Why are there more theists, in the world then atheists?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

There's no one answer here.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

Oh dear. You're misapplying that 100th monkey term, which originated from a failed hypothesis about unified fields affecting actions continents away from one another. "Monkey see, monkey do" might be another simian trope we can invoke that is more applicable here.

You also encounter a horse & cart problem with your logic. Are we following a trend, or is the trend a response to the information being presented to young adults? It's probably impossible to extricate those to say which one it is for sure.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you would agree that Atheism is a more natural state then theism?

Then how did we end up with a generally theistic world? Even more so, why would we have a world that is generally theistic, but comprised of mostly atheists?

Not sure why you're trying to establish which is more "natural." What do you even mean by that?

I still think you're ignoring the biology here, though. Even if we're not born into belief, there's strong evidence to suggest we have a tendency toward it.

Originally posted by Digi
There's no one answer here.

Oh dear. You're misapplying that 100th monkey term, which originated from a failed hypothesis about unified fields affecting actions continents away from one another. "Monkey see, monkey do" might be another simian trope we can invoke that is more applicable here.

You also encounter a horse & cart problem with your logic. Are we following a trend, or is the trend a response to the information being presented to young adults? It's probably impossible to extricate those to say which one it is for sure.

Not sure why you're trying to establish which is more "natural." What do you even mean by that?

I still think you're ignoring the biology here, though. Even if we're not born into belief, there's strong evidence to suggest we have a tendency toward it.

Lets use nature as our standard.

So, would you say that theism is more "natural" then atheism?

Then, why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the less-active members? Yes. Compared to the active ones? Almost always no...from my experience.

And my point is: their faith and reasons for their faith are constantly challenged in this modern world. That wasn't the case 100 years ago (probably closer to 150...but 50 years ago suffices for my point).

I'm just saying that it is very hard to say people are not aware of even the nuanced arguments you speak of.

We could probably do an unofficial check with those around us. I know every single person in the room I am working with, right now, are quite aware of the nuances of theistic and atheistic arguments. I know this because we've had them.

I think you don't realize how severely stupid/stubborn humans really are about their religions. 313*

*You know that's not true. I know you know. It's just humor about how bullheaded theists can be about their religion.

I think the difference here might just be our cultural context... Me being from Canada and you from a more religious part of America.

Though, I'm not so much talking about having faith challenged so much as having an integral idea about what their faith means. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but like, it would be the difference between someone who lurks around livescience.com or something like that versus someone who has a proper understanding of scientific methods. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say most of the atheists I've talked to are overly enlightened or anything like that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lets use nature as our standard.

So, would you say that theism is more "natural" then atheism?

Then, why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

its not so much that "theism" is more natural, but that there would be a benefit to those animals that saw some form of agency in random events, then, with the human capacity for language and very abstract knowledge, that bias is exploited.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not so much that "theism" is more natural, but that there would be a benefit to those animals that saw some form of agency in random events, then, with the human capacity for language and very abstract knowledge, that bias is exploited.

What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the difference here might just be our cultural context... Me being from Canada and you from a more religious part of America.

Though, I'm not so much talking about having faith challenged so much as having an integral idea about what their faith means. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but like, it would be the difference between someone who lurks around livescience.com or something like that versus someone who has a proper understanding of scientific methods. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say most of the atheists I've talked to are overly enlightened or anything like that.

Because some humans are romantics. The world is a harsh and ugly place. But the beauty that glimmers through shows hope.

Religion is Cultism = Ugly.
Atheism is What You See Is What You Get = Boring.
Theism is Imagination = Awesome.

But when theism claims that "god did it" at every turn that seems to be opposite to encouraging people to imagine what the real mechanics of the universe were.

I think its not about romanticism and imagination, but human desperation, isolation and the terror of death.

Also its a pretty handy way of manipulating en masse.

I thought Theism is just the notion of dieties. Or a force. No correct answer just theories.

Woops my bad.

Is there such thing as a faith where its members just believe in a entity or force out there undiscovered and shun all the books, rules, regulations and superstitions of a particular institution?

I used to think Theosophy was that. But discovered it was just another cult.
Neo Satanism looked like a bunch of performing realists who just wanted to bring down organised Religion, but they turned out to be a bunch of NeoNazis.

I'm not afraid of death being just being a corpse in the ground. I don't need people to tell me how to be a good person. But I have a big imagination and reckon there should be something more out there.

And I agree these institutions are mearly cults giving hope en masse.
Or tribal leaders creating perfect little soldiers for their cause.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

2. Because theism requires a certain level of abstract thinking / metaconsciousness which animals do not possess, at least not to a sufficient level. Often, a big stretch of cause-n-effect is involved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

because it requires a level of abstract concept formation that animals don't have.

they do see agency in random events though, as in, they will treat random noise in a bush as a predator, etc.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Because some humans are romantics. The world is a harsh and ugly place. But the beauty that glimmers through shows hope.

Religion is Cultism = Ugly.
Atheism is What You See Is What You Get = Boring.
Theism is Imagination = Awesome.

That's laughably narrow-sighted. I'd argue that seeing the world in this way, and seeing religion/non-religion in this way, is a profound lack of imagination.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

We're going in circles. I had an answer to this a while back. Chances are, no one's at the cognitive level to need to rationalize the world around them in the manner that leads to religious thought.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, functional atheists, sure. Those who espouse a religion, but for all practical purposes lead entirely secular lives. "Census Christians" my family used to call them.

More than just religion offers answers to those questions. It's just hard for many to imagine something outside religion offering it.

Such as what?

I already mentioned philosophy and religion - what else offers answers to these questions?

I'd say art, in some forms, provides or gives answers to these questions as well, perhaps in less absolute terms.

I also think sciences give answers to certain aspects of these questions, but only in as far as it can substantiate them. Which I personally find to be an advantage.

I do think that theism often gives answers that are very relatable, especially in ages (or in people) where there's little true understanding of the world around.

I guess I'd agree that, because of that, a shuffle would likely lead to some sorts of theism again. Whether it is necessarily as popular as it has gotten in our world, I don't know, I think another philosophical or spiritual non-theistic belief system with ambitions to convert and conquer could just as well dominate, like Abrahamic religions have in this world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Such as what?

I already mentioned philosophy and religion - what else offers answers to these questions?

Philosophy is not religion so that would immediately prove his claim that things other than religion can answers such questions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Philosophy is not religion so that would immediately prove his claim that things other than religion can answers such questions.

But, is religion philosophy?

Originally posted by inimalist
because it requires a level of abstract concept formation that animals don't have.

they do see agency in random events though, as in, they will treat random noise in a bush as a predator, etc.

So, theism is a product of a more advanced brain.

Digi

I know you answered already. I just wanted inimalist to answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, theism is a product of a more advanced brain.

Digi

I know you answered already. I just wanted inimalist to answer.

Yes, but so is actively choosing atheism.

I think inimalist addressed the difference well in his initial post. Embracing the philosophy of theism or atheism is different from just being those things coincidentally.

Furthermore, with atheism, there's the complicating factor that it doesn't just mean actively believing that there is no god, but also the passive fact of not believing in God, for example cause you never thought about it or were not exposed to it.

I'm not sure whether it is that interesting to discuss animals being atheist, as they seem to be atheist in the same way a stone is atheist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, is religion philosophy?

Often.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Often.

I say this cause I think one could possibly make a semantic argument that only philosophy answers the questions of "why am I here" and "what happens after I die" because we define everything that answers these questions as "philosophy".