Ambivalent atheism

Originally posted by FMF
So which of the speakers in the podcast did you find yourself most in agreement with?

Neither speaker because both seem to be equating nonbelief and atheism.

Let's define a new term in much the same way as atheism has been redefined. Aknifeism: The nonbelief in the necessity to carry lethal sized knives for protection. On the surface Aknifeism opposes knifeism: The belief in the necessity to carry lethal sized knives for protection.

At the first annual aknifeist convention tensions are running high. As knifeists outside chant the kinfeist slogan, "If they threaten us we will cut their heads off" the aknifeists inside argue over a counter chant.

It seems aknifeists can be divided into at least two very different groups. The ballpoint pen aknifeists don't believe in carrying knives because they are nonviolent. They want to counter chant, "If they threaten us we will try to reason with them". The shotgun aknifeists don't believe in carrying knives because they are not lethal enough. The shotgun aknifeists find themselves drawn to the knifeist chant. They would only change "cut" to "blow".

Clearly there has been a miscategorisation above. Atheism, equivalent with nonbelief in god, is a similar miscategorisation.

Remove atheist from spiritual atheist, agnostic atheist and every other whosit atheist except hard atheist, and ambivalent atheism evaporates.

Originally posted by JerryH
Remove atheist from spiritual atheist, agnostic atheist and every other whosit atheist except hard atheist, and ambivalent atheism evaporates.

This is a reflection of how you thought the word "ambivalent" was used in the BBC podcast?

Originally posted by JerryH

Let's define a new term in much the same way as atheism has been redefined. Aknifeism: The nonbelief in the necessity to carry lethal sized knives for protection. On the surface Aknifeism opposes knifeism: The belief in the necessity to carry lethal sized knives for protection.

At the first annual aknifeist convention tensions are running high. As knifeists outside chant the kinfeist slogan, "If they threaten us we will cut their heads off" the aknifeists inside argue over a counter chant.

It seems aknifeists can be divided into at least two very different groups. The ballpoint pen aknifeists don't believe in carrying knives because they are nonviolent. They want to counter chant, "If they threaten us we will try to reason with them". The shotgun aknifeists don't believe in carrying knives because they are not lethal enough. The shotgun aknifeists find themselves drawn to the knifeist chant. They would only change "cut" to "blow".

This analogy doesn't seem to work on any level.

Originally posted by FMF
This is a reflection of how you thought the word "ambivalent" was used in the BBC podcast?

"I don't want to be called an atheist" seems to paraphrase the sentiments of ambivalent atheists in the podcast.

Originally posted by FMF


This analogy doesn't seem to work on any level.

Why? or what's not working?

Originally posted by JerryH
Why? or what's not working?

In your analogy, knifes exist and everyone knows they exist, is that right?

Your "aknifeists" don't want to use knives... how can that possibly be analogous to "atheists" and their perception of the things "theists" believe to exist?

That's like asserting that "atheists" know that God exists - just like "theists" do - but "atheists" don't want to worship the God figure that the "theists" do?

Like I say, your analogy is merely a kind of rhetorical trick and doesn't work on any level.

Originally posted by JerryH
"I don't want to be called an atheist" seems to paraphrase the sentiments of ambivalent atheists in the podcast.

Are you absolutely sure you have listened to the podcast?

Originally posted by FMF
In your analogy, knifes exist and everyone knows they exist, is that right?

Your "aknifeists" don't want to use knives... how can that possibly be analogous to "atheists" and their perception of the things "theists" believe to exist?

That's like asserting that "atheists" know that God exists - just like "theists" do - but "atheists" don't want to worshi ...[text shortened]...

Like I say, your analogy is merely a kind of rhetorical trick and doesn't work on any level.

My analogy replaces nonbelief in an existence, with nonbelief in a need. My analogy, as in poorly defined atheism, fails to consider the basis of said nonbelief and results in a confused mess. This is not a rhetorical trick. You have spiritual atheists sitting next to hard atheists in your atheist convention and they don't need to change the theist slogan much!

Originally posted by JerryH
My analogy replaces nonbelief in an existence, with nonbelief in a need. My analogy, as in poorly defined atheism, fails to consider the basis of said nonbelief and results in a confused mess. This is not a rhetorical trick. You have spiritual atheists sitting next to hard atheists in your atheist convention and they don't need to change the theist slogan much!

In your analogy, do both your "knifeists" and your "aknifeists" believe that knifes exist?

Originally posted by FMF
In your analogy, do both your "knifeists" and your "aknifeists" believe that knifes exist?

In my analogy both knifeist and aknifeists believe that knives exist.

Originally posted by JerryH
In my analogy both knifeist and aknifeists believe that knives exist.

So how can it possibly be an analogy for people who have a belief that there is a God and people who do not have a belief that there is a God?

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: Synonyms- clashing, contradictory, debatable, doubtful, equivocal, fluctuating, hesitant, inconclusive, irresolute, uncertain, unsure, vacillating, etc.

Dear joseph

alert admin!
your account has been hacked!
somebody edited your post and removed "confused" from the synonym list.

Originally posted by JerryH
Neither speaker because both seem to be equating nonbelief and atheism.

Originally posted by FMF
So which of the speakers in the podcast did you find yourself most in agreement with?

JerryH response Neither speaker because both seem to be equating nonbelief and atheism

You must therefore agree with them equally.
Or are you confused as to which?

Originally posted by JerryH
Neither speaker because both seem to be equating nonbelief and atheism.

atheist
noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: non-believer, non-theist, disbeliever, unbeliever, heretic, sceptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic, infidel, irreligious person, heathen, pagan, freethinker, libertine, nihilist

Originally posted by JerryH
My analogy replaces nonbelief in an existence, with nonbelief in a need. My analogy, as in poorly defined atheism, fails to consider the basis of said nonbelief and results in a confused mess. This is not a rhetorical trick. You have spiritual atheists sitting next to hard atheists in your atheist convention and they don't need to change the theist slogan much!

The analogy to belief or non-belief in god(s) is
the belief or non-belief in something else.
Something else which can neither be proved or disproved.

Russel's teapot for instance.
Or the FSM.
Or the house-elf that lives in my daughter's cupboard.