . . but when the belief is tested the numbers become much smaller. For example if you believe that God exists and rewards those who follow his commandments, people should tithe continuously on the belief that God and not financial well-being will provide for their future. However, when you look at it, very very few people tithe out of their own volition. This is true so much so that some denominations have made tithing mandatory and started tracking it. Take away the tracking and tithing becomes miniscule. As do serious giving to the poor, charity, dong your best to stay away from masturbation and things forbidden by God that people may not find out about. People blame modernity and science on the decline of faith, but I am relatively certain that this trend would hold true in the past. We can see this in historical events like the Catholic church accepting money for indulgences, an absolute no-no if you believe in a higher power, but perfectly acceptable if you are going about the Earthly task of building a working social institution. People have always used religion as sort of a fashion, a show of social virtue. Very few people have actually used it to seek God. So I think when you find those who would simply say "yes" when asked if they believe in God, the number will be high. Those who attend church will also be a high number. But when you look for people who take even the simplest, smallest and most minimal steps consistent with the belief in a higher power who wrote the bible, the numbers become smaller. This applies across religions. For example, I was shocked when talking to Muslims about their faith and why the follow it. Their most common answer is "it provides for the social order." Which is an absolutely bizzare reason to follow a faith. If God exists and told you to do something wouldn't it make sense to do it even if it was not consistent with the Social order. This theme plays out among all religions. Most people do it to maintain the social order and appear as virtuous people. There are a few people who are there actually seeking God. These people are few and far between and I suspect much smaller than anything anyone would have guessed.

reeboo 9y ago

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.

flukus 9y ago
Nope, they were the ones getting flack for giving trump an absurdly high (30%) chance of winning.
grzm 9y ago
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.

nitwit005 9y ago

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.

6stringmerc 9y ago

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.

ideonexus 9y ago

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?