It indeed has been an attitude in the past that atheism is the "sober" choice. Especially in 1859 when Darwin wrote about evolution. Atheism had the beginnings of a claim that life on a previously molten Earth might reasonably have assembled itself from lifeless matter by some sort of chance. The microscope technology of 1859 did not bear magnification of much more than 150 times. At such low magnification a euglena looks like a very simple drop of jelly, yet it swims and seeks the lighter side of its container. It is an unusual creature with both plant (photosynthesis) and animal (mobility) properties. Yet if its life were as simple as a drop of jelly, it would not require any special agencies to develop by sheer chance. It would not require any "god." Many people, including very religious people who attend regular religious services, much dislike the idea of some capricious "god" intervening in human business day in and day out. The attitude that atheism is the more sober choice became increasingly prevalent.
With each improvement in our understanding of biology and life's necessary complexity since then it has appeared less and less likely life first assembled by chance. The attitude that atheism is the more sober choice was questioned and has been on the decline, very slowly. In 1933 Thomas Hunt Morgan received a Nobel Prize for explaining "chromosomes" and how very complex life must be if guided by them. The idea of the simple drop of jelly was over. Most people did not like the news for reasons mentioned. They were much relieved in the 1950s by the work of Miller and Urey that suggested amino acids could readily result from electrostatic (like lightning) agencies in a primitive atmosphere with much methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen.
A problem that developed with the work of Miller and Urey is that because amino acids are rather simple constructions with only ten to twenty atoms typically, they do not build anything. They went absolutely nowhere. Should they have begun building something? Quite sober people think they should and in the 1970s began to speak up.
The atheists had become belligerent though. They would not hear the truly sober people. Science has been trying to find an agency responsible for life for well over one and a half centuries now. That is definitely more embarrasssing than atheists will admit. The tables have turned. It is no longer "reasonable" to believe what people in 1859 believed. It is more reasonable to believe rocks will float in midair without any magnetic alignment than to believe that. Now it is the atheists who believe nonsense, and the faithful who are sober. Today atheism still has a strong following though only with people whose mental capacity is so limited they cannot follow the discussion about how life originated, or why rocks do not float. In their stunning ignorance they can still believe something different is going to happen "in a million years."
Such atheists and many people who are "religious," but rather ignorant of the science, dominate the political scene today. Even "religious" television refuses these arguments for intelligent design with the outdated attitude that the "religion" of it is less sober.
Part of that is because their audience includes quite many young people who cannot understand science, nor their own religion, nor politics. When the religious media stars tell their stories about how Jesus intervened in their lives, day in and day out, it can be just lies for the sake of the children whose mental capacity is not ready to distinguish which are the lies. Republicans certainly did want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover when Trump was elected. They failed because they do not understand it enough themselves to explain it to anyone else. So now they have gone back to claiming they are more sober. They are using a simplistic idea of what is sober that their own simple minds can handle.
Many adults understand that science will never develop morality in society. Democrats tend to believe they are more "scientific," so where is the morality? With all their pretending to religion, Republicans have failed to advance morality. Far too many Democrats and Republicans have no more mental development than children. Both parties are trying to be sober atheists. The country is in trouble and getting worse because there are things science cannot solve. A well developed religion can advance morality, atheists cannot, no matter how sober atheists believe they are. The Republicans have talked about repealing the ACA, but never have. That is because as "sober atheists" they have the same childish blind faith in medical "science" Democrats have.
Currently most media preachers like to claim there is a bountiful God who wants to intervene for His people daily. Why don't they want to teach intelligent design? Who might be lying here?
Another example of the mental age of Republicans is their attitude toward abortion. Most sensible people do not believe abortion is a good idea. Your doctor will even tell you it is a risky idea to be avoided as far as possible. They only agree to abortions because that is safer than depending on amateurs and back rooms. The people who oppose extreme government bans of abortion only do so because the government is not equipped to manage abortion. Government does not know when life begins, nor does anyone else. Government cannot monitor the whereabouts of women at all times, even with the new ubiquitous internet. I tried to explain that if only two percent of the country is not covered by cameras it is effectively the same as one hundred percent not being covered, as far as knowing which claims of rape are genuine.. That has taken many adults rather long to appreciate. The Republicans who believe government can control abortion well have no more mental development than children. They overturned Roe v. Wade because they could not overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover and wanted to show the world something.
from the movie The Exorcist III
If the election were held today the "sober atheists" would win since they currently dominate both parties and the "religious" media. Donald Trump and his base are "sober" atheists. The religious media who support Trump are not mentally developed enough to understand what that is. These days a "sober atheist" is an oxymoron.
Who knows though? Maybe after all they will be the "po-wees-mans" to keep the "drunks" off the streets and off the religious media too.