Do Atheists Take Atheism Seriously Enough?

[Khandro]

J.P. thinks not, and I tend to agree with him,
- a short extract from a longer video;

[Old_Geezer]

I've yet to find one sacrificing a virgin to the great God Athe.

[nailit]

Ive only recently come across Jordan Peterson. And I think he's a loon!

//Do Atheists Take Atheism Seriously Enough?//
About as serious as apixies, abigfootians, afairyists, aeasterbunnyians and asantaclausarians.

Just WHEN will people understand that a disbelief in something is not a faith based position and so demands nothing to be taken seriously or otherwise. Its like saying that celibacy is a sex position or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Ridiculous...

[pixie374]

What is there to take seriously about it?

[Baldric]

[-Talbot-]

What should I do that I don't?

Meet up in a special atheist building with fellow atheists and sing songs?

[nailit]

About the one min. mark...
''they don't take the damn thing seriously, they think that Christianity is just a bunch of superstitions , really, no not deep enough.''

Serious enough and deep enough for me. Its a croc of crap for those of us who have looked into it....

[pixie374]

That's usually called "a pub" Talbot ;-)

[nailit]

//What should I do that I don't?
Meet up in a special atheist building with fellow atheists and sing songs?//

Play along now Talbot....
Get preaching that atheism on the corner and go door knocking and stuff...

[pixie374]

Personally, I am not bothered 'what' others believe... only 'why'. Providing people behave decently and within the law, they can think whatever they like. On AB, I only look at this topic if it is coming up in latest posts, otherwise it is irrelevant to me. The only answer to "why?" that I have ever seen, is purely because people want to believe it, so logic, rationality, proof, facts, truth, etc etc are all avoided as much as possible. It is a crutch.

[nailit]

Some folks don't get that atheism is a 'lack' of belief. NOT a belief in itself. Therefor there is no requirement to defend it.

No-one defends themselves for NOT believing in Zeus anymore or NOT

[nailit]

Grrr, still typing and it posted.
Or not belonging to one particular belief system.

[naomi24]

‘People might say “Well, I don’t believe in God” … huh … well depends on what you mean …’

What is he talking about, Khandro? You say you agree with him so do please enlighten me.

[Old_Geezer]

But atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is lack of faith/belief, but atheism insists there is no God and so is a belief/faith, no matter how many times it is denied (thrice seems traditional).

(You may call god, Zeus, if you so wish.)

[Khandro]

You really need to read Homer, say The Odyssey or even ponder the the Buddhist 'Wheel of Life' to (maybe) understand what it is he is articulating.
But I won't be taking any bets.

[pixie374]

I've read it, khandro. Any further clues?

[mibn2cweus]

Atheism does not necessary imply a belief, only a lack of belief in the existence of a god. Agnosticism on the other hand is the belief that the existence (or not) of a god, is unknown or cannot be known.

[pixie374]

Not quite, og. Atheism means "without a god". Agnostic means "without knowing"- in theory, that is everyone, but most people will have a view until proven otherwise.

[Ken4155]

Woah, now, nailit. I'm on record as an atheist on here but i never said i didn't believe in Greek Myth. Zeus forbid! :-)

[naomi24]

Khandro, I’ve read Homer, I’m familiar with the Buddhist 'Wheel of Life', and I don’t believe a God exists. At the risk of you going all airy fairy again (you’re bordering already) and not actually wanting a discussion, you say you agree with him so please answer my question. What is he talking about?

[vetuste_ennemi]

The Peterson point is not about literal truth (is there a creator God: yes or no?). It's about asking why the religious experience in all its forms and with its attendant mythologies and rituals is prevalent throughout history. And, importantly (which is what I think Peterson means by "taking seriously"): is there anything to be learnt from this apparently universal religious instinct?

I think Peterson's criticism is directed at atheists who dismiss the religious experience because it is factually incorrect, or in some cases ludicrous. Peterson says, well, no, parables don't have to be literally true in order to be morally instructive.