Atheism by country

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, but I'm new to this stuff and just recently figured it out. And I don't always read every post in a thread, especially one that was as confusing as this one.

Sorry I missed it. Never met Zeno but google introduced us.

 

[warpus]

Gallup asked: Is religion an important part of your life? These are the percentages answering yes.

That's a slightly different question than the "atheism by country" one though, as you can be an atheist and have religion play an important part of your life, be it due to Christmas and/or Easter celebrations, or whatever. That, or you could be a closet atheist. or whatever. I think the 2 questions are fundamentally different.

 

[Borachio]

Oh. That's from a month ago. And, in fact, I got the question exactly wrong.

It should be "these are the percentages answering no."

Nevertheless, I've always been a little uncomfortable with atheists "celebrating" Christmas. I mean, do they really do so at all? Or are they just joining in with a generalized mid-winter festival? I suspect the latter.

How many atheists pray at moments of stress? I expect that sorts out the "true" atheists from the nominal ones.

 

[Old Hippy]

How many atheists pray at moments of stress? I expect that sorts out the "true" atheists from the nominal ones.

hoping and wanting there to be a god, at times of great stress and despair, is totally different from believing, that there is a God that looks down from above during all the mundane times

why must atheists be held to such high standards... strangely, one of never doubting beliefs

 

[Borachio]

why must atheists be held to such high standards... strangely, one of never doubting beliefs

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

Do you mean that atheists are allowed to doubt their own lack of belief as it suits them? The answer must surely be yes.

However, the overwhelming impression I get from atheists is "How can anyone be so daft as to believe in God!" (I get the same pitying looks from Jehovah's Witnesses as well.)

So, unless atheists are of the sort that allow others to believe in God as it suits them too, aren't the atheists somehow denying themselves the right to doubt their own lack of belief? And if they don't, then what's the worth of their atheism?

 

[warpus]

Nevertheless, I've always been a little uncomfortable with atheists "celebrating" Christmas. I mean, do they really do so at all? Or are they just joining in with a generalized mid-winter festival? I suspect the latter.

Me celebrating Christmas really makes you uncomfortable?

Christmas is a time when the whole family gets together to eat dishes that we never eat during the rest of the year. We share food, alcohol, stories, laughs, gifts, and all in all several days together.. as a family, with occasional friends dropping in from time to time.

To some it's a religious celebration. To others it's a cultural one. To others still, it's a bit of both.

Religious festivals and culture go hand in hand where I was born and to a much lesser extent here in Canada too. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean that I'm no longer a part of the culture. What do you expect me to do, act like a hipster and not celebrate Christmas with everybody else? Ignore my family at a time when the family gets together and celebrates being a family? Just because I don't believe that Christ was the son of God and am not Christian? Do I not celebrate Halloween because I'm not a Satanist?

No man, at this point, all these quasi-religious celebrations are cultural. To some people they are wholly religious, but that is just a subset now of all the people who celebrate Christmas. It's a pan-cultural celebration, meaning various things to various people. Some Christians might not like that, and might think that those of us who aren't Christians have co-opted the holiday and celebrate it for the wrong reasons.. Well.. It's kind of hard living in this society without celebrating the holiday, Christian or not! Everything shuts down, like I said. You go with it. It's become a "whatever you want it to be" holiday, and it brings families together. It's a good holiday. If it makes you uncomfortable that I use it as an excuse to spend time with my family and share some good times in a cultural exercise that I see as wholly non-religious, then I think the problem is with you, not me.

Not to sound too antagonistic, but I hate the whole "We own Christmas" thing. Nobody owns it. It belongs to us all now. Some of us will celebrate it by blessing Christ and some of us will celebrate it by making naked snowangels in the snow. To each their own.

So, unless atheists are of the sort that allow others to believe in God as it suits them too, aren't the atheists somehow denying themselves the right to doubt their own lack of belief? And if they don't, then what's the worth of their atheism?

What's the worth of your dislike of cheese? (assume for a second that you don't like cheese)

What if you are walking past a cheese shop, and one particular cheese smells awfully good? And you stop there and think to yourself: "Well, I generally hate all cheese, this is weird. Should I try this?". Does this somehow diminish your general dislike of cheese? Does something like that even need to be diminished?

Nah, most atheists just don't give a crap. We live out our lives, as humans, and every once in a while that means saying things like: "Oh God, I hope I don't die". We don't belong to an organization that values a lack of a belief in God. If we did, that might be a good point! But we don't.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I celebrate Saturnalia instead of Christmas/New Year. I celebrate Lupercalia instead of Valentines, also I claim that womans day is on the 13th of May, not the 8th of March....because the first is the date that our most noble Queen Jelena Gruba (the only female ruler of any south Slavic kingdom) issued her first charter.

 

[Borachio]

Me celebrating Christmas really makes you uncomfortable?

Christmas is a time when the whole family gets together to eat dishes that we never eat during the rest of the year. We share food, alcohol, stories, laughs, gifts, and all in all several days together.. as a family, with occasional friends dropping in from time to time.

To some it's a religious celebration. To others it's a cultural one. To others still, it's a bit of both.

Religious festivals and culture go hand in hand where I was born and to a much lesser extent here in Canada too. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean that I'm no longer a part of the culture. What do you expect me to do, act like a hipster and not celebrate Christmas with everybody else? Ignore my family at a time when the family gets together and celebrates being a family? Just because I don't believe that Christ was the son of God and am not Christian? Do I not celebrate Halloween because I'm not a Satanist?

No man, at this point, all these quasi-religious celebrations are cultural. To some people they are wholly religious, but that is just a subset now of all the people who celebrate Christmas. It's a pan-cultural celebration, meaning various things to various people. Some Christians might not like that, and might think that those of us who aren't Christians have co-opted the holiday and celebrate it for the wrong reasons.. Well.. It's kind of hard living in this society without celebrating the holiday, Christian or not! Everything shuts down, like I said. You go with it. It's become a "whatever you want it to be" holiday, and it brings families together. It's a good holiday. If it makes you uncomfortable that I use it as an excuse to spend time with my family and share some good times in a cultural exercise that I see as wholly non-religious, then I think the problem is with you, not me.

Not to sound too antagonistic, but I hate the whole "We own Christmas" thing. Nobody owns it. It belongs to us all now. Some of us will celebrate it by blessing Christ and some of us will celebrate it by making naked snowangels in the snow. To each their own.



What's the worth of your dislike of cheese? (assume for a second that you don't like cheese)

What if you are walking past a cheese shop, and one particular cheese smells awfully good? And you stop there and think to yourself: "Well, I generally hate all cheese, this is weird. Should I try this?". Does this somehow diminish your general dislike of cheese? Does something like that even need to be diminished?

Nah, most atheists just don't give a crap. We live out our lives, as humans, and every once in a while that means saying things like: "Oh God, I hope I don't die". We don't belong to an organization that values a lack of a belief in God. If we did, that might be a good point! But we don't.

Well, of course You celebrating Christmas doesn't offend me at all. By no means. And don't think that for a moment I classify myself along with Christians. No. I'm fine with anybody celebrating anything for whatever reason they like. (Kristalnacht and the like excepted, I should perhaps point out.)

And sure most atheists don't give a crap. But the sincere ones, like Dawkins, who apparently believe we'd all be better off not believing in "religion" at all,( since it's all just superstition isn't it?); surely they have to deny themselves the right to sing Christmas carols and hang up pictures of the baby Jesus on their front doors.

Surely, if you're going to sincerely say it's all just superstitious clap-trap, then don't you owe it to yourself, to have the courage of your convictions, and not say things like "Oh god (!) I don't want to die."?

You can't, simultaneously, like and dislike cheese.

If you now want to say, "I'm an atheist at the moment, but if something bad happens to me, I'd really like the option of adopting a belief"...I'm really not sure I'm going to set much store by your statement that you're an atheist. It looks to be like you haven't really considered all the sorts of the most likely things that are going to happen to you in the course of your life. The most glaring example is that, at some stage, your life is going to be coming to an end.

But, anyway, I don't really have any strong views on what anyone should or shouldn't do. It's entirely up to them. These are just my personal rambling thoughts on the subject.

 

[Akka]

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

Do you mean that atheists are allowed to doubt their own lack of belief as it suits them? The answer must surely be yes.

However, the overwhelming impression I get from atheists is "How can anyone be so daft as to believe in God!" (I get the same pitying looks from Jehovah's Witnesses as well.)

So, unless atheists are of the sort that allow others to believe in God as it suits them too, aren't the atheists somehow denying themselves the right to doubt their own lack of belief? And if they don't, then what's the worth of their atheism?

Being atheist doesn't mean being part of a militant order with a set of rules to obey - in fact, that's a very common misconception from many religious people, who have a hard time not considering atheism simply as another religion.

Theism stems from the natural impulse to hope there is a meaning to life and the need of security and feeling "someone is watching us". Even knowing it's false, you still feel it (that's the reason it's natural), just like you can still be afraid of the dark even if you know there is nothing there.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How many atheists pray at moments of stress? I expect that sorts out the "true" atheists from the nominal ones.

Actually, there is very little difference between prayer and wearing your lucky socks because you hope your favourite team wins. Both are actions where you try to have an influence on the world around you by an irrelevant action. An atheist might not pray to a defined God, but he might 'pray' or rather implore the forces which determine his fortune to be favourable. This sense that we can influence events while we don't have the actual influence is very strong in humans.

Theism stems from the natural impulse to hope there is a meaning to life and the need of security and feeling "someone is watching us". Even knowing it's false, you still feel it (that's the reason it's natural), just like you can still be afraid of the dark even if you know there is nothing there.

Indeed. It even grants an evolutionary advantage.

When someone acts morally it often benefits the society (or in earlier times, the tribe) which he or she is a part of. If people only act morally when they are observed by other people, and not when they are alone, they lose that advantage. This is the reason we're hard-wired to give supernatural explanations.

 

[warpus]

And sure most atheists don't give a crap. But the sincere ones, like Dawkins, who apparently believe we'd all be better off not believing in "religion" at all,( since it's all just superstition isn't it?); surely they have to deny themselves the right to sing Christmas carols and hang up pictures of the baby Jesus on their front doors.

I doubt he sings Christmas carols or hangs up pictures of the baby Jesus But he probably celebrates Christmas to some extent. It's a cultural institution as well a religious one - he probably partakes in the cultural part. Or whichever he wants. I mean, just because he doesn't believe that God exists doesn't mean that he can't at the same time acknowledge the big part that religion has played in the development of traditions in society, and to partake in some of them.

Surely, if you're going to sincerely say it's all just superstitious clap-trap, then don't you owe it to yourself, to have the courage of your convictions, and not say things like "Oh god (!) I don't want to die."?

The thing is when most people say "Oh God", they are just using the phrase as a phrase, without applying the literal meaning of the "God" part. So.. there isn't really any contradiction in atheists saying "God damn it!". Language evolves and it is what it is.

You can't, simultaneously, like and dislike cheese.

If you now want to say, "I'm an atheist at the moment, but if something bad happens to me, I'd really like the option of adopting a belief"...I'm really not sure I'm going to set much store by your statement that you're an atheist. It looks to be like you haven't really considered all the sorts of the most likely things that are going to happen to you in the course of your life. The most glaring example is that, at some stage, your life is going to be coming to an end.

But, anyway, I don't really have any strong views on what anyone should or shouldn't do. It's entirely up to them. These are just my personal rambling thoughts on the subject.

Isn't this whole forum just a bunch of personal ramblings, anyway?

My point about cheese was meant to highlight that atheists do not belong to an organized institution that puts emphasis on the fact that we do not believe. When you're a Christian or a Muslium - you do. You belong to an organization that stresses very much that you have certain beliefs, that they are important, and that there are beliefs that shouldn't be considered, such as a lack of belief in God.

For that reason your example would work much better with a wishy washy Christian, who believes in God one minute, and doesn't in the next... which probably doesn't happen too often, but let's say this is a hypothetical scenario. He belongs to an organization that discourages that sort of thing - atheists don't. We don't belong to an organization at all, so we can sort of do whatever we want, without feeling like hypocrites or flip floppers.

Having said all that, the "I'm an atheist at the moment, but if something bad happens I'm jumping ship" scenario you paint reeks of someone without strong convictions.. a flip flopper of the worst kind! Not someone to respect very highly.

But yeah, it's not like we have atheist cards and a club that tells us to uphold this virtue or that. There is no common thread uniting us, except the fact that we happen to lack a particular belief, in a particular thing. Just like people who don't like cheese. If one of them one day happens to try a cheese because it smells good - and they like it.. No big deal, right? They don't belong to a club that tells them "NEVER TRY CHEESE - IT'S IMMORAL". Same with atheists.. No big deal. Big deal for a Christian who questions his faith - because they belong to a club that holds certain things in a certain light, with standards, and so on. You can't apply the same standards to an atheist, because we don't have a club.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The thing is when most people say "Oh God", they are just using the phrase as a phrase, without applying the literal meaning of the "God" part.

Just like when people shout "<f-word> it!" it's usually not a demand or suggestion.

 

[Borachio]

The thing is when most people say "Oh God", they are just using the phrase as a phrase, without applying the literal meaning of the "God" part. So.. there isn't really any contradiction in atheists saying "God damn it!". Language evolves and it is what it is.

I appreciate that. But, not myself subscribing to any particular religion - nor indeed to atheism - I'm rather careful to not let the odd "God damn it" slip out. Call me quirky that way.

Isn't this whole forum just a bunch of personal ramblings, anyway?

It is indeed. But it doesn't do any harm to point out that that is exactly what I'm doing, from time to time. Inb4 someone tells me I'm "laying down the law" about some issue. Which I'm at pains not to be doing.

But yeah, it's not like we have atheist cards and a club that tells us to uphold this virtue or that. There is no common thread uniting us, except the fact that we happen to lack a particular belief, in a particular thing. Just like people who don't like cheese. If one of them one day happens to try a cheese because it smells good - and they like it.. No big deal, right? They don't belong to a club that tells them "NEVER TRY CHEESE - IT'S IMMORAL". Same with atheists.. No big deal. Big deal for a Christian who questions his faith - because they belong to a club that holds certain things in a certain light, with standards, and so on. You can't apply the same standards to an atheist, because we don't have a club.

Oh. The serious Christians that I've encountered - very few in number - have been very concerned with doubt all the time.

And, if you think that Christianity (or Islam) is this vast monolithic system of belief, I'm afraid there's a bit of news for you out in RL. Isn't there something like 40,000 recognized Christian denominations? Each member of which no doubt holds some ever-changing version/interpretation/muddled thinking about it.

And if your core "belief" (well, let's not call it belief, say "thesis") is that all religions are superstitious nonsense, this is tantamount to saying "NEVER TRY RELIGION - IT'S IRRATIONAL."

So, while you say you don't have a club, I rather think you do. It's just not a "funny hats wearing" club, but a "let's not wear funny hats" club. That is, any one caught wearing a funny hat is no longer a member of this club.

Admit it now. You do feel more comfortable amongst other members of this "let's not wear funny hats" club, don't you? After all, you share a common distaste for all things superstitious.

 

[Traitorfish]

When someone acts morally it often benefits the society (or in earlier times, the tribe) which he or she is a part of. If people only act morally when they are observed by other people, and not when they are alone, they lose that advantage. This is the reason we're hard-wired to give supernatural explanations.

Are we hard-wired to give supernatural explanations? It's a jump, I'd say an untenable one, from "all known human societies are identified as doing X" to "X proceeds directly from universal human biology". All we can say is that humans have done X in Y variety of circumstances, not that humans will do X in all circumstances.

 

[warpus]

I appreciate that. But, not myself subscribing to any particular religion - nor indeed to atheism - I'm rather careful to not let the odd "God damn it" slip out. Call me quirky that way.

As someone who has gone through learning a new language in a new and unfamiliar place three times (when I was a baby and I learned Polish counts, right? ), I just go with whatever the accepted popular vernacular is... for the most part. If I came to Canada and people were cursing Thor when their hockey team lost, I would likely eventually do it too, and not think too much of it. I guess I see things like "God dammit!" and "By the fury of Thor!" from that pov. They seem silly unless you are used to them, and when you are used to them they don't really have to make sense either. It's like any other social custom.

It is indeed. But it doesn't do any harm to point out that that is exactly what I'm doing, from time to time. Inb4 someone tells me I'm "laying down the law" about some issue. Which I'm at pains not to be doing.

I think maybe you worry too much, because your posts are usually very chill, or at least they seem like it to me. The most I've ever assumed about you must have been that you're chillin back in a large and comfy office chair, sipping on some whiskey, maybe smoking a pipe, casually responding to things.

And, if you think that Christianity (or Islam) is this vast monolithic system of belief, I'm afraid there's a bit of news for you out in RL. Isn't there something like 40,000 recognized Christian denominations? Each member of which no doubt holds some ever-changing version/interpretation/muddled thinking about it.

Well, no, I do not think that. Christians are all united in following Christ (for the most part).. This implies certain things and certain expectations. And each one of those churches adds even more expectations and implications on top of that, depending on which one you belong to, as a Christian.

That is actually a very good way to contrast what I meant earlier when I said that we don't have a club - and thus no common expectations placed upon us.

And if your core "belief" (well, let's not call it belief, say "thesis") is that all religions are superstitious nonsense, this is tantamount to saying "NEVER TRY RELIGION - IT'S IRRATIONAL."

But now you are re-defining the word "atheist" and what it means to be one. There are indeed atheists who think that all religions are superstitious nonsense, but that is not the core thing that makes atheists.

What makes us atheists is simply the fact that we do not believe that God exists. That is the core thing: We are defined by the lack of something. That's really why it doesn't make sense for us to have a club - except for those of us who have more specific beliefs like the one you outlined above, for example.

But most of us don't even care about the whole debate enough to actually join a club - a place where you meet up and discuss this crap with other atheists. Every group of people has a vocal subset, and those more vocal people usually tend to have stronger and usually more extreme opinions than the majority and the mainstream of whichever particular group you're talking about.

So the picture you're trying to paint would only work if you're talking about those atheists with those actual specific beliefs, and ones that are strong enough for them to warrant to sit down around a table and to talk about it in a raised voice.

So, while you say you don't have a club, I rather think you do. It's just not a "funny hats wearing" club, but a "let's not wear funny hats" club. That is, any one caught wearing a funny hat is no longer a member of this club.

A more apt analogy would be, if all the people who wear silly hats and decide to meet about it, do meet about it, and then decide that anybody who is not at the meeting has a club of their own. Meanwhile Bob could be sitting at home, not even knowing that silly hats exist, being bundled into this definition.

You could say: but religion is different, everybody knows about it! But imagine a world in which silly hats and whether you choose to wear or not wear them is a big deal. Sure, you could have a bunch of non-silly-hat wearing people form their own club and start making pronouncements about how stupid it is to wear a silly hat.

But by grouping Bob with those extremists and their positions on the question of silly hats, when the only association he had with them was.. none.. Is a disservice to Bob, the guy who couldn't care less, but deserves our respect.

Admit it now. You do feel more comfortable amongst other members of this "let's not wear funny hats" club, don't you? After all, you share a common distaste for all things superstitious.

I consider myself to be an armchair intellectual, so of course I don't believe in superstitions of any sort, except ones that influence me using scientific principles like maybe the placebo effect. The only reason I might feel more comfortable among other people who are thinkers and resort to reason, is because we speak the same language. It doesn't mean that we're going to sit down and start a club though, because most people who brand themselves as intellectuals are knowitalls and any club planning is bound to result in chaos and eventual violence.

 

[Borachio]

But now you are re-defining the word "atheist" and what it means to be one. There are indeed atheists who think that all religions are superstitious nonsense, but that is not the core thing that makes atheists.

What makes us atheists is simply the fact that we do not believe that God exists. That is the core thing: We are defined by the lack of something. That's really why it doesn't make sense for us to have a club - except for those of us who have more specific beliefs like the one you outlined above, for example.

Well, this is certainly true, in some sense.

But most of us don't even care about the whole debate enough to actually join a club - a place where you meet up and discuss this crap with other atheists. Every group of people has a vocal subset, and those more vocal people usually tend to have stronger and usually more extreme opinions than the majority and the mainstream of whichever particular group you're talking about.

So the picture you're trying to paint would only work if you're talking about those atheists with those actual specific beliefs, and ones that are strong enough for them to warrant to sit down around a table and to talk about it in a raised voice.



A more apt analogy would be, if all the people who wear silly hats and decide to meet about it, do meet about it, and then decide that anybody who is not at the meeting has a club of their own. Meanwhile Bob could be sitting at home, not even knowing that silly hats exist, being bundled into this definition.

You could say: but religion is different, everybody knows about it! But imagine a world in which silly hats and whether you choose to wear or not wear them is a big deal. Sure, you could have a bunch of non-silly-hat wearing people form their own club and start making pronouncements about how stupid it is to wear a silly hat.

But by grouping Bob with those extremists and their positions on the question of silly hats, when the only association he had with them was.. none.. Is a disservice to Bob, the guy who couldn't care less, but deserves our respect.



I consider myself to be an armchair intellectual, so of course I don't believe in superstitions of any sort, except ones that influence me using scientific principles like maybe the placebo effect. The only reason I might feel more comfortable among other people who are thinkers and resort to reason, is because we speak the same language. It doesn't mean that we're going to sit down and start a club though, because most people who brand themselves as intellectuals are knowitalls and any club planning is bound to result in chaos and eventual violence.

But then, as you say, everyone does know about religion. An atheist, even though he would be one, wouldn't know he was an atheist unless other people were theists.

And then, the "club planning resulting in chaos and eventual violence" is what does happen precisely with religions. Yet there's no reason to suppose it would happen any less if everyone was an atheist. I think the majority of soccer hooligans are essentially atheists.

Even today, I hear about the Buddhists in Burma attacking the Muslim minority. And I thought Buddhism was a peaceful tolerant affair. I was quite disappointed.

http://observers.france24.com/content/20130321-violence-buddhists-muslims-burma-meikhtila

 

[timtofly]

Well, this is certainly true, in some sense.

But then, as you say, everyone does know about religion. An atheist, even though he would be one, wouldn't know he was an atheist unless other people were theists.

And then, the "club planning resulting in chaos and eventual violence" is what does happen precisely with religions. Yet there's no reason to suppose it would happen any less if everyone was an atheist. I think the majority of soccer hooligans are essentially atheists.

Even today, I hear about the Buddhists in Burma attacking the Muslim minority. And I thought Buddhism was a peaceful tolerant affair. I was quite disappointed.

http://observers.france24.com/content/20130321-violence-buddhists-muslims-burma-meikhtila

I don't think that religion promises peace and tolerance. I think that is an individual choice irregardless of religion. Telling someone how to live may be an ideal or law even, but it can never guarantee results.

 

[Akka]

It even grants an evolutionary advantage.

When someone acts morally it often benefits the society (or in earlier times, the tribe) which he or she is a part of. If people only act morally when they are observed by other people, and not when they are alone, they lose that advantage. This is the reason we're hard-wired to give supernatural explanations.

I'm not sure about this reasoning. I think ethics evolved from social bonds in a group, but I doubt it has lots with inventing gods.

I see it rather as emergent behaviour stemming from the combination of psychological mechanism with increased brainpower (and as such imagination) : we feel more comfortable/confident when being looked upon by someone (children with parents, people with group, etc.), which is an evolutionary advantage to stay alive (sticking with your buddies/family, being stronger in group). For many social animals, it somehow stops here.

But when you start having such complex and powerful minds as humans ? It becomes possible to re-imagine the world and ends up with concepts like spirits and gods.

If you now want to say, "I'm an atheist at the moment, but if something bad happens to me, I'd really like the option of adopting a belief"...

That makes no sense. Again, you are mixing "impulse" with "decision".
It's not "hey, I have this set of beliefs, but I reserve my right to change to this one". That is absurd.
It's rather "hey, I have this set of beliefs, but under psychological duress your reason means jack and you just ends up doing instinctual things". I mean, that's the entire point of training people so they don't panic or do stupid things under stress, it's not really a secret.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are we hard-wired to give supernatural explanations? It's a jump, I'd say an untenable one, from "all known human societies are identified as doing X" to "X proceeds directly from universal human biology". All we can say is that humans have done X in Y variety of circumstances, not that humans will do X in all circumstances.

I didn't base it on historical or universal behaviour but rather experiments that have been done. One I remember is giving 2 groups of atheists who do not believe in the supernatural a test to perform under supervision. Halfway during the test the supervisor exits the room. Both groups were still monitored by a hidden camera. Also in the room is an old chair. One group is told that chair is for another study and is said to contain the spirit or ghost of someone who passed away.

Oddly enough, that group was very honest in recording their own test result, while the group that wasn't told cheated to make themselves look better.

I'm not sure about this reasoning. I think ethics evolved from social bonds in a group, but I doubt it has lots with inventing gods.

I see it rather as emergent behaviour stemming from the combination of psychological mechanism with increased brainpower (and as such imagination) : we feel more comfortable/confident when being looked upon by someone (children with parents, people with group, etc.), which is an evolutionary advantage to stay alive (sticking with your buddies/family, being stronger in group). For many social animals, it somehow stops here.

But when you start having such complex and powerful minds as humans ? It becomes possible to re-imagine the world and ends up with concepts like spirits and gods.

I didn't contradict that. I didn't say ethics evolved from the sense of being watched when no one is around. And I think you're right in what you're saying. Ethics evolved because ethical behaviour benefited the tribe and gave it a better chance of survival.

But you didn't contradict that having an omni-present father figure watching you at all times stimulates moral behaviour when someone doesn't have any peers around to judge someone not behaving morally either. Nor that moral behaviour benefits the tribe or society one lives in. I'm saying that a tribe which subscribes to an omnipresent father figure has an advantage over one that doesn't. And whenever in nature a feature grants an advantage, it can become dominant. Not because of copied behaviour, but because in those times people who's brain were wired in a way that accepted being watched by a father figure gave their society an advantage over people who did not have this feature.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't base it on historical or universal behaviour but rather experiments that have been done. One I remember is giving 2 groups of atheists who do not believe in the supernatural a test to perform under supervision. Halfway during the test the supervisor exits the room. Both groups were still monitored by a hidden camera. Also in the room is an old chair. One group is told that chair is for another study and is said to contain the spirit or ghost of someone who passed away.

Oddly enough, that group was very honest in recording their own test result, while the group that wasn't told cheated to make themselves look better.

I don't really see what that proves about human "hard-wiring".