Indeed! It seems likely that an evolutionary advantage would be conferred on feelings of attachment and security in young people. Offspring who did not remain close to their adult protectors, and who wandered away often did not survive to reproduce.

Never did we feel more safe and secure than when in the arms of our adult protectors. Which is why it seems to me that we have a need to create a sky daddy as a surrogate for the feelings we had when we were small.

I also think they notice when there is something that doesn't quite add up. Some may not bother or pay attention and others may consider it a part of their culture and not give it much attention

Some are rebellious.

The trick being used is to offer you two correct answers, but put one first and make it sound more appealing. Then when people ignore the second it can be claimed falsely as proof of their prejudices, and failing to understand the second, which will then probably be published elswhere on other sites or on paper, without of course mentioning how the result was acheived.

@Fernapple One has to be on guard against both theists and agnostics who wish to invalidate atheism by painting it as lacking rationality and thoughtful consideration. I only take issue with one thing you said. I think the language used in the first question is so black & white ("born atheistic", "only through indoctrination" ), that I find it hard to judge it correct or incorrect. And the second question is tricky both because one is necessarily inferring agency and anthropomorphism to imply religion, and one could ponder how much of this evolutionary predisposition is culturally "hardwired" rather than individually hardwired.

@Rossy92 Yes that is why I published my alternate poll, which strangely seemed to get the exact oposite results, for basically the same question. Odd that.
[agnostic.com]

How do you figure that?

Either you believe in a god or you don't believe in a god.

@xenoview The absence of belief is not the same as belioef of absence.

@wordywalt Either you believe in a god or you don't. Which do you believe?

@xenoview I am an atheist and go not believe in any diety of any kind. But, I am not a newborn child with no breliefs of any kind.

@wordywalt newborns have no belief in any gods, they have to be taught religion.

@xenoview Absolutely correct. That is my point. AGain, absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

This all just comes back to the fact that we do not have a consensus on the definitions of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism'. It's sad really. And they're really not that far apart. @wordywalt, so I can understand, are you saying that you have to know of, and actively deny the existence of a god in order to be an atheist in regards to it?

@JeffMurray Yes, I am saying that to be classified as an atheist, one knows of belief in the existencein a god or gods, but has decied to reject that belif in its entirety.

@wordywalt So if you don't know about the concept of God, then you can't be an atheist. If you've only ever heard of one God, and you don't believe in it, are you an atheist then? Or do you have to know about every iteration of God and reject them all? That would likely include no one. But a person who rejects thousands of conceptions of God, but doesn't completely reject one, also cannot be an atheist?
So then to be an atheist, you need to actively reject every single conception of god you know about, you don't have to reject ones you don't know about, and you have to know about and reject at least one. I think I got it.
Wouldn't it just be easier to use the definition: 'lacks a belief in a god'?

You did not ask him if he had buggered any little boys?

I asked my grandmother how it could be you only go to heaven if you lived in a
country where youndver heard of him
I was 8 too. Luckily. she said, the story has some holes in it, which I didnt understand but confirmed it wasn't possible. She also said it was great a girl in my class called me peculiar, that that was good news , never be part of the hers. 8 was also a confronting age with questions with my kids, like they started paying attention.

"Again, that's just SHIT I've read," I capitalized the most important part of that comment.

The trick being used is to offer you two correct answers, but put one first and make it sound more appealing. Then when people ignore the second it can be claimed falsely as proof of their prejudices, and failing to understand the second, which will then probably be published elswhere on other sites or on paper, without of course mentioning how the result was acheived.

@Robecology Tells me you missed my point, or at least felt it more important to express your distaste for academia.

@Hominid

“ religious observance is decreasing in most countries”

I would love to see some data that support this popular idea, but haven’t been able to find it.

@skado [pewforum.org]

A very marked difference to two or three generations ago. Even in my lifetime there has been a marked decrease. Most towns here have two or three empty churches which are either falling in to disrepair or a re being used for another purpose. Manses have been sold of and most ministers cover at least two parishes.

@Moravian @xenoview @Fernapple

Thanks for this, Moravian. I had not seen it. It's interesting but it is only about the difference of religious attitudes between age groups. I didn't find in it any support for your claim that "...religious observance is decreasing in most countries...". If I missed it I'd be happy for you to point it out to me. But even if it were true that it is decreasing in most countries, that still wouldn't necessarily mean it is decreasing as a percentage of world population.

To which point, the same organization, Pew Research Center, says "...although religious “nones” tend to be younger than religiously affiliated people in the United States, the opposite is true at the global level: Unaffiliated women are older than the affiliated and thus more likely to be past their prime childbearing years."

And, "...religious “nones” are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population in the coming decades due to a combination of low fertility and an older age profile."

[pewforum.org]

@skado [theguardian.com]
Churchgoing is certainly declining in England

@Moravian
Yes, here in the US too.

@Moravian It is in decline of course where there are high levels of education and reasonable living standards, but there is every sign that those may well go into decline and that could bring about a religious revival.

@Fernapple It is interesting that the traditional church, certainly here in Scotland has an aging congregation which is decreasing as they die off . There are a few "happy, clappy" churches run by Americans which are expanding which is a bit worrying as they are attracting a younger membership

@skado [pewforum.org] In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

@Poseidon
Yes, the U.S. but not the world.

@SeaGreenEyez

Good point. Thanks.

@SeaGreenEyez The first line in the article is, ,"Measuring atheism is complicated". But hey, I'm just the messenger. Why don't you go and discredit some one else's posts.

@SeaGreenEyez Atheists who pray to a higher power ??. In Texas it's probably to electricity generating companies during a cold snap.

@SeaGreenEyez Honestly, I'm offended by anyone trying to label me, just as offended as I am by someone telling me, "bless you"! What makes these jerks think I need blessed? If you think about it, it's damn insulting!

@SeaGreenEyez Why is everyone so quick to label me an atheist? Or anyone for that matter.

@SeaGreenEyez What makes you think I was referring to you?? I was speaking generally.

@SeaGreenEyez This isn't something I "feel". This i what I've experienced. Is this really something you want to argue about, something I've experienced with my own eyes and ears?

@SeaGreenEyez [dummies.com]

@SeaGreenEyez If you, by your own words, "already don't give a fuck" why are you still here?

[agnostic.com]

Everyone is born with a clean slate!

If I understand your question, I don’t think it would change anything. We are evolved how we are evolved, whether there’s a god or not.

I am one who adheres to the definition that one who does not know of 'god' is atheistic by default because they lack a belief in god.

@JeffMurray
Since being on Agnostic, I've felt that agnostics run the risk of becoming 'outcasts' both to the religious and to atheists. Here I have met a few atheists as mean-spirited as religious bigots. Perhaps at one time in history, choosing to be agnostic helped discourage religious people from murdering them. Nowadays, it is a common theme or problem with agnosticism: that people are forced to keep up what has become a charade for fear of dislike by others. Thus, it appears that a choice of agnosticism is more about pleasing others than knowing oneself. I hadn't thought much on the differences between agnostic and atheist, until I met loving, intelligent people who are atheist. 'Atheist by default' as you say.

@AnonySchmoose Yes, I find any definitions that blend or meld atheism and agnosticism to be a perversion and completely, almost intentionally, fuck over the English language. There need not be any further definitions, in my opinion, than those that classify atheism as 'what one believes', and agnosticism as 'what one can know'. These other definitions only serve to create more ambiguity where it doesn't need to exist, and with language, especially English, being as imprecise as it is, why? There doesn't need to be an overlap, so why would you adhere to definitions that create one, and in the process, reduce everyone else's ability to know what the hell you're trying to say??
Anyway, by my (and the logical) definitions of those words, I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in god, but I'm agnostic because I know I can't know if one exists. I have met a few agnostic Christians in my time, which, by my definition, LITERALLY EVERYONE should be an agnostic something because EVERYONE should admit they can't KNOW either way.
The only problem I have with identifying as agnostic only is that to me it's not saying anything. It's like asking someone what they like to eat and having them reply, "food".
Well, yeah, of course. Anything you would eat, by definition, is food, so you're not really saying anything...

Sorry for the rant.

@JeffMurray
It's okay... a rant is not an issue.

Sent you one. Let me know.

@skado Contact! Thanks.

@Wallace @skado
Suddenly, everyone in the room was no longer intrigued by the topic at hand...

No.