Atheism - A deep dive

[+Link of Hyrule]

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

If your investigation turns up something, then that will be great. In the meantime, though, I think a "deep dive" into atheism comes across like a deep dive into bigfoot disbelief.

There really doesn't seem to be more to it than "I believe bigfoot is just a story that some other people say they do believe."

Maybe some a-bigfootists want to learn about what other a-bigfootists believe or don't believe? Why do some a-bigfootists attend the Church of Bigfoot or identify themselves as members of the Church of Bigfoot? Why do Danish a-bigfootists in particular demonstrate high levels of Church of Bigfoot identification (almost a third of a-bigfootists claim to be Bigfootians)? In reverse, why do some a-bigfootists attend gatherings of other like-minded a-bigfootists, hire out a hall and a prominent speaker to come and preach about a-bigfootism? Why do some a-bigfootists wear merchandise saying "Bigfoot probably doesn't exist"? Why do some a-bigfootists disbelieve Bigfoot but believe in Chupacabra or other cryptids? Why do Chinese a-bigfootists believe in other phenomena at much higher rates than a-bigfootists in other countries? Why are a-bigfootists in America most likely to be white, university educated, men?  

I'm sure "cultural differences" will play a large part in the answer, but I'm curious to dive into what those cultural differences are and how they impact the way people around the world view their faith (or lack of faith, in this particular instance). Some people just like learning about this sort of thing. Of course, "replace a-bigfootist" with "atheist" and "Church of Bigfoot" with "Christian" in my paragraph above, and at least some of why some people might be interested in this topic becomes clear. I appreciate not all atheists care about their beliefs. But when I was a Christian I don't think most of them cared much about what they believed either - within 12 months of converting to Christianity I knew more about my faith than 95% of the people who have sat in a pew for their whole lives (I don't say that to boast, just to point out how little the average Christian knows about their faith). I doubt there'd be much interest in a deep dive into Christian theology from those Christians who don't even care about their own theology, either. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is the Spirituality forums, I am interested in this topic, and I hope to go on this journey with like-minded interested people. 

Have a good week, 8bits

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

13 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Sources are not necessary, some people believe that Jesus is an alien and comes from outer space. Then you have the Mormons who believe that Jesus was present in the Americas. Then, you have a young Jesus who is living on an island off the UK this is what I meant about how Christ is portrayed and visiting places completely unknown during his life time.

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. 

 

13 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

When I used the word Cult like, I meant just that and I am not applying the meaning you choose to use above. No Christianity was never truly an off shoot of Judaism, the entire religion was centered and built around one man and the Jews never excepted him as the messiah that is why Jesus was not mentioned in the Old Testament.

I disagree with you on the origins of Christianity. Several years ago when I was a regular on this part of the forum and a Bible-believing Christian I wrote a 3000 word essay on "Jesus the Jew - a non-Christian look at the teachings of Jesus" - a fancy title, but it explored the teachings of Jesus from a purely Jewish perspective, looking at the historical context in which Jesus was teaching and why the message in the gospels is a quintessentially Jewish one - I stand by that article and would happily discuss the Jewish roots of Jesus in another thread. The message of Jesus as a redeeming saviour is not necessarily contradictory with this, but it was far more prominent in the writings of Paul, for example, than in the gospels themselves. Purely using the gospels only, arguably Jesus was not a Messiah-figure (at least not in the earliest versions of the synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke]). 

 

13 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

If you grew up in a Cult then you should understand how some Christian religious sect’s are actually nothing but Cults hiding behind the words Jesus Christ and Christianity ✝️ 

 

I absolutely do agree with that. I've been considering starting a thread on it, in all the years I've been here I never delved into the cult that I grew up in. When I first joined the forum I was a mainstream Christian and I didn't even consider the church I grew up in to be Christian (and in many ways I still don't). In the years and years of sermons I heard, the Bible Studies, the focus was always about "doing the work" (a generic term used for any activity the church demanded was required to be a follower), and paving the way for "The Coming Kingdom of God" (the future, when God returns to usher in his kingdom of peace), and despite Jesus being the central figure of this church, I don't remember a single sermon on him, he just wasn't very important. 

Have a good week  

Edited August 6 by Link of Hyrule

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. 

 

I disagree with you on the origins of Christianity. Several years ago when I was a regular on this part of the forum and a Bible-believing Christian I wrote a 3000 word essay on "Jesus the Jew - a non-Christian look at the teachings of Jesus" - a fancy title, but it explored the teachings of Jesus from a purely Jewish perspective, looking at the historical context in which Jesus was teaching and why the message in the gospels is a quintessentially Jewish one - I stand by that article and would happily discuss the Jewish roots of Jesus in another thread. The message of Jesus as a redeeming saviour is not necessarily contradictory with this, but it was far more prominent in the writings of Paul, for example, than in the gospels themselves. Purely using the gospels only, arguably Jesus was not a Messiah-figure (at least not in the earliest versions of the synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke]). 

 

I absolutely do agree with that. I've been considering starting a thread on it, in all the years I've been here I never delved into the cult that I grew up in. When I first joined the forum I was a mainstream Christian and I didn't even consider the church I grew up in to be Christian (and in many ways I still don't). In the years and years of sermons I heard, the Bible Studies, the focus was always about "doing the work" (a generic term used for any activity the church demanded was required to be a follower), and paving the way for "The Coming Kingdom of God" (the future, when God returns to usher in his kingdom of peace), and despite Jesus being the central figure of this church, I don't remember a single sermon on him, he just wasn't very important. 

Have a good week  

Thanks and you also have a good week, and I think it would be interesting to hear about the cult you grew up in.

[eight bits]

10 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Have a good week, 8bits

Thanks. You, too.

I meant it when I said that it would be great if your investigations turned up something, and I agree that this is the right forum to post whatever you find.

 

[Piney]

14 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Maybe some a-bigfootists want to learn about what other a-bigfootists believe or don't believe? Why do some a-bigfootists attend the Church of Bigfoot or identify themselves as members of the Church of Bigfoot? Why do Danish a-bigfootists in particular demonstrate high levels of Church of Bigfoot identification (almost a third of a-bigfootists claim to be Bigfootians)? In reverse, why do some a-bigfootists attend gatherings of other like-minded a-bigfootists, hire out a hall and a prominent speaker to come and preach about a-bigfootism? Why do some a-bigfootists wear merchandise saying "Bigfoot probably doesn't exist"? Why do some a-bigfootists disbelieve Bigfoot but believe in Chupacabra or other cryptids? Why do Chinese a-bigfootists believe in other phenomena at much higher rates than a-bigfootists in other countries? Why are a-bigfootists in America most likely to be white, university educated, men?  

I'm sure "cultural differences" will play a large part in the answer, but I'm curious to dive into what those cultural differences are and how they impact the way people around the world view their faith (or lack of faith, in this particular instance). Some people just like learning about this sort of thing. Of course, "replace a-bigfootist" with "atheist" and "Church of Bigfoot" with "Christian" in my paragraph above, and at least some of why some people might be interested in this topic becomes clear. I appreciate not all atheists care about their beliefs. But when I was a Christian I don't think most of them cared much about what they believed either - within 12 months of converting to Christianity I knew more about my faith than 95% of the people who have sat in a pew for their whole lives (I don't say that to boast, just to point out how little the average Christian knows about their faith). I doubt there'd be much interest in a deep dive into Christian theology from those Christians who don't even care about their own theology, either. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is the Spirituality forums, I am interested in this topic, and I hope to go on this journey with like-minded interested people. 

Have a good week, 8bits

 

This is funny because @psyche101 and I are both long time empty handed Bigfoot hunters. 😄

[+Link of Hyrule]

I think this is Part 2 of the video series. He didn't explicitly say this was part 2, but the video title suggests this is the next in line. 

Either way it's an interesting question - why do people become atheists? It's not as simple as one might think, especially if you are approaching this from a US perspective (in the US, analytic atheism has become a thing, with a statistically significant number of atheists having used it). 

However, in other countries, the same method that causes higher levels of atheism leads to religiosity (the UK, for example, demonstrates that analytic thinking leads to a mildly higher level of theistic belief. This study has some good information, the video uses this source as a stepping stone to discuss atheism.

Edited September 2 by Link of Hyrule

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I think this is Part 2 of the video series. He didn't explicitly say this was part 2, but the video title suggests this is the next in line. 

Either way it's an interesting question - why do people become atheists? It's not as simple as one might think, especially if you are approaching this from a US perspective (in the US, analytic atheism has become a thing, with a statistically significant number of atheists having used it). 

However, in other countries, the same method that causes higher levels of atheism leads to religiosity (the UK, for example, demonstrates that analytic thinking leads to a mildly higher level of theistic belief. This study has some good information, the video uses this source as a stepping stone to discuss atheism.

HI Link

There are likely as many reasons for atheists as there are for believers as it is a personal choice. I didn't watch the video as I know why I made my choice which is what is relevant to me alone. I am not really an atheists as god can not be proven or disproven so leave it as an unknown. The only influence I see in believers is from believers and not god, man said god said. I have a busy life that is dependant on being good no god required. 

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I think this is Part 2 of the video series. He didn't explicitly say this was part 2, but the video title suggests this is the next in line. 

I love brain scans as much as the next person, but the video unwinds as if the vast literature on how rational belief works which has been built up mostly since WWII simply doesn't exist.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

However, in other countries, the same method that causes higher levels of atheism leads to religiosity (the UK, for example, demonstrates that analytic thinking leads to a mildly higher level of theistic belief. This study has some good information, the video uses this source as a stepping stone to discuss atheism.

"Analytical thinking" (which I take to be referring to rational reflection) does not lead to a predetermined outcome. That's magical thinking. Analytical thinking reaches conclusions that are dependent on the data available, how a problem is framed, what alternative hypotheses are considered, and other cognitive factors. In the realm of uncertainty, it is utterly routine for two equally rational thinkers to reach incompatible conclusions.

The central core of rational belief theory concerns individual rationality. There are mathematical hurdles to explaining collective rationality by aggregating the judgments of individually rational decisionmakers. The most prominent of these is the "impossibility theorem" for which (among other career achievements) Kenneth Arrow won the 1972 Nobel prize for economics.

There is no crisis, then, when "anecdotal" (= what happened to individuals) and survey (= aggregated individual experience) data fail to coincide.

On a separate concern, I note that the video acknowledges funding via the Templeton Foundation which, I am sorry to report, is notorious for pimping religiosity. I notice further that the title of one of the books promoted (oh, no ... I'm about to judge a book by its cover) expresses wonderment that atheism arises within "a religious species." That is, as if the natural condition of human life were religious, and that atheism is therefore unnatural. Even when the video changes tack and considers that maybe religiosity is what needs to be explained (duh), within seconds we are told that the reason to study religiosity is that maybe atheism arises from a deficiency in religiosity reinforcers.

Bottom line: I am wary of this video. I sense that I am being sold a bill of goods using a posture of scientific objectivity.

Edited September 2 by eight bits

[jmccr8]

There is the gambler's beleif which is if I believe and it's true it's a win and if I believe and it isn't true no loss kind of hedging a bet but not a real beleif. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

18 hours ago, eight bits said:

I love brain scans as much as the next person, but the video unwinds as if the vast literature on how rational belief works which has been built up mostly since WWII simply doesn't exist.

"Analytical thinking" (which I take to be referring to rational reflection) does not lead to a predetermined outcome. That's magical thinking. Analytical thinking reaches conclusions that are dependent on the data available, how a problem is framed, what alternative hypotheses are considered, and other cognitive factors. In the realm of uncertainty, it is utterly routine for two equally rational thinkers to reach incompatible conclusions.

The central core of rational belief theory concerns individual rationality. There are mathematical hurdles to explaining collective rationality by aggregating the judgments of individually rational decisionmakers. The most prominent of these is the "impossibility theorem" for which (among other career achievements) Kenneth Arrow won the 1972 Nobel prize for economics.

There is no crisis, then, when "anecdotal" (= what happened to individuals) and survey (= aggregated individual experience) data fail to coincide.

On a separate concern, I note that the video acknowledges funding via the Templeton Foundation which, I am sorry to report, is notorious for pimping religiosity. I notice further that the title of one of the books promoted (oh, no ... I'm about to judge a book by its cover) expresses wonderment that atheism arises within "a religious species." That is, as if the natural condition of human life were religious, and that atheism is therefore unnatural. Even when the video changes tack and considers that maybe religiosity is what needs to be explained (duh), within seconds we are told that the reason to study religiosity is that maybe atheism arises from a deficiency in religiosity reinforcers.

Bottom line: I am wary of this video. I sense that I am being sold a bill of goods using a posture of scientific objectivity.

I found this YouTuber via another channel called "Useful Charts". Useful Charts did a collaboration video with about 4 different YouTube creators who all have content dealing with similar issues (at the time, I think, Useful Charts was doing its "Who wrote the Bible" course (the one I think you uploaded to UM a few months back, though that's entirely from memory at this point). Religion For Breakfast has come across as very reasonable and academic in his approach, I haven't noticed any ulterior motive. But I will take that bias into consideration, thanks.

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I found this YouTuber via another channel called "Useful Charts". Useful Charts did a collaboration video with about 4 different YouTube creators who all have content dealing with similar issues (at the time, I think, Useful Charts was doing its "Who wrote the Bible" course (the one I think you uploaded to UM a few months back, though that's entirely from memory at this point). Religion For Breakfast has come across as very reasonable and academic in his approach, I haven't noticed any ulterior motive. But I will take that bias into consideration, thanks.

You're right that I have posted content from Useful Charts, without regret, and I remember (although not all the details) that UC participated in a YouTube collaborative project with other creators a while back.

As to the Religion for Breakfast video on atheism, I don't mean to come across as flatly rejecting the entire production, and the video is certainly dicussable, just that I do have the reservations I mentioned.

Carry on.