It might not be true though. Precentage of people believing has no effect on whether something is true or not.
Having said that, this is a UK forum and the stats for the UK from the latest census were 25% of the population had no religion. 59% said Christian, though many are "cultural Christians".
The figure for church going Christians is 6% and the average age 51 (for the general population this is 40yrs).
You said before you were unsure about the evolution of lungs, and I presented you with some science. I think you though gills turned into lungs, though this was incorrect. What did you think?
These are fair points re. the UK where I understand atheism is far more dominant relatively than in other countries. I was really trying to point out that if you take worlds population now or at any time in human history, the vast majority would believe in the existence of a God of some form. If it was patently obvious there was no God, this would not be the case at all. Of course, they may all be wrong - but it does seem very odd for such a high volume of the worlds population for so many thousands of years to have accepted the existence of some form of God if there is absolutely no reason for that belief...
RE. lung fish...
The problem with this is that I do internet searches for explanations from both the Darwinian evolution camp and the creationist camp. The science behind it goes a little over my head I'm afraid and its a little confusing. (I did post a link re. lung fish some posts ago - but sure there is a counter argument).
I obviously accept there is variation/mutation within species - this is observable, measurable and probably predictable. This is what I understand as natural selection or micro-evolution (these terms are probably no longer valid). To then make the leap and speculate on this big-bang and what caused the matter/space/time to be there is first place and also speculate on the paths of mutation that eventually fish to fly etc etc seems to be outside the parameters of what is observable and measurable and is really guesswork. Even if it is educated guesswork, to call it scientific fact seems to me to betray to so-called skeptical attitude scientists should have to all theories.
I accepted "molecules-to-man" evolution for many years as this is what I got taught at school. Re-examining this theory was one of the key steps in my journey to becoming a Christian. I've read lots of "evidence" of both sides re. origins - I am not scientist and out of my depth with lots of the science. For me, it comes down to using my own senses and a look at what I see as the amazing "fine-tuning" and complexity of the world around us and this leads me unable to believe it was an unguided, random, accidental process. Am I biased - yes!...but I was also bias the other way before...I think its impossible for anyone to be truly unbiased no matter how hard they try...
You are looking at the same world as me - you clearly see things very differently. If this leaves you an atheist, then good luck to you...I am not doubting your sincerity, but I am also being as sincere as I know how in also trying to explain the world around me.
Some of my comments have attracted ridicule, mocking and at times personal insult to my intelligence (I'm the first to admit I'm not the cleverest chap in the world!). What do you expect me to do...abandon my believe in God immediately and fly the white flag even though what has been described instead betrays my own observation of the world around me?
I do understand more about atheism and do not deny that I had misconceptions before (and probably still do...) so this was/is still an interesting exercise...