31 Oct 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI think it simply modifies the word "atheist" in exactly the way I summarized having listened to the podcast. Perhaps you should listen to it too. There is no whiff of it being either "derogatory" or "complimentary". It's an interesting podcast. You interact here with atheists. It's worth your while listening to it.
So would you consider, in this usage, "ambivalent" to be a complimentary adjective or a derogatory adjective when used to describe an atheist?
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFI guess I got, "I don't want to be called an atheist seems to paraphrase the sentiments of ambivalent atheists in the podcast" from the following indices into the podcast and I'd like your take on these please.
I don't know how you got this from the podcast I provided a link to in the OP.
Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
Ambivalent atheists are those who, first and foremost, see themselves as not religious but don't identify with strident or aggressive anti-"God" or anti-"theist" activist ...[text shortened]... ere referring to ambivalent atheists. I'm pretty sure you would concur, if you'd listened to it.
15:10-15:38 11% somewhat nonreligious? Are they atheists?
16:40ish-17:53ish I'm not religious but I'm spiritual? Are they atheists?
18:50ish I'm not religious but I'm not an atheist? I'm an atheist but I'm not an atheist like Richard Dawkins is an atheist?
For me these and other lesser points in the podcast resonate because I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. I have a strong dislike in being grouped with people who believe in spirits and also with people who believe that god does not exist.
Why is grouping all people who do not hold a belief that god exists any different or more useful than grouping all people who do not hold a belief that god does not exist? Please don't start calling me a Theist next! Also please go back and look at my aknifeist analogy from the perspective of: All people who do not hold the belief that god does not exist are Theists.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFCouldn't ambivalent atheist be expressed equally as nonreligious and having difficulty in choosing atheist, by it's current definition, as a label? I'm excluding the timid atheists who have chosen atheist.
In that case, if I were you, I'd suggest you identify yourself as an agnostic, and not as an ambivalent atheist.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by JerryHI got the impression the discussion was about giving the kind of atheists I described in my recent long post [bottom third of page 3] a way of describing themselves when there are surveys about people's beliefs. I don't think anyone was suggesting that you ~ an agnostic ~ should be labelled an "ambivalent atheist". Why would you describe yourself that way? Nor would Richard Dawkins describe himself that way. I think the introduction of the term should result in more astute and informative surveys.
Couldn't ambivalent atheist be expressed equally as nonreligious and having difficulty in choosing atheist, by it's current definition, as a label? I'm excluding the timid atheists who have chosen atheist.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFI read your recent long post. I noted your 6 ambivalent atheists and was able to relabel them as: 1) Timid atheist, 2) Timid atheist, 3) Timid atheist, 4) Timid atheist, 5) Ambivalent atheists possibly agnostic, possibly spiritual, possibly God knows what? and 6) Timid atheist. It's your fifth group I'm speaking to.
I got the impression the discussion was about giving the kind of atheists I described in my recent long post [bottom third of page 3] a way of describing themselves when there are surveys about people's beliefs. I don't think anyone was suggesting that you ~ an agnostic ~ should be labelled an "ambivalent atheist". Why would you describe yourself that way? Nor w ...[text shortened]... way. I think the introduction of the term should result in more astute and informative surveys.
Are you not one who defines atheist as: One who does not hold the belief that god exists? A definition that I contest. If not then how do you define atheism?
I may need to be more careful as I find myself using atheist to mean those that have accepted the mangled term atheist as their label even if in error.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by JerryHYou can contest it all you like, you won't change the definition of the word. If you want to discuss your views with other people, you should strive to use the accepted definitions of words rather than make up your own.
I read your recent long post. I noted your 6 ambivalent atheists and was able to relabel them as: 1) Timid atheist, 2) Timid atheist, 3) Timid atheist, 4) Timid atheist, 5) Ambivalent atheists possibly agnostic, possibly spiritual, possibly God knows what? and 6) Timid atheist. It's your fifth group I'm speaking to.
Are you not one who defines atheist as: ...[text shortened]... heist to mean those that have accepted the mangled term atheist as their label even if in error.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatTell me do you still use the definition that the earth is flat? It was accepted as defined as flat. The earth: that big flat thing on a turtle's back. It's hard to make progress in studying the earth with this definition. Maybe your definition of atheist is about to change?
You can contest it all you like, you won't change the definition of the word. If you want to discuss your views with other people, you should strive to use the accepted definitions of words rather than make up your own.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by JerryHThat is possibly the most inappropriate analogy I've seen posted here, in a forum that seems to delight in them. The shape of the earth has never formed a part of it's definition. And you're not about to change the definition of atheism just because you don't like it.
Tell me do you still use the definition that the earth is flat? It was accepted as defined as flat. The earth: that big flat thing on a turtle's back. It's hard to make progress in studying the earth with this definition. Maybe your definition of atheist is about to change?
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59I do not consider "Really?" a request, and the other sentence invited you to regale us with your beliefs on the topic of God as a way of proving your earlier claim that everyone on the forum had come to a consensual agreement on the definition of the term 'belief.'
What a dumb request!
Tongue in cheek, mostly.
It was a way of tweaking your nose on the obvious fallacy of your claim.
There is nearly NO agreement on what constitutes 'belief' on this forum and to claim otherwise is beyond silly.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by FMF
I don't know how you got this from the podcast I provided a link to in the OP.
Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
Ambivalent atheists are those who, first and foremost, see themselves as not religious but don't identify with strident or aggressive anti-"God" or anti-"theist" activist ...[text shortened]... ere referring to ambivalent atheists. I'm pretty sure you would concur, if you'd listened to it.
I don't know how you got this from the podcast I provided a link to in the OP.
Let's see if we can unpack the issues for ya...
Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
I see no conflict of feelings here, but simply a person who prefers to avoid broadcasting their beliefs.
Unless, of course, the inference is that man, as a rule, is compelled to broadcast his beliefs?
If that's the case, we're going to need some footnotes.
Ambivalent atheists are those who, first and foremost, see themselves as not religious but don't identify with strident or aggressive anti-"God" or anti-"theist" activists or 'evangelists' (so to speak), or proactive polemicists.
Again, no conflict.
Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in confronting theists (by proclaiming their lack of belief or disbelief) for fear it might be interpreted as "aggression" or rude implied - even personal - rejection of what their theist acquaintances believe.
Still no conflict.
Ambivalent atheists are those who do not want to be clumped together with other more defiant [or even "brave"] atheists ~ perhaps they do not want to be defined by their stance on something that is not such a big deal in their own minds.
No conflict.
Ambivalent atheists are those who might not have articulated their belief system, might not have been challenged to explain it, and might not have challenged others about their theism because they did not want to or did not feel able to.
Did I miss the conflict?
Ambivalent atheists are those who might feel that their beliefs or non-beliefs are private and personal (and they are comfortable with that) and not something to be factored into their relationships with others, whether they be theists or atheists.
New-fangled research expedition journal entry log #6: Waiting to see if conflict exists, but it remains elusive up to this point.
I think this is a sketch of what the speakers in the podcast were talking about when they were referring to ambivalent atheists. I'm pretty sure you would concur, if you'd listened to it.
If your summation is accurate, I think we can all spare ourselves a little bit of time by acknowledging the 800 pound gorilla in the room: the use of the term "ambivalent" before the term "atheist" is superfluous, confusing and wholly unwarranted.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe you know why you used the word "conflict" over and over again. You should listen to the podcast. It's worth a listen.
Originally posted by FMF
[b]I don't know how you got this from the podcast I provided a link to in the OP.
Let's see if we can unpack the issues for ya...
Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
I see no conflict of feelings here, but simply a person who prefers to ...[text shortened]... he term "ambivalent" before the term "atheist" is superfluous, confusing and wholly unwarranted.[/b]
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou don't define the earth as the third planet from the sun in our solar system? A planet is not now defined as being spherical? Please give me your definition of the earth.
That is possibly the most inappropriate analogy I've seen posted here, in a forum that seems to delight in them. The shape of the earth has never formed a part of it's definition. And you're not about to change the definition of atheism just because you don't like it.
Originally posted by JerryHWhy do you call them "timid"? Do you believe they ought to be strident or vociferous or something?
I read your recent long post. I noted your 6 ambivalent atheists and was able to relabel them as: 1) Timid atheist, 2) Timid atheist, 3) Timid atheist, 4) Timid atheist, 5) Ambivalent atheists possibly agnostic, possibly spiritual, possibly God knows what? and 6) Timid atheist. It's your fifth group I'm speaking to.
Are you not one who defines atheist as: ...[text shortened]... heist to mean those that have accepted the mangled term atheist as their label even if in error.