Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: McCain's Atheist Problem?

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T03:13:09.565-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-09T23:36:30.633-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T04:49:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T04:49:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-11T22:47:00.000-05:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T01:11:00.000-05:00

Goodness, Marie--so much vitriol, so little empiri...

2008-06-16T17:43:00.000-04:00

Goodness, Marie--so much vitriol, so little empirical support. (And a hat tip to Rationalist, a few of whose points I'm echoing below.)

religious people have more children, so it's less risky for them if 80 percent of those children don't share their views.

That's pretty funny: if my religious neighbor has five children, and we infidels deconvert four of them, that's a +3 net gain for irreligion; we'll take it! (And it doesn't require us to do any of that costly reproducin'.) So much for "less risky" for religion.

In fact, that scenario is pretty close to the reality we're seeing (except that the 4:1 ratio is, I'm afraid, overly optimistic): the burgeoning numbers of atheists and related nonbelievers on the planet mainly consist of converts from traditional religions--scads of Christian (and Muslim and Hindu and theistic-Jewish) parents are having offspring who end up abandoning The Faith for secular worldviews.

As sociologists Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman show in their article "Why the Gods Are Not Winning," irreligion is the only sector of the world "belief market" that is currently growing in "market share" due to conversion rather than copulation. (Islam is the only other major group that's growing at all, and that's only because they're doing a more effective job of playing your reproduce-and-indoctrinate game than any other group is.)

In the above-linked article, Paul and Zuckerman quote the evangelical World Christian Encyclopedia bemoaning the scary progress that secularism has made:

"The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians."

So the actual evidence shows that we secularists are doing just fine (notwithstanding our low birth rates), thanks. Paul and Zuckerman explain that the real factors behind the spread of irreligion are (1) improved education and (2) strong economic safety nets (which make folks less prone to destitution if they lose a job, get sick, or get injured). The sociological evidence is fairly clear: without ignorance and fear, religion gradually dies.

this is a standard critique thrown out by non-religious people who expect to not have children and still have their views propagated, which is a more appalling arrogance entirely than hoping a couple of or all of your four kids will share your religious views.

On the contrary: it is not the slightest bit arrogant to be confident in one's reasoned conclusions about the world, and to expect that well educated and socially secure populations of the (not very distant) future will come to realize what we have. Our product is measurably winning in the marketplace of ideas, and we can be reasonably confident it will continue to win.

if the 'propagating views without having kids' views of so many atheists worked so well, politicians wouldn't be sitting there feeling they can't publically declare atheist views and get elected.

That's a bit naive. As has been well established above, societal prejudice against atheists is strong and abiding. That won't go away overnight any more than superstition will. But give us two generations, or perhaps three; we'll get there.

Have you taken a look at secular Europe? That's where we're headed. And given the quality of life that people in the most secular parts of Europe enjoy, that's a very happy prospect.

spike, it's not a eugenics program, it's a numbers...

2008-06-16T02:59:00.000-04:00

spike, it's not a eugenics program, it's a numbers game. if you have more kids, odds are better that AT LEAST one will share your views. if you have fewer kids, your odds are worse. religious people have more children, so it's less risky for them if 80 percent of those children don't share their views, because atheists are far less likely to have large families, or even to have children at all.

plus, this is a standard critique thrown out by non-religious people who expect to not have children and still have their views propagated, which is a more appalling arrogance entirely than hoping a couple of or all of your four kids will share your religious views.

if the 'propagating views without having kids' views of so many atheists worked so well, politicians wouldn't be sitting there feeling they can't publically declare atheist views and get elected. because those views would be societally acceptable and have been integrated into social norms.

having more than two kids is still the best way to ensure at least some of your views end up on a ballot in the long term. and that you still have ballots (or don't, if you are along those lines).

Rationalist,Couldn't have said it better myself. ...

2008-06-15T22:54:00.000-04:00

Rationalist,

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for your service to our country, and thank you for standing up and saying enough.

the nonreligious don't have kids, and that is why ...

2008-06-15T12:25:00.000-04:00

the nonreligious don't have kids, and that is why they are not politically catered to.

evangelicals are having 4 kids a family. 'not religious' folks are saying 'we can't have a kid in this market'. if you aren't breeding the next generation of voters, you should not be surprised at your lack of political representation.

Man, that is just seven kinds of stupid. Were that the case, don't you think there would be a lot higher percentage of religious folks, given their successful eugenics program and all? I don't know if you have any kids, but my personal experience, and one that has been noted in books,film, poems and music from Rage Against The Machine to The Bible, is that if you expect your progeny to share your views by default, you will be sorely disappointed.

the nonreligious don't have kids, and that is why ...

2008-06-15T04:57:00.000-04:00

Mike H in Cali:1) Several studies of religious ide...

2008-06-15T00:14:00.000-04:00

Mike H in Cali:

1) Several studies of religious identity in the US have taken into account the historic trend you cite, and found: a) that it does not account for the dramatic increase in the "no religion" response in more recent surveys, and b) that, in fact, the assumption that people get more spiritual/religious as they get older is not accurate.

2) As an atheist military veteran, son of an atheist military veteran, I not only take personal exception at your false slur, I would also point out that, according to US military records, atheists serve in numbers higher than their proportion in the public, and, furthermore, that their percentage of officers is even higher. For example, more than 20% of Air Force officers are listed as having "no religion". This is true throughout the world (the Soviet soldiers who fought against Hitler and died in numbers far greater than Americans would no doubt have something to say about your false assertion).

3) Darwin most certainly did not renounce evolution on his deathbed - what is more, the Creationist who spread that false rumor has himself admitted it was made up.

4) Statistically, the trend is in precisely the opposite direction from that which you claim; "nonreligious" is the fastest growing major belief group in the US, as in the world at large.

It is sad that you feel such a powerful need to exclude a quarter of your fellow Americans from participation in the democratic process, that you must pretend that we are not sincere, or that it is a passing phase, or that we do not serve our country, endure taxation without representation, and often give our lives to defend your right to spread your misinformation.

Oh, and for the other bit of misinformation posted earlier, in fact, atheists in the US vote at higher percentages than the average voter.

I, for one, want to thank fivethirtyeight for drawing attention to the significance of a major segment of the voting population that has been utterly disrespected by virtually every candidate for the past one hundred years - a segment that is disproportionately situated in key battleground states, where they can make a significant difference in the outcome.

I happen to have data from 2000, in response to an earlier question, of polling results relevant to this discussion. As soon as I can find the file in my archives, I will post that info here.

People get more spiritual/religious as they get ol...

2008-06-14T22:42:00.000-04:00

People get more spiritual/religious as they get older for the same reason there are no atheists in foxholes. Impending death concentrates the faculties on such matters. Even Darwin supposedly renounced evolution on his deathbed.

The sudden death of a celebrity like Russert wil make many liberal atheists age 50+ ponder their mortality and perhaps decide they believe in an afterlife after all.

er, my previous comment should read:"we would NOT ...

2008-06-14T22:04:00.000-04:00

er, my previous comment should read:

"we would NOT have been left with a president who can't string a coherent sentence together"

michael:Lastly, whether or not folks identify as a...

2008-06-14T22:02:00.000-04:00

michael:

Lastly, whether or not folks identify as atheist, 25% do identify as non-religious, i.e. not subscribing to an organized religion - so it is passing strange that 1/4 of the population does not exist as far as our politicians and media are concerned. It is the big lie of omission.

Quite frankly, I have little sympathy for this 25% non-religious segment of the population you speak of, simply because that segment is also one of the LEAST likely to get off its collective butt and VOTE.

If that 25% had voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections at the same or higher rate than the general population, we would have been left with a president who can't string a coherent sentence together.

The non-religious/atheist/agnostics want more influence? They'll have to work for it and participate in the system if that's the case.

"Godless" liberals kick ass.I love framing this as...

2008-06-14T20:33:00.000-04:00

"Godless" liberals kick ass.

I love framing this as a problem for McCain rather than as a problem for Obama. And I absolutely agree - the number of religious zealots will continue to dwindle because... well... quite frankly religious zealotry doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"... the two core constituencies of the Democratic...

2008-06-14T18:58:00.000-04:00

"... the two core constituencies of the Democratic parties, while both growing, also ultimately grow apart - liberal elites, and minorities."

??? They are coming together, not apart. Under Obama, these two groups have formed an unprecedented coalition. Face facts here: Obama would not be the nominee if he didn't have both groups. And there is no reason to think these groups will grow apart, either, so long as minorities keep being nominated. The minorities will vote for one of their own, and the liberal elite won't have any problem with voting for the same.

More generally, I'd dispute the contention that more educated means more left. I'd say more educated means more libertarian, which isn't the same thing. Look at the European Union. The establishment is for the Lisbon Treaty, with politicians, bureacrats, and business persons across the spectrum in favour, and the hard left and hard right against. In Ireland, for example, the No vote was "a toxic cocktail of anti-globalisers, neocons, the clergy and Trotskyists," as one observer noted.

The idea that the left is more educated is a lefty conceit. People like Krauthammer and Scalia are not ignorant idiots. What they are, however, is less *socially* conservative than the typical American.

That should be "flips three of the four states men...

2008-06-14T18:55:00.000-04:00

That should be "flips three of the four states mentioned above"; Arkansas is 3-1 Dem, not 2-1 Dem.

Then again, could McCain snipe 2 Dems in Arkansas? Maybe an Arkansan could weigh in on that.

Whoops! Forgot all about that special election in...

2008-06-14T18:52:00.000-04:00

Whoops! Forgot all about that special election in Mississippi...

Regardless, there's a lot of easy targets for McCain. Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana are only Dem +1 in their delegations, so it would take just one Democrat voting for McCain to flip that state's vote.

If McCain secures both 50/50 delegations, and then flips three of the five states mentioned above, he's our next president. If he flips two, he forces a constitutional crisis.

Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? Not by a longshot.

In the last anonymous comment above, when I say "w...

2008-06-14T18:47:00.000-04:00

In the last anonymous comment above, when I say "which state" I mean of the three you list as likely to go McCain which are democratic majorities.

"while hard core religious types are very hostile ...

2008-06-14T18:45:00.000-04:00

"while hard core religious types are very hostile towards nonbelievers, most nonbelievers do not have that level of hostility towards the religious types"

As someone who feels he has experience with both communities, I believe it is the other way around. Have you been a regular attender of an evangelical church for years? The mentality of Rick Warren is very typical, and he cannot be described as "hostile". Indeed, if you want to find hostility, look for politically "liberal" leaning discussion boards, who go on at length about Dobson et al.

correc- fuck itMississippi has a democratic majori...

2008-06-14T18:43:00.000-04:00

correc- fuck it

Mississippi has a democratic majority in its representatives, so there's that. Also, McCain would have to flip three democratic states AND get all of the splitters to become president. There's a chance of one or two democratic majorities flipping, but there's no way the party would let the election go after what happened in 2000. As such, were a tie to happen the party would calculate which state's majority could best survive any backlash that might result from selecting Obama and then pressure them to do so or face expulsion from the party and be labelled political enemies for the rest of their lives.

If it comes to a tie in the electoral college, Obama will be our next president.

Two thoughts from a new commentator:On the House v...

2008-06-14T18:35:00.000-04:00

Two thoughts from a new commentator:

On the House vote should it be a tie. While Democrats do maintain a state delegation majority (and will hold such barring a miracle), I would suggest some of those will have a difficult time justifying a vote against the popular vote of their state. Some will hold, some may not. Would be the best political story in decades.

Back to the original story. As much as I enjoy the subjective nature of much of the science behind this website, this is an example of where the author's political bias may have led him astray. Zeroing on one poll, and surmising (incorrectly) other data is no way to advance such a broad argument. 1. Religious rates have been tested as much higher than he suggests. Using the "prayer" question is hardly a signifcant measurement of religiousness. 2. Youth are always less religious but when they grow up they return to a church in a similar percentage from generation to generation. 3. And most important, the poll shows 35% fall into the catagory this thread covers. What isn't said is how likely they are to vote, an obviously critical question in such polls. I would suggest that non-religious, mostly young voters vote at such a lower rate, these numbers become less meaningful.

I really do enjoy this site, btw. Keep up the (mostly) good work.

Correction to the correction of the correction: se...

2008-06-14T18:15:00.000-04:00

Correction to the correction of the correction: several states have Democratic majorities in their Congressional delegation but may still be hard pressed to vote for Obama (West Virginia and Arkansas come to mind), and the 50/50 delegations (Mississippi, Kansas and Arizona) seem safe for McCain, so in the case of 269-269 tie, Obama is not guaranteed to win the presidency.

As for the Vice Presidency, the Democratic caucus has 51 members, but that includes Joe Lieberman, who can be guaranteed to vote for McCain's running mate, which would result in a 50-50 tie. This would force Dick Cheney to cast the tie breaking vote, and we all know how that would turn out.

Thus, an electoral college would result in a Republican Vice President and a big question mark for President.

@james: this is only true because God strikes down...

2008-06-14T17:55:00.000-04:00

@james: this is only true because God strikes down the heathens when they're young and spares the devout...