History shows that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

[ronburgundy]

If most religion is designed to promote authoritarian aggression and coercion (and it is), then even if a large % of people within many societies were non-believers, the public face of those societies would be dominated by the religious people who are religious largely because they seek to dominate and control others. IOW, the fact at an aggregate sociological level each society appears largely "religious" does not mean the overwhelming majority of individuals within it actually believe in anything the religion claims.

The aggression inherent to most God concepts and the epistemology of faith in general would lead to greater aggression of theists against non-believers than the reverse. Over time, this would mean a reduction in non-believers either because they were killed (and possibly genetic factors that enable non-theism made less prevalent), or because the increase level in ways in which social coercion motivates theism led more people to justify their way to belief. As principles of democracy and personal liberty arose in the Enlightenment (pushed mostly by non-believers), these social values gave protection to people from some of the coercive theist tactics, resulting in the increasing non-belief we see throughout the West.

I still think it is the case that the majority are more disposed toward theism. But their is variance in virtually all cognitive or emotional traits that would underlie that disposition. So, its almost certain the some people are less disposed, and that use of cultural force against those less disposed is not only lesser now in the West than 1000 years ago, but was lesser 5,000 to 10,000 years ago than 1,000 years ago due to changes in the size and nature of societies and how they exerted conformist control.

Let's get some things straight

1, I am an atheist.
2, Atheism in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish very violent control of societies there.

Ah, the old Communism canard. The majority of the people of communists countries never were and are not atheists. Only 15% of current Russians are "atheist" or merely "non-believers". Theism didn't magically come back to dominate over night, it never left. The fact that the Communist State attacked organized religion because it was competition for authoritarian control over people's allegiance doesn't mean that atheism was ever pervasive in those countries. In fact, because theism feeds off of authoritarian tendencies, the culture of authoritarianism that the USSR had sown meant that as soon as the State stopped actively persecuting organized religion, Christianity flourished is what is behind the rise of right-wing authoritarian bigotry in Russia today.

Emotional manipulations, such as threats (whether of Hell or punishment by the State) don't promote atheism even when they are threats against organized religion. A protective "just" God has inherent appeal to those in fear and being persecuted. That is why Communist States trying to suppress rather than utilize all forms of theism are such short-lived failures, while theistically grounded authoritarian societies flourish for centuries. In sum, the communists States you speak of never actually did anything to successfully promote actual atheism.

In addition, of course theism is not the only ideology that inherently promotes authoritariansim. I said that already. It is just better at it than any other, and just because another bad ideology might try to replace it, your still removing a danger by removing it and your probable outcome is better than with it. Just like I explained to you in the other thread, your logic amounts to "We shouldn't do anything to stop kids from eating lead paint just because they might get hurt some other way.

3, Democracy does not necessarily need atheism. It was not atheists who "invented" the USA and convinced men to fight and die for it. I grant you it was allegedly religious, fallible men who screwed it up more than somewhat.

The principles of reason, liberty, and secularism go hand in hand and all reinforced each other from the Enlightenment into the founding of the US by people who largely rejected the notion of a person God. And in fact, Thomas Paine, an atheist, did more than anyone to convince the colonists to fight. His pamphlet, Common Sense, was a purely secular based argument against rule by authority and it was read by a higher % of "Americans" than any book before or since other than the Bible. Historians credit it with unifying both average colonists and politicians behind the idea of Independence, and Jefferson owes most of his Constitutional ideas to Paine.
The core tenent of monotheism is that God unilaterally decidence all laws. That is inherently incompatible with Democracy and basic liberty. Only by rejecting this notion as irrelevant to how society should be organized was any of the moral, political, and intellectual progress of the West possible. It didn't require outright atheism, but it required making theism irrelevant, and atheism is among the ways that it done, and promotion of atheism makes it more likely those principles will be defended in the future and not overtuned as the countries most devout theists are currently seeking to do.

4, Atheism should be as much a private matter as any religion, and not a matter for atheistic missionaries.

Religion never has been or could be a private matter. Religion is assertions about what is objective and morally true, and every one of those assertions is of central relevance to societal customs, practices, and laws. The only theists for whom their theism is a purely private matter are those that don't actually believe and just use the label. To any actual theist, their beliefs are as true as everything you take to be certain objective fact. To say religion should be a private matter is as absurd as saying that the issue of whether nuclear bombs can kill people should be a matter of private belief no impact on society or law.
This notion of religion as private is only ever argued by those without understanding of what the psychology of religious belief entails, and treat it as though it is nothing more to believers than one's preference for chocolate over vanilla. If theism is inherently public, and it is, then critique of theism should be public.

5, Your almost certain above is your guess, and gets no cigar.

Actually, that was an editing error. The "almost certain" was meant to apply to only the first two clauses and not the last about ancient societies which I only meant to say was quite plausible given the first two facts. I actually don't have a position on the central claim of the OP, just that your argument against it is not valid because the seeming religiousness of a "society" does not accurately reflect the % of its actual people who are theists. As to the claims that I think are "almost certain", there is good scientific evidence that disposition toward theism is variable, even including neurological and genetic data. Plus, it would be almost a miracle if it weren't true, since essentially every human psychological trait has massive variability. It is also beyond any historical dispute, supported by all available evidence that cultural coercion in Western societies to be a theist is lesser now than in 1100 AD.

6, Religions are a human construct and their failings are due to human nature. The same applies to some atheists' opinions. This includes my opinions.

Atom bombs are a human construct and their dangers are due to human nature. Vaccines are a also a human construct. Does that make them equal and similarly dangerous?

 

[Bomb#20]

The principles of reason, liberty, and secularism go hand in hand and all reinforced each other from the Enlightenment into the founding of the US by people who largely rejected the notion of a person God. And in fact, Thomas Paine, an atheist, did more than anyone to convince the colonists to fight. His pamphlet, Common Sense, was a purely secular based argument against rule by authority and it was read by a higher % of "Americans" than any book before or since other than the Bible. Historians credit it with unifying both average colonists and politicians behind the idea of Independence, and Jefferson owes most of his Constitutional ideas to Paine.

Thomas Paine wasn't an atheist. Like Jefferson, he believed in "Nature's God." He explained his religious views in a later work, The Age of Reason. It makes interesting reading and I'd recommend it to any Christian. The basic point is that scriptures and prophets and revelation and priesthoods are pure bunk, for reasons Paine lays out with brilliant clarity, but that's no reason not to believe in God, which Paine fervently did.

"The Almighty Lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if He has said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call ours, "I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all to be kind to each other."​

 

[Lion IRC]

Well I think it is quite reasonable (and intelligent) to think that some form of divinity is true - where ever in the world you live.

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheism has always been an available menu option.

The enigma is why, after ~50,000 years, atheism still hasn't made it into the big league.
After all, atheists are so much smarter than everyone else, so why can't they persuade the rest of us that no God/gods exist?

You answered your own question. Does the fact that Stephen Hawkins cannot get the majority of people to understand Quantum Mechanics mean that Hawkins is wrong about physics...

No. Of course it doesn't mean that.
It just means he isn't smart enough to explain what he thinks he himself understands.

But when I hear somone trying (and failing) to communicate their jargon-laden ideas in a simplified way and then blaming their failure on the 'stupidity' of their audience, I tend to get a little cynical/skeptical.

...by the way, do you clearly and fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Transubstantiation? Creation ex nihilo?

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

 

[OLDMAN]

You answered your own question. Does the fact that Stephen Hawkins cannot get the majority of people to understand Quantum Mechanics mean that Hawkins is wrong about physics...

No. Of course it doesn't mean that.
It just means he isn't smart enough to explain what he thinks he himself understands.

But when I hear somone trying (and failing) to communicate their jargon-laden ideas in a simplified way and then blaming their failure on the 'stupidity' of their audience, I tend to get a little cynical/skeptical.

...by the way, do you clearly and fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Transubstantiation? Creation ex nihilo?

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

Well, most religions share one common trait. People don't die. We get to live forever, go to heaven, or the happy hunting grounds, or are reincarnated...but we don't die and disappear forever. It is a scary thing to think about dying. What's life all about if we just die? But none of that changes the fact that all living things die. As an atheist, it can be depressing if you dwell on it. Sometimes it helps to connect with something bigger than you are...either nature, or the struggle of mankind to survive. This, connecting to a larger goal is probably necessary for a lot people to maintain a healthy mental state. Religion fills this goal quite well. Not only are you part of the bigger picture, you don't have to worry about death. Most of our beliefs are comforting. People can and do believe almost anything, especially if it is comforting. The mistake most theist make is thinking they have found something atheist can't find. But it is all in your head, that big brain of yours playing a comforting game.

 

[4321lynx]

No. Of course it doesn't mean that.
It just means he isn't smart enough to explain what he thinks he himself understands.

But when I hear somone trying (and failing) to communicate their jargon-laden ideas in a simplified way and then blaming their failure on the 'stupidity' of their audience, I tend to get a little cynical/skeptical.

...by the way, do you clearly and fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Transubstantiation? Creation ex nihilo?

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

Well, most religions share one common trait. People don't die. We get to live forever, go to heaven, or the happy hunting grounds, or are reincarnated...but we don't die and disappear forever. It is a scary thing to think about dying. What's life all about if we just die? But none of that changes the fact that all living things die. As an atheist, it can be depressing if you dwell on it. Sometimes it helps to connect with something bigger than you are...either nature, or the struggle of mankind to survive. This, connecting to a larger goal is probably necessary for a lot people to maintain a healthy mental state. Religion fills this goal quite well. Not only are you part of the bigger picture, you don't have to worry about death. Most of our beliefs are comforting. People can and do believe almost anything, especially if it is comforting. The mistake most theist make is thinking they have found something atheist can't find. But it is all in your head, that big brain of yours playing a comforting game.

Agreed. All beliefs, faiths, religions, are ultimately based on fear of the unknown.

 

[Atheos]

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

Now this is a great platform for discussion. I'd like to begin by pointing out that just because something was done a certain way in antiquity (and still continues to be done that way in certain circles) does not necessarily make it right. "Effective" is not the same as "right." Doesn't mean it's wrong mind you, just doesn't mean it's necessarily right.

As an example, since antiquity it was generally accepted that human beings could be bought and sold like chattel. The bible clearly sanctions this practice and never once condemns it. It was just a way of life. But as time has gone by it has become more and more apparent to nearly everyone that this practice is truly a violation of human rights. Every modern nation now has laws against it. Yet it is still practiced.

I'm not suggesting that theism falls into the same category as slavery. I'm simply pointing out that it is never a bad thing to review whether some methodology that has been around "since antiquity" is actually valid.

You enumerated three methodologies by which you justify belief in a god:

• Necessary inference. (Logic)
• Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
• General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

It is true that necessary inference is a valid and powerful means of producing theories that can be validated. The theory of gravity rests on necessary inference, as does the electronic theory. These theories are so robust that rocket scientists can use gravitational theory to calculate accurately the amount of fuel needed to propel a spacecraft to Jupiter and then (even more impressively) calculate an exact trajectory whereby said craft can use the momentum of Jupiter and its gravitational well to produce a slingshot effect, hurling the craft at higher velocity towards the edge of our solar system. Electron theory has proven so robust that we are now able to have this conversation via the Internet using computers linked together all over the world.

These theories stand virtually unchallenged in their respective milieus. There are no competing theories with anywhere near the amount of support to call either of these into question.

But the theory that a creator god created the universe has absolutely no more value than the theory that a volcano erupts because the volcano god is angry. Both of these are theories that can only be falsified by learning the actual mechanics behind the phenomenon they have been offered to explain. As it turns out science has managed to dispel the necessary inference of a volcano god through the study of geology. Similarly, cosmology has provided many possible alternatives to the creator-god theory for the origin of our universe. These theories are at least as good (and most of them better by virtue of the fact that brilliant people have taken great pains to consider their merit) as the theory that a creator-god is responsible for all of this. More to the point however, the creator-god theory explains absolutely nothing. It answers one question with another: namely, "Where did this creator-god come from?" This is a reasonable question and every answer that can be offered about it can be applied to the universe (or singularity if one wants to go there).

If the creator-god theory had "legs" (e.g., one could use this theory to do predictive experiments) things would be different. Like rocket-science calculations, if one could, say, move a mountain using nothing but the power of faith or predictably bring down fire from heaven by calling on the name of this creator-god we'd have something upon which to base rational acceptance of that theory. But we've got exactly bupkus. Your creator god behaves in exactly the same way he would behave if he did not exist.

So I challenge your use of necessary inference as a valid methodology for arriving at a creator god.

Next you list "the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts." I feel like this is merely a rephrasing of "Necessary Inference" and will defer to my treatment of it above. This is the argument most commonly known as  God of the Gaps.

Finally you mention "General revelation - or our interpretation of same."

Of all means of acquiring information this means has proven time and time again to be the worst possible methodology. Revelations from some god or another have resulted in more atrocities than could be enumerated in a single lifetime. From volcano gods who revealed to a village shaman that virgins must be sacrificed to appease the god, to Marshall Applewhite's bizarre "Heaven's Gate" cult to the 911 bombings to the inquisitions to a mother drowning her children because god told her to, the track record of "revelation" is absolutely dismal.

Even if one tosses out every other purported revelation -- the Hindu Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc., and only concentrates on the Judaeo-Christian bible we still have horrific atrocities and human rights violations sanctioned by divine revelation. Mothers and young boys of a conquered village were to be slaughtered while the young girls were kept for themselves (wink wink) Even the priests got a cut of the virgin daughters in that transaction. God ostensibly revealed that village after village had to be brutally destroyed in hand-to-hand combat. The revealed word of god sanctions the beating of slaves to the point of death, only setting a boundary that the slave could not die during the beating. If the slave lingered alive for a day or so then expired (even if the death was directly due to the beating) the slave owner was not to be punished, for "he is his money." David was ordered by god to go back and kill all of Saul's sons or god would continue to send famine year after year. This makes sense if David wanted to consolidate his position over the kingdom once ruled by Saul, but it is senseless otherwise. The only crime committed by these sons of Saul were that they were Saul's sons. Yet for that offense they had to be "hanged before the Lord" before the famines would go away.

The bronze-age writings, myths and revelations contained in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures often belie the more barbaric and primitive thought patterns of the people who authored them. The zeitgeist has moved considerably since that time and those of us who now understand the basics of human rights can look back and appreciate the fact that these writings have persisted since ancient times without feeling compelled to live like that.

I have no desire to undermine your belief in a god. If it gives you comfort and if you believe it to be a valid explanation of the world in which we live that's just fine with me. You asked why atheists had so little success convincing believers to swing over to their side. The answer is quite simple: Atheism is not evangelistic. If you come to me actively extolling the virtues of your particular invisible friend in the sky I'll probably do like I did here and point out the reasons why the arguments you present are invalid. If you go to the school system and insist that science teachers actively teach your preferred creator myth alongside evolutionary theory I'll probably show up to insist that such things are suitable for Sunday school but not for public schools paid for as much by atheists and believers in different creation myths as believers in your particular creation myth. But if you stay out of my hair while enjoying your beliefs I'll leave you be. I don't think you're going to spend an eternity in torment simply because you don't agree with me about whether or not a god exists.

In other words, an atheistic worldview is perfectly compatible with people believing all kinds of religious things so long as their religious viewpoints do not infringe upon the right of the atheist to live life as he or she chooses to do so.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

But they have. Not in most of the world, where powerful men made belief in gods compulsory, and persuading your fellow primates would get you put to death. But there's a quarter of the world by population where for thousands of years the ruling ideology has been secular -- focused on man's duties not to supernatural beings but to his fellow man -- and the officials who were empowered to put men to death for speaking unapproved ideas typically cared not a whit whether their subjects believed in gods. Today we can see the result.

 

[Bomb#20]

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

"...
EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
...
BUT some perhaps will say—Are we to have no word of God—no revelation? I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.
...
It is always necessary that the means that are to accomplish any end be equal to the accomplishment of that end, or the end cannot be accomplished. It is in this that the difference between finite and infinite power and wisdom discovers itself. Man frequently fails in accomplishing his end, from a natural inability of the power to the purpose; and frequently from the want of wisdom to apply power properly. But it is impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as man faileth. The means it useth are always equal to the end: but human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information; and therefore it is not the means that God useth in manifesting himself universally to man.

It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called the Creation.
..."

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

 

[Underseer]

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

You really need to do a better job of learning philosophy then. Theists never had a good argument to offer. Ancient Roman intellectuals had no problem eviscerating apologetics arguments, and it never got better for Christians. That is why for most of history, the church killed or jailed people for disagreeing with the church even a little bit; it's because they knew darned well what would happen if these matters were up for a free and open debate.

• Logic does not lead to necessary inference of theism.
• Theism is not the best explanation for the available facts. The most charitable thing you can say about theism as an explanation for the available evidence is that it violates Occam's razor.
• Revelation is not in any sense valid evidence of anything. If it was, you would believe that all religions are true. The fact that you probably don't believe all religions are true demonstrates that even you do not regard revelation as a form of valid evidence. Revelation only becomes valid evidence when supporting a conclusion that you happen to like (which brings us back to the logic thing again).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

By the way, some philosophers do not agree with the claim that theism is true.
In fact, this survey finds that the vast majority of philosophers the question was asked to, are atheists or agnostics or otherwise not theists.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

But they have. Not in most of the world, where powerful men made belief in gods compulsory, and persuading your fellow primates would get you put to death. But there's a quarter of the world by population where for thousands of years the ruling ideology has been secular -- focused on man's duties not to supernatural beings but to his fellow man -- and the officials who were empowered to put men to death for speaking unapproved ideas typically cared not a whit whether their subjects believed in gods. Today we can see the result.

China is not as non-religious or atheistic as this map indicates. The methods of such surveys mean that people with folk religions, and variants of Confucianism and Taoism that are religions and arguably pantheist, get categorized as "non-religious". This is exacerbated by the continued active attacks on formal religion by the Communist state, which motivates people to claim "non-religious", when it does not objectively apply.

 

[Atheos]

China is not as non-religious or atheistic as this map indicates. The methods of such surveys mean that people with folk religions, and variants of Confucianism and Taoism that are religions and arguably pantheist, get categorized as "non-religious". This is exacerbated by the continued active attacks on formal religion by the Communist state, which motivates people to claim "non-religious", when it does not objectively apply.

Agreed. I might also point out that arguing this point with statistics is pointless. The argument itself is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to popularity. That which is true would still be true if every individual on the planet were absolutely sure it was false.

 

[bilby]

China is not as non-religious or atheistic as this map indicates. The methods of such surveys mean that people with folk religions, and variants of Confucianism and Taoism that are religions and arguably pantheist, get categorized as "non-religious". This is exacerbated by the continued active attacks on formal religion by the Communist state, which motivates people to claim "non-religious", when it does not objectively apply.

Agreed. I might also point out that arguing this point with statistics is pointless. The argument itself is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to popularity. That which is true would still be true if every individual on the planet were absolutely sure it was false.

That would be the case of the statistics were presented as support for the claim 'It is true that there are no Gods'; but in this case the statistics were presented in support of the rebuttal 'It is untrue that Atheist ideas have made little progress in gaining acceptance'.

In this context, popularity is the point in question, and the statistics presented are a valid and reasonable form of rebuttal to the assumption that atheists have not been able to persuade many theists to their position.

 

[Atheos]

My point is something similar to the "never wrestle with a pig" axiom. It is completely irrelevant which worldview is more popular or gaining popularity. Arguing about that is pointless as it has no bearing on which worldview is more in keeping with reality. Sure it can be fun to argue these points, just as if you enjoy getting muddy it can be fun to wrestle with a pig.

Unlike many forms of theism, atheism has no basic evangelical mandate. There really is no reason atheists should go on a campaign to deconvert people of religion. There is occasionally good reason to step up and stop religion from infringing on others' personal rights, but that's a whole different ballgame.

The original challenge was posed as follows:

I'm just pointing out the curious situation wherein both atheism and theism have been live menu options for roughly the same length of time in the history of human thought and yet atheists have never had much luck persuading their fellow primates, sitting around the campfire, that the God conclusion should be renamed the God delusion.

It's a situation which is not curious for the reason I gave above. There are many reasons to propagate theism, not the least of which are power (control over others) and money (tithes, sacrifices, etc). Few folks can make a living out of just being an atheist. Arguing with this silly position does little else to my way of thinking than validate that maybe he has a point. He doesn't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

That just moves everything back a step.

What makes divinity a plausible explanation?

And 'general revelation' assumes that there's something revealing things. So that just makes your theistic conclusion circular.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

That just moves everything back a step.

What makes divinity a plausible explanation?

And 'general revelation' assumes that there's something revealing things. So that just makes your theistic conclusion circular.

Divinity isn't a plausible explanation. It isn't an explanation at all. It's merely a popularly held fantasy, a widely available and widely prescribed placebo, and quite effective much of the time. Even people who suspect it is a placebo might continue to use it until they are otherwise certain, and its use is no longer necessary.

And lets not lump all theism together. We should be saying "theisms," not theism. "Gods," not God. Religious people like to claim how there are many believers while they denounce their fellow "believers" in virtually the same breath.

Theisms are easy, full of and dependent upon human ignorance for their survival, and that's why they're still around. For the not-so-ignorant, their theisms change as science advances.

 

[Underseer]

The same way philosophers have always done since antiquity.

Necessary inference. (Logic)
Reference to the best (most plausible) explanation of known facts.
General revelation - or our interpretation of same.

By the way, some philosophers do not agree with the claim that theism is true.
In fact, this survey finds that the vast majority of philosophers the question was asked to, are atheists or agnostics or otherwise not theists.

"Some" philosophers?

By one poll I saw, only 14% of philosophers are theists.

It's not "some" philosophers that disagree with his claims. There is only a tiny portion of philosophers that remotely agree with his position, and we have no idea what portion of that 14% is practicing any sort of religion that remotely resembles what he believes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

By the way, some philosophers do not agree with the claim that theism is true.
In fact, this survey finds that the vast majority of philosophers the question was asked to, are atheists or agnostics or otherwise not theists.

"Some" philosophers?

By one poll I saw, only 14% of philosophers are theists.

It's not "some" philosophers that disagree with his claims. There is only a tiny portion of philosophers that remotely agree with his position, and we have no idea what portion of that 14% is practicing any sort of religion that remotely resembles what he believes.

If 85-86% of philosophers don't agree with the claim that theism is true, then it is the case that some philosophers don't agree with the claim that theism is true. While it may be true that in most contexts the expression "some philosophers" might be used to suggest a lower percentage (and, in fact, less than 50%), this is not the case in the context in which I'm using it, as it should be obvious from the sentence that follows the sentence in which I said "some philosophers" (i.e., the sentence that begins with "In fact").

As for the poll you saw, are you sure that's not the poll I just linked to in the post you're replying to? (since that's the poll quoted almost everywhere when the issue comes up).
If it's not, I'd appreciate a link, so I can have two polls with similar results to back up my point.

 

[Underseer]

"Some" philosophers?

By one poll I saw, only 14% of philosophers are theists.

It's not "some" philosophers that disagree with his claims. There is only a tiny portion of philosophers that remotely agree with his position, and we have no idea what portion of that 14% is practicing any sort of religion that remotely resembles what he believes.

If 85-86% of philosophers don't agree with the claim that theism is true, then it is the case that some philosophers don't agree with the claim that theism is true. While it may be true that in most contexts the expression "some philosophers" might be used to suggest a lower percentage (and, in fact, less than 50%), this is not the case in the context in which I'm using it, as it should be obvious from the sentence that follows the sentence in which I said "some philosophers" (i.e., the sentence that begins with "In fact").

As for the poll you saw, are you sure that's not the poll I just linked to in the post you're replying to? (since that's the poll quoted almost everywhere when the issue comes up).
If it's not, I'd appreciate a link, so I can have two polls with similar results to back up my point.

I'm pretty sure it was the same poll. I did not double check before posting, but my fuzzy memory says 14.something percent of philosophers are theists.