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

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Such as what?

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

You do. Which then opens the door for a multitude of potential answers. In religion, while subjective interpretation remains a part of any practice, you're necessarily herded into 1-2 specific responses to the question of "Why are we here?" (and similar questions). To glorify God, to act according to his decrees, to live according to whatever precepts the religion or philosophy might have, etc. etc. But once I have the power to determine the answer, I'm no longer limited my a doctrine, or the need to work within it. It's freedom, the empowerment that comes with knowing you want to do what's right, that you want to have purpose and meaning, and that you are responsible for those things in your life. Frankly, it's one of the cooler aspects of being an atheist. That, and sleeping in on Sundays.

Also, the ultimate goal in religion is a form of happiness. Usually, but not always, in the form of heaven. So if we take that as the "why," it can be applied to secular lifestyles just as easily. You don't need to be religious to work toward the same "why" that religion presents us.

Also, from a nonreligious perspective this is a silly question in the first place. For someone who doesn't believe in God or the veracity of religions, to me, everyone comes up with their own meaning and purpose...religion has nothing to do with it. A person might hide behind the guise of religion, but it's really just a personal justification for their existence. In that sense, I don't see religious meaning as any different than non-religious meaning, because both are man-made and based on the individual.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi

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

Ah. Apologies then.

Originally posted by Existere
Challenging, justifying or changing your spiritual stance as an adult sounds like learning a second language as an adult, and in doing so gaining a perhaps greater understanding of the grammar, nuances and evolution of that language than the native speakers often possess themselves.

ya, thats it exactly

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

well, sort of. It is a product of the fact that we evolved from a species that was incredible at pattern detection and saw agency behind random events. The idea of theism itself, so, beyond just thinking that someone is causing natural events, but rather the idea that it is a specific person with authority who should be worshiped and stuff like that are going to be more a product of our linguistic capacity to categorize things and our social organization. It would be interesting to think if the earliest band societies of humans would be theists in the way we use the term modernly, or I suppose that is why we have terms like naturalism or whatever.

Certainly, no, I don't think it is a matter of an advanced brain alone and probably has a lot to do with our linguistic ability to name the agent we think is behind some natural phenomenon, whereas the worship and such likely arise as an extension of authority within these early societies.

Originally posted by inimalist
...
well, sort of. It is a product of the fact that we evolved from a species that was incredible at pattern detection and saw agency behind random events. The idea of theism itself, so, beyond just thinking that someone is causing natural events, but rather the idea that it is a specific person with authority who should be worshiped and stuff like that are going to be more a product of our linguistic capacity to categorize things and our social organization. It would be interesting to think if the earliest band societies of humans would be theists in the way we use the term modernly, or I suppose that is why we have terms like naturalism or whatever.

Certainly, no, I don't think it is a matter of an advanced brain alone and probably has a lot to do with our linguistic ability to name the agent we think is behind some natural phenomenon, whereas the worship and such likely arise as an extension of authority within these early societies.

To me, theism is not directly connected to worship. I believe this connection is more modern then the original concept of gods. In many ways, I think that god is a word that fills a space, much like dark in dark matter. We didn't know why the sun came up in the morning, so we said it was done by a god. I think that only later did the idea that we had to do something to help this god, came into being.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, theism is not directly connected to worship. I believe this connection is more modern then the original concept of gods. In many ways, I think that god is a word that fills a space, much like dark in dark matter. We didn't know why the sun came up in the morning, so we said it was done by a god. I think that only later did the idea that we had to do something to help this god, came into being.

sure, but the development of the idea of a God wouldn't have been done in a vacuum. sure, yes, it is likely that the first ideas of agency behind natural events didn't lead directly to worship and all that, the social organization of the time would provide clear benefits to leaders who claimed to be able to communicate with or call on the powers of that agent. This development likely was also happening throughout the human population in different ways, so it is possible in some cases you do see worship very early and in other cases not.

otherwise its semantics, though, I'm not sure if I would call simply seeing agency in nature as being theism so much as naturalism, and we know there are cultures who worshiped nature without ever personifying this agency.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but the development of the idea of a God wouldn't have been done in a vacuum. sure, yes, it is likely that the first ideas of agency behind natural events didn't lead directly to worship and all that, the social organization of the time would provide clear benefits to leaders who claimed to be able to communicate with or call on the powers of that agent. This development likely was also happening throughout the human population in different ways, so it is possible in some cases you do see worship very early and in other cases not.

otherwise its semantics, though, I'm not sure if I would call simply seeing agency in nature as being theism so much as naturalism, and we know there are cultures who worshiped nature without ever personifying this agency.

So, you draw a line between naturalism and theism. That sheds light on some of my difficulties in discussing this topic with people like yourself. I do not draw such a distinction. Also, I maybe a theist, but I do not worship a god.

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just wanted inimalist to answer.

😛

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, is religion philosophy?

Religion is a perspective of reverence which may or may not involve critical analysis.
Philosophy is an analytical perspective which may or may not involve reverence.

Originally posted by Mindship
What am I, chopped liver?

😛

😆

Originally posted by Mindship
1. It may be (though I doubt it), but we are hardly privy to other creatures' intimate thoughts (how the hell would I know what a silverback is contemplating when it be chillin' in the jungle?). Mostly they seemed concerned with understanding/negotiating the concrete world.

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.

1. We have no way of knowing. Is the shape of a termite mound a reflection of a suitable home for the colony, or a temple dedicated to a termite god? Would an alien race recognize theism within our culture?

2. But humans are animals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. ... Would an alien race recognize theism within our culture?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. But humans are animals.

Originally posted by Mindship
I often wonder if an alien race would recognize intelligence in our culture.

Don't make me facepalm you.

So long, and thanks for all the fish... 😄

I think we begin toward theism, as humans have the ability to be curious and imaginative. I think humans also need/or definitely want to know that the buck doesn't stop with us.

And I believe when theism turns into religion, that that is mainly faith working, by people who need too know more specifically WHAT is looking after them.

There might be something about what A types do different than B types, A types need to feel in control of their lives, so they might look more specifically - while B types may be okay in just knowing that "something" is up there, tying everything together in a way that makes sense to "It," although not to humans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you draw a line between naturalism and theism. That sheds light on some of my difficulties in discussing this topic with people like yourself. I do not draw such a distinction. Also, I maybe a theist, but I do not worship a god.

Thanks for the discussion.

I actually don't think I've ever thought about that type of a distinction. I'd say naturalism is when you would believe the agency is nature itself or that nature can be an agent, whereas when a specific agent is involved, it becomes theism. So, as far as I understand it, something like Karma would be closer to a naturalistic belief rather than theistic...

That being said, I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to define yourself, this is obviously semantics

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I think we begin toward theism, as humans have the ability to be curious and imaginative. I think humans also need/or definitely want to know that the buck doesn't stop with us.

And I believe when theism turns into religion, that that is mainly faith working, by people who need too know more specifically WHAT is looking after them.

There might be something about what A types do different than B types, A types need to feel in control of their lives, so they might look more specifically - while B types may be okay in just knowing that "something" is up there, tying everything together in a way that makes sense to "It," although not to humans.

I think you might have a point if you are talking about people who seek certainty in a modern context and the reasons religious explanations might appeal to them, however, that sounds far too organized to explain the origins of theism. Especially with the nearly deistic idea at the end, the "it", sure, something that shows up in some ancient literature, but probably requires a concept of the divine initially. IE - I don't think deism can exist without first having some type of theism.

It seems like you are saying that a bunch of otherwise agnostic early humans sat down and were like "gee, I don't understand a lot of things, so let me come up with the best way to describe them", whereas I can't imagine there being that much thought behind it. I'd imagine it arose much more organically out of people's experiences rather than as some type of top-down thought process.

Originally posted by inimalist
I actually don't think I've ever thought about that type of a distinction. I'd say naturalism is when you would believe the agency is nature itself or that nature can be an agent, whereas when a specific agent is involved, it becomes theism. So, as far as I understand it, something like Karma would be closer to a naturalistic belief rather than theistic...

That being said, I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to define yourself, this is obviously semantics

Karma is directly connected to theism, if you are talking about Hinduism. Even in Buddhism, there are those who believe that Buddha was divine, and that would also count as theism.

PS I do not think you are trying to tell me how to define myself. I was simple using myself as tactic to illustrate that there are more then two answers, and those answers have their own problems.

To answer my own question: I believe that nether atheism or theism are natural. They are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is what is natural. That coin is something that I would call the Mystic Law, but that is only my opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?

Originally posted by Digi
You do. Which then opens the door for a multitude of potential answers. In religion, while subjective interpretation remains a part of any practice, you're necessarily herded into 1-2 specific responses to the question of "Why are we here?" (and similar questions). To glorify God, to act according to his decrees, to live according to whatever precepts the religion or philosophy might have, etc. etc. But once I have the power to determine the answer, I'm no longer limited my a doctrine, or the need to work within it. It's freedom, the empowerment that comes with knowing you want to do what's right, that you want to have purpose and meaning, and that you are responsible for those things in your life. Frankly, it's one of the cooler aspects of being an atheist. That, and sleeping in on Sundays.

Also, the ultimate goal in religion is a form of happiness. Usually, but not always, in the form of heaven. So if we take that as the "why," it can be applied to secular lifestyles just as easily. You don't need to be religious to work toward the same "why" that religion presents us.

Also, from a nonreligious perspective this is a silly question in the first place. For someone who doesn't believe in God or the veracity of religions, to me, everyone comes up with their own meaning and purpose...religion has nothing to do with it. A person might hide behind the guise of religion, but it's really just a personal justification for their existence. In that sense, I don't see religious meaning as any different than non-religious meaning, because both are man-made and based on the individual.

Ah. Apologies then.

I am happy you are happy to be an atheist, but I've no idea what your point is....other than ''I am an atheist''. Please clarify.

I actually did get totally lost in the flow of that conversation, but I'll try from what I gathered to answer -

In case you were thinking Atheism offers answers to questions we have no answers to - it actually doesn't.
It speculates as much as philosophy and religion, except Atheistic speculation is based on ''probably nothing happens when we die'' which is unsatisfactory to majority of people, thus religion is more appealing.

THEREFORE

To answer Shaky's question - if we are to re-roll the dice, the world would most likely still be theistic., in my opinion.

I couldn't work out if you agree with this or not....

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am happy you are happy to be an atheist, but I've no idea what your point is....other than ''I am an atheist''. Please clarify.

I actually did get totally lost in the flow of that conversation, but I'll try from what I gathered to answer -

In case you were thinking Atheism offers answers to questions we have no answers to - it actually doesn't.
It speculates as much as philosophy and religion, except Atheistic speculation is based on ''probably nothing happens when we die'' which is unsatisfactory to majority of people, thus religion is more appealing.

THEREFORE

To answer Shaky's question - if we are to re-roll the dice, the world would most likely still be theistic., in my opinion.

I couldn't work out if you agree with this or not....

I see Digi's point.

His answer is "it's subjective and whatever the individual chooses the 'reason' to be". Such as, "Dedicating my life to PETA." Rather than, "God called me to dedicate my life to PETA."

And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.

The only problem I had with his post was the sleeping in on Sundays.

Why didn't you sleep in on Saturday? HEATHEN! BLASPHEMY! 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see Digi's point.

His answer is "it's subjective and whatever the individual chooses the 'reason' to be". Such as, "Dedicating my life to PETA." Rather than, "God called me to dedicate my life to PETA."

And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.

The only problem I had with his post was the sleeping in on Sundays.

Why didn't you sleep in on Saturday? HEATHEN! BLASPHEMY! 😆

Recap:

Shaky: Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

Me: Theistic world. Religion and philosophy are important to men - It offers answers to which we do not have questions yet (if ever).

Digi: Other things offer answers not just religion.

Me: Which ones?

Digi: I am an atheist. I answer my own questions. (perhaps alluding to philosophy?)

Me: Maybe he means atheism offers answers - I don't believe so, because it speculates as much as philosophy and religion.

As for your point: ''And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.''

I already addressed that in saying that such view is not satisfactory for majority of people, thus religion was historically favoured and THEREFORE going back to what Shaky was ASKING, I believe the world would still be theistic.

A: Religion and philosophy offer answers to important questions.
B: Religion is not the only thing that answers important questions.
A: You are wrong!

Conversations on the internet are weird.

Originally posted by Digi
That's laughably narrow-sighted.

Yeah I was talking out of my ass. I already took the rant back.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A: Religion and philosophy offer answers to important questions.
B: Religion is not the only thing that answers important questions.
A: You are wrong!

Conversations on the internet are weird.

You're right about internet conversations being weird - especially when random person joins a conversation to comment for the sake of comment, usually adding nothing constructive or useful.

Makes a whole thing even weirder.

Originally posted by Mindship

I distinguish them this way:

Religion is a perspective of reverence which may or may not involve critical analysis.
Philosophy is an analytical perspective which may or may not involve reverence.

That is the worst definition ever. WORST! I want my money back!