Big Study of US Atheists

[lpetrich]

6 Takeaways from the Largest-Ever Study of Atheists in America | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos by Hemant Mehta
notes
Reality+Check+-+Being+Nonreligious+in+America
compiled with
U.S. Secular Survey | Largest Study of Non-religious Americans

HM noted 6 main points:

1. We identify as “nonreligious” and “atheist” far more than “agnostic.”
2. We hide our non-theistic identities from different people.
3. Most of us grew up in religious — specifically Christian — households.
4. We put up with a lot of crap because we’re not religious. Sometimes, it gets violent.
5. We care about general religious equality more than atheist-specific legal battles.
6. We vote. “Nones” don’t always vote, but atheists definitely vote.

 

[lpetrich]

Executive Summary — U.S. Secular Survey | Largest Study of Non-religious Americans

More than half (57.1%) of participants most strongly identified as atheists, and the vast majority of participants (94.8%) identified as atheists to at least some extent. The second most prevalent primary identity was humanists (14.2%), and significantly fewer participants primarily identified with other labels. Despite stereotypes about how religious upbringing affects nonreligious people, participants had fairly diverse religious backgrounds. One in seven (14.3%) participants were raised in a nonreligious household and about the same number (14.3%) had very strict religious expectations growing up.

So "agnostic" isn't that popular a label among the people surveyed.

Notably, the level of discrimination and stigmatization was dramatically higher for participants living in very religious areas. Survey participants were asked to assess how religious people in their communities are; nearly one third (29.8%) of participants live in very religious communities. Participants from rural locations (49.6%) and small towns (42.7%) were more likely to say their current setting was very religious than those from other settings (23.7%).

Nonreligious participants living in very religious communities were nearly 2.5 times more likely to experience negative events in education than in nonreligious communities, nearly 2.5 times more likely to experience negative events in public services (for example, voting, jury duty, poll work), more than 3 times more likely in employment, and more than 2 times more likely when dealing with private businesses. Moreover, participants living in very religious communities experienced nearly 40% more stigma than those in not at all religious communities.

There was a strong correlation between degree of community religiosity and negative events suffered by nonreligious people.

The geographical distribution of religiosity is interesting. The Northeast and the West Coast were the least religious areas, while the Bible Belt and the Mormon Belt were the most religious areas. The two most religious states were MS and UT -- Bible Belt and Mormon Belt states. The Mormon belt shows up in Utah and Idaho, and the Bible Belt includes the ex-Confederacy and southern Appalachia. That region extends northward, making Pennsylvania "Pennsyltucky".

 

[Lion IRC]

HM noted 6 main points:
1. We identify as “nonreligious” and “atheist” far more than “agnostic.”

Time for some definitions here please.

 

[lpetrich]

HM noted 6 main points:
1. We identify as “nonreligious” and “atheist” far more than “agnostic.”

Time for some definitions here please.

Read the original document - I linked to it.

I OCRed and edited that table:
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Label[/td][td]Very Much[/td][td]Somewhat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Nonreligious[/td][td]79.6%[/td][td]10.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Atheist[/td][td]79.4%[/td][td]15.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Secular[/td][td]75.1%[/td][td]12.8%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Freethinker[/td][td]64.9%[/td][td]20.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Humanist[/td][td]64.6%[/td][td]22.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skeptic[/td][td]61.4%[/td][td]21.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agnostic[/td][td]35.1%[/td][td]31.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Many of the respondents used multiple labels, thus the seeming overcount.

It might be nice to have the raw data, so one can look for correlations.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I bet the second finding -- that we hide our non-religious status -- has changed a good deal in the last 20 years, as in, it has lessened. Atheist viewpoints were widely aired by best-selling authors (the so-called New Atheists); more celebrities have come forward as atheistic; and certainly there has been no shortage of batshit crazy religious suicide, murder, and terrorism (especially in the past 40 years, starting with Jonestown) to convince people in open societies that maybe faith isn't an ennobling quality. I also would not want to deprive Falwell, Swaggart, Roberts, Robertson, and the beloved Bakkers of their role in discrediting the life of faith and the beloved community.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From a personal viewpoint it is good to see "agnostic" falling out of favor. For those raised to believe christian claims anyway, if one is really on the path to adulthood one should not say there really isn't enough information to decide whether people float away magically into the sky, come back to life, perform physically impossible acts, there's a magic person living in the sky watching my sex organs, etc.

How would we think about our children if they told us they were agnostic about Santa Claus, his elves and his flying reindeer? We'd think they were a bit slow or just plain odd, maybe even be fearful they they would be an object of ridicule, which they likely would be.

I have friends who literally hate institutionalized religion, it surprises me to listen to them and hear the vitriol and contempt. But at the same time they take great comfort in reading from their bibles or quoting passages. They're as dumb as drain plugs when it comes to knowing christian history but I suspect they simply appreciate the comfort that comes along with snippets of good literature.

 

[Elixir]

From a personal viewpoint it is good to see "agnostic" falling out of favor. For those raised to believe christian claims anyway, if one is really on the path to adulthood one should not say there really isn't enough information to decide whether people float away magically into the sky, come back to life, perform physically impossible acts, there's a magic person living in the sky watching my sex organs, etc.

Agnosticism certainly doesn't require accepting the possibility of all that shit. In fact, even being religious doesn't require accepting all that shit. Being a bible-humper does require it, but that's a minor subset of the universe of religiosity.
I consider myself agnostic, or maybe you'd prefer "soft atheist", but I'm absolutely certain of the non-existence of sky-daddy-type entities posited by religions.
In fact, that table reflects the little bit of time I spend thinking about transcendent entities, forces or natural phenomena. There seems to me no valid reason for such navel-gazing. Certainly no compelling reason.

 

[Lion IRC]

HM noted 6 main points:
1. We identify as “nonreligious” and “atheist” far more than “agnostic.”

Time for some definitions here please

Read the original document - I linked to it.

I OCRed and edited that table:
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Label[/td][td]Very Much[/td][td]Somewhat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Nonreligious[/td][td]79.6%[/td][td]10.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Atheist[/td][td]79.4%[/td][td]15.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Secular[/td][td]75.1%[/td][td]12.8%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Freethinker[/td][td]64.9%[/td][td]20.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Humanist[/td][td]64.6%[/td][td]22.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skeptic[/td][td]61.4%[/td][td]21.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agnostic[/td][td]35.1%[/td][td]31.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Many of the respondents used multiple labels, thus the seeming overcount.

It might be nice to have the raw data, so one can look for correlations.

Yeah, I read it.
There's a big problem with disambiguation.
Skeptic versus atheist versus non-theist versus agnostic versus secular....

Well I've always said, There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.

 

[Rhea]

Read the original document - I linked to it.

I OCRed and edited that table:
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Label[/td][td]Very Much[/td][td]Somewhat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Nonreligious[/td][td]79.6%[/td][td]10.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Atheist[/td][td]79.4%[/td][td]15.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Secular[/td][td]75.1%[/td][td]12.8%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Freethinker[/td][td]64.9%[/td][td]20.4%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Humanist[/td][td]64.6%[/td][td]22.3%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skeptic[/td][td]61.4%[/td][td]21.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agnostic[/td][td]35.1%[/td][td]31.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Many of the respondents used multiple labels, thus the seeming overcount.

It might be nice to have the raw data, so one can look for correlations.

Yeah, I read it.
There's a big problem with disambiguation.
Skeptic versus atheist versus non-theist versus agnostic versus secular....

Lion - it's what people identified themselves as.
Meaning there are probably many definitions, but broadly speaking this is the way they personally express their description of their "religion"

It's like asking Christians to dismbiguate.

But the main point is that "agnostic" is not how they identify themselves, in general. They are much more assertive.

I think what YOU can take from this is that the evidence is pretty solid that all of the current definitions of gods and supernatural are just not convincing at all, and we tend to operate with the conclusion that it just doesn't exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From a personal viewpoint it is good to see "agnostic" falling out of favor. For those raised to believe christian claims anyway, if one is really on the path to adulthood one should not say there really isn't enough information to decide whether people float away magically into the sky, come back to life, perform physically impossible acts, there's a magic person living in the sky watching my sex organs, etc.

Agnosticism certainly doesn't require accepting the possibility of all that shit. In fact, even being religious doesn't require accepting all that shit. Being a bible-humper does require it, but that's a minor subset of the universe of religiosity.
I consider myself agnostic, or maybe you'd prefer "soft atheist", but I'm absolutely certain of the non-existence of sky-daddy-type entities posited by religions.
In fact, that table reflects the little bit of time I spend thinking about transcendent entities, forces or natural phenomena. There seems to me no valid reason for such navel-gazing. Certainly no compelling reason.

What's the difference between atheism and soft atheism?

Out of curiosity I googled and found this:

The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’

It answers some questions I had.

 

[funinspace]

From a personal viewpoint it is good to see "agnostic" falling out of favor. For those raised to believe christian claims anyway, if one is really on the path to adulthood one should not say there really isn't enough information to decide whether people float away magically into the sky, come back to life, perform physically impossible acts, there's a magic person living in the sky watching my sex organs, etc.

Agnosticism certainly doesn't require accepting the possibility of all that shit. In fact, even being religious doesn't require accepting all that shit.

^Absolutely!

Being a bible-humper does require it, but that's a minor subset of the universe of religiosity.

Well, yes and no. Fundagelicals are in the same self help cafeteria as those libral Protestants. The main difference is that those libral Protestants recognize that they are in a self help cafeteria. Do they accept being full on pacifists (unless conscripted by their government)? Do they play with snakes, per their fucked up ending of Mark? Do they believe in a limited 6,000 year old humanity existence? Do they treat gluttonous behavior the same as homosexual behavior? Yeah, a super tiny fraction sort of do it...the rest pick an choose...aka rationalize the preferences they have.

I consider myself agnostic, or maybe you'd prefer "soft atheist", but I'm absolutely certain of the non-existence of sky-daddy-type entities posited by religions.
In fact, that table reflects the little bit of time I spend thinking about transcendent entities, forces or natural phenomena. There seems to me no valid reason for such navel-gazing. Certainly no compelling reason.

I agree. The main reason I use the term agnostic (as in my profile "theoretical agnostic; functional atheist"), is that I realize there is no absolute proof that some Blind Watchmaker doesn't exist. It is not because I fall within Lion IRC's childish strawman characterization...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree. The main reason I use the term agnostic (as in my profile "theoretical agnostic; functional atheist"), is that I realize there is no absolute proof that some Blind Watchmaker doesn't exist. It is not because I fall within Lion IRC's childish strawman characterization...

Absolute proof is on the same level as proving a negative. Maybe they're the same thing.

Functional atheism is pretty easy to understand and accept. But theoretical agnostic on the grounds of not being able to prove a negative or requiring absolute proof seems too high and unnecessary a bar.

 

[Wiploc]

But theoretical agnostic on the grounds of not being able to prove a negative or requiring absolute proof seems too high and unnecessary a bar.

To be gnostic is to know. If you don't know, you are agnostic.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have used most of those labels to describe myself, but I haven't considered myself agnostic since I was in my early 20s. When I was in my early 20s, I was truly agnostic. I was searching the world religions for truth. I liked the more liberal aspects of the Christian message. I thought there might be a god, but I wasn't sure. To me, that's a true agnostic. But, I do know many atheists who used that term to describe themselves. The reason or excuse they use is that while they reject all of the known gods, they aren't sure if there might be some god out there who hasn't been revealed to them yet. At least that's how my friends who use that term explain it.

I, on there other hand, simply can't imagine there being an entity that is a god, so I am a strong atheist. If you want to call nature a god, that's fine, but I am unable to believe there is one or some supernatural entities who have super powers.

I'm not fond of the term freethinker because it's been used to describe many different ways of thinking. It's been used by some of the nuttiest people on the far right, so I'm conflicted about the use of that term.

I have humanist values for the most part, so I don't mind being referred to as a humanist, but I sometimes call myself a cherry picking humanist because I do have concerns about some of the humanist concepts, although at least they are subject to change.

I've often told people that I"m not religious, because I'm not religious. Of course, I'm secular and very skeptical of many things, not just religion. So, of course people who don't believe n god often label themselves in more than one way.

Having said all that, I don't hate religion unless the religion is extreme, hateful and divisive. I consider evangelical Christianity, for example, to be a hateful, divisive religion. Not that all believers fit that description, but the basic beliefs are very hateful and divisive.

 

[funinspace]

I agree. The main reason I use the term agnostic (as in my profile "theoretical agnostic; functional atheist"), is that I realize there is no absolute proof that some Blind Watchmaker doesn't exist. It is not because I fall within Lion IRC's childish strawman characterization...

Absolute proof is on the same level as proving a negative. Maybe they're the same thing.

Functional atheism is pretty easy to understand and accept. But theoretical agnostic on the grounds of not being able to prove a negative or requiring absolute proof seems too high and unnecessary a bar.

It is not as if I think that I think a Blind Watchmaker is plausible, let alone probable. It is simple a recognition that one can't prove that it can't be true. I'm fine with using the term 'soft atheism' as well. It is also, why I won't use the term 'agnostic' without a qualifying term like 'theoretical'...too many people like to quibble over intent via a single word. IMPOV, too many people think that when one says 'atheist/atheism', it means one think it is proven that there is no magical entity out there that started everything. I don't believe there is such an entity, but I don't think it is provable, any more than I think one could prove that we human's aren't just some sort of battery cell for some Matrix. Simply put, my verbiage is an acknowledgement of the weakness of single word to properly describe my POV.

 

[southernhybrid]

I really don't care if other atheists use the term agnostic or soft atheist to describe themselves. Of course, we can't prove a negative, but we can't prove that Santa, The Easter Bunny, Garden Fairies or angels don't exist, and for me, the concept of a god is just as silly as any of those other characters. That is why I personally consider myself a strong atheist, and that is why I don't really get why some atheists call themselves agnostics, not that it's important to me how others describe themselves. I just can't claim that I'm agnostic when it comes to the concept of a supernatural creature of any kind. I'm not here to argue about it. I'm simply explaining why I personally identify as an atheist and not as an agnostic or a soft atheist.

I could probably even see myself as a Christian atheist if I wanted to embrace a church community. I like some of the Christian mythology. I just don't take any of it literally. God is simply a myth. Christianity is a bunch of principles and stories based on myths. I can't prove that Jesus didn't come back to life after three days either. Are there atheists who are agnostic on the resurrection too?

To me, the concept of god was invented by primitive humans who were trying to explain life, the universe and everything. There is no need to disprove this claim imo, just as there is no need to disprove any other mythology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I really don't care if other atheists use the term agnostic or soft atheist to describe themselves. Of course, we can't prove a negative, but we can't prove that Santa, The Easter Bunny, Garden Fairies or angels don't exist, and for me, the concept of a god is just as silly as any of those other characters. That is why I personally consider myself a strong atheist, and that is why I don't really get why some atheists call themselves agnostics, not that it's important to me how others describe themselves. I just can't claim that I'm agnostic when it comes to the concept of a supernatural creature of any kind. I'm not here to argue about it. I'm simply explaining why I personally identify as an atheist and not as an agnostic or a soft atheist.

I could probably even see myself as a Christian atheist if I wanted to embrace a church community. I like some of the Christian mythology. I just don't take any of it literally. God is simply a myth. Christianity is a bunch of principles and stories based on myths. I can't prove that Jesus didn't come back to life after three days either. Are there atheists who are agnostic on the resurrection too?

To me, the concept of god was invented by primitive humans who were trying to explain life, the universe and everything. There is no need to disprove this claim imo, just as there is no need to disprove any other mythology.

That's the basis of my questioning why someone would use the word agnostic. Is using the word really just about what defines a god, as Wiploc intimated? As I've said many times there may very well be life forms that can bring a universe into existence routinely but does that make such a life form a god? Depends on the definition. Is a creator a god? Is a god a creator? There are endless questions.

Clearly, culturally, men created gods to answer questions. Gods became a kind of knowledge because we didn't understand natural forces. So, for example, we made gods out of the sun and the moon and made the stars and planets into gods. We made natural forces into unnatural forces just so we could comprehend them, even if erroneously. But why continue to do this by saying we're not sure or we don't know, when clearly the knowledge is there to embrace?

Gods are more like cartoon characters than anything else, they're cinematic inventions. They answer nothing but still provide an entertaining comfort for many.