Yeah, not everybody. I love some of the things that money can buy, buy I genuinely hate money. Love of money brings out the absolute worst in humanity far too often, and lack of enough money causes entirely too much misery. The old phrase "money is the root of all evil" isn't all that far off from true. Greed and love of money are the cause of more problems on this planet than I can count (and I'm pretty damned good at counting).

What causes problems is inequality, not money per se.

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.

There are very few people not raised in religion or similar belief systems, the few I do know though simply don't worship anything in particular.

It was strange for me to accept at first, like... Ok but like what are you? What do you believe in? And having someone answer: "I'm just me and I don't believe in anything, I don't even ask myself that question, I just live." was perspective changing for me.

Some people actually don't worship anything, and don't care about it.

I certainly don't disagree. Wallace's proposition is still provocative, uses a broader than religious definition of worship and lays a marker that when one examines one's own viewpoints there are belief structures to be found.

That said, from only the quote, I find that it's a bad leap to go from saying that everyone has some beliefs, to saying that everyone worships something.

I think at this point some clear definitions of how Wallace uses the words is needed to even make sure we discuss the same thing.

Using standard definitions, off course, anyone still capable of thought (so ignore people that are brain dead and other edge cases), will need to make decisions based on partial information all the time. So someone might come to accept that the sky is blue or the earth is round, and won't continue digging deeper into it. Do they know without a doubt that it is true, probably not, but they can "believe" it to be true for practical purposes.

But that belief need not be firmly held, it can simply be based on whatever data they currently know and freely change as more data is revealed to them.

Now to jump to worshipping, you need an externality and the belief in that externality as something to trust in and follow, revere and adore. You need something that you can listen too in order to predict what actions will lead to the future you desire, and to listen too as what future you were meant to arrive at or other such things.

And that's where I'm saying no, some people don't need any externality for that. Some people don't need to believe in a higher meaning or purpose, some people are happy not knowing what the purpose of life if any is, or that there is one to begin with. Some people are happy just living life and being guided by their innate desires and their own thoughts and ideas. They don't need answers to "why do we do what we do, why do we exist, what happens after we die".

Similarly, some people don't worship anything. There is no externality they adore and revere in, that they delegate their life too, and their full trust in.

"Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings. They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing."

The type of worship and belief discussed goes beyond the spiritual or existential or external.

So I'd consider that quote was effectively pulled out of context.

They could've chosen to not disclose it to you or don't know the true answer for themselves. In that anecdote, they must believe that something is worth just living for, even if it is just themselves.

From later on in the speech transcript linked:

"Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings. They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing."

I don’t think this person has a lot of insight into the minds of non-religious people.

The part of your post reading “ agnosticism is more diametrically opposed to belief than atheism; the latter is belief in one's own disbelief.” is a misrepresentation of what atheism is. Atheism is the conviction that there is most likely not any higher being. Agnosticism is ”I’m not sure if there is a higher being or not”.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [dictionary.com]; the belief that God does not exist [Cambridge Dictionary].

Also, "this person's" father was an atheist, he studied philosophy, and was in-and-out of addiction recovery programs throughout adulthood. He likely had more insight into the minds of non-religious, religious, and whatever people than you're giving him credit for.

What defines and motivates the observed behaviors of folks who are "basically decent people?"

How can that answer be distinguished from that of folks who are not "basically decent people?"

Edit: Obviously decentness is a subjective measure. I’m not sure if you’re trolling me or not but I’m pretty sure you’re at least being intentionally provocative.