Which is more likely, theism or atheism?

I don't consider theism at all likely. But I have argued the question so many times in earlier threads, I don't want to get into it again.

BOYCOTT!!!!

More sentient beings are theists therefore atheism is less likely, who would have thought?

You're too clever. Wish I could be Miss L Toad. Merry Christmas.

I disagree with your reasoning.

At one point in time more people thought the Earth was flat than spherical. Clearly that meant nothing.

Likely to be correct or likely to be believed?

Did not mention "believe", "belief", "believed", or "believing" in the title of the question.

Belief or ideology is inherent in the 'ism' part of the question. I wasn't sure what the question meant when I first read it.

My dear JimmyJamI to believe that you perceive reasoning?

You asked about the xmas turkey. Given more people state that they believe in supernatural being(s) then the answer to your question is as it is.

If you would care to rephrase feel yourself free.

Kismet.

Your question is ambiguous. Do you mean which is more likely "true," or do you mean which is more likely to be adopted? By the way, what a goofy newbie. This topic has been beaten to death here, and years before you showed up.

I think that if you accept that there is likely intelligent life elsewhere in the universe then I'm convinced that life will have theism and atheism. The differences will be in the theisms, the atheism will be exactly the same as here.

I agree with Hinge, here. Theism is likely to be the default position, just because any intelligent life form will start from ignorance, but still wish to explain the existence of the cosmos. I disagree with him about atheism, though. There would likely be two forms of atheism. The first would be people who never thought up the idea of a god, and the second would be the "aw, bullshit" response to someone else's allegation of the existence of a god or gods.

hmm debatable...atheisms as most people use them may only refer to the particular concept one is denying as real...in that sense atheism may differ as the denied objects differ.
Of course proper atheism is equal everywhere. But the central point of true atheism is the lack of need to refer to itself...atheism in its purest form denies any sort of reference to itself as against something else. What it does is it directly ignores there is something substantial to which atheism could indirectly be related to. The true atheist never knowns he is an atheist, as it doesn't particularly denies any form. It simply ignores the object to which others may refer as existent, and it should ignore other refer to it. As soon social context portrays a specific form of concept, the atheist is forced to specify its form of atheism, a form which is an anti form, the form of the void of the object it misses to acknowledge.

No, I pretty much disagree with your idea that a true atheist doesn't know that s/he is an atheist. I think more central to my idea is that theisms concocted in isolation will differ, and the differences will seem much larger to theists than atheists.

Hmm. Interesting set. I wonder if we've ever found a race on earth that didn't have some form of theism, so are there any documented cases of type two atheism? Maybe wolf boys? Individuals in isolation I can imagine not imagining 'gods' but societies seem to inculcate it. I guess where you see nested power structures it's not much of a leap to imagine 'higher, invisible' power structures.

The Dogon people of West Africa had a complex and vividly described religious tradition which had no gods, and cold be described as animist. Animistic religions often do not involve gods--one of the most common animist traditions is to ascribe to the sun the attribute of life-giving, which has lead European anthropologists to describe the sun as their god. That, however, is very likely a projection of the theism of the anthropologists' native culture to the animism of the people they are studying.

The Dogon are also interesting because they appear to have had very advanced astronomical knowledge, and the Frenchman who studied them from 1931 onward, for about 15 years, claimed they had told him that the twin "deities" (once gain, probably a cultural artifact of the Frenchman, and not necessarily the attitude of the Dogon themselves) had come from the star Sirius. It is significant, though, that the Frenchman who studies them for about 15 years from 1941 to 1956 does not mention these twins as deities, and his Dogon informant had told him about their religious beliefs in detail throughout that time period, and had told him that his father and grandfather had instructed him in Dogon traditional belief for 20 years or more. The problem one always has when anthropologists describe such cultures, and even more so when explorers or representatives of colonial authorities describe the culture is the problem of projection. Do the animists believe in gods, or is that just how the Europeans interpret the beliefs which are described to them?

Are you sure? All people are sentient beings but not all sentient beings are people e.g. an ant is a sentient being. Therefore it seems that more sentient beings are not theists.

Now, tell about the sentience of the ants..