Ambivalent atheism

BBC podcast of "Thinking Allowed" - 28 Oct 2015

Laurie Taylor talks to Lois Lee, Research Associate at the Religion and Political Theory Centre at University College, London, and author of a study of non religious people. In the UK today a variety of identity labels exist which articulate non belief -atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, rationalist, free thinker and sceptic. Most of these terms are associated with organised and activist forms of non religion. But what of the ambivalent atheist, whose beliefs may be fuzzier, less clear cut? They're joined by the philosopher, Julian Baggini.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kdyw3

Interesting discussion. Worth a listen.

Originally posted by FMF
BBC podcast of "Thinking Allowed" - 28 Oct 2015

Laurie Taylor talks to Lois Lee, Research Associate at the Religion and Political Theory Centre at University College, London, and author of a study of non religious people. In the UK today a variety of identity labels exist which articulate non belief -atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, rationalist, f ...[text shortened]... .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kdyw3

Interesting discussion. Worth a listen.

Ambivalent = Confused

The Truth is clear, unambiguous and liberating. It is The Truth that makes the most interesting discussion.

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent = Confused

I think you are highly confused about the meaning of ambivalent.

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent = Confused

The Truth is clear, unambiguous and liberating. It is The Truth that makes the most interesting discussion.

Good grief. This is what you took away from listening to the podcast?

Originally posted by FMF
Good grief. This is what you took away from listening to the podcast?

Do you seriously think he is actually interested in discussing atheism except as a pejorative?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you seriously think he is actually interested in discussing atheism except as a pejorative?

I am willing to listen to what he has to say for himself and if he gets his head around the actual meaning of the word "ambivalent" and the term "ambivalent atheists" - as used in the podcast - then I'd be content with that. There's no need to aim too high. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
I am willing to listen to what he has to say for himself and if he gets his head around the actual meaning of the word "ambivalent" and the term "ambivalent atheists" - as used in the podcast - then I'd be content with that. There's no need to aim too high. 😉

Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to the suburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character in the play.
Psychology. of or pertaining to the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.

Synonyms- clashing, contradictory, debatable, doubtful, equivocal, fluctuating, hesitant, inconclusive, irresolute, uncertain, unsure, vacillating, etc.

Antonyms- certain, definite, resolved, settled, sure, unequivocal.

Ambivalency
—noun

uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.
Psychology. the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.

Your posts above proves my point. But maybe confused isn't the right word. Why don't we try "spiritually dead" to the truth. Or at least borderline schizophrenic, but certainly spiritually deaf and blind.


Jesus says to you:
John 8:43
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

"Ambivalent atheist" indeed! Just more spin by the sophist class of the intellectual elite aided by their media lackeys followed by automatons unable to think for themselves.

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to the suburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character in the play.
Psychology. of or pertaining to the coexistence within an individual of positive and ...[text shortened]... ectual elite aided by their media lackeys followed by automatons unable to think for themselves.

But maybe confused isn't the right word. Why don't we try "spiritually dead" to the truth. Or at least borderline schizophrenic, but certainly spiritually deaf and blind.

Jesus says to you:
John 8:43
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.


To "understand [His] speech" you need to put John 8:43 in context:

John 8
31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”

34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.35“The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed 37“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38“I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”

39They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40“But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41“You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46“Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

48The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50“But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

In John 8:31-34, Jesus clearly states that His true disciples, will know the TRUTH, will no longer commit sin, and will "live in the house forever". Those who continue to commit sin will not "live in the house forever".

In John 8:43-44, Jesus clearly states that those who are sons of the devil want to do the desires of the devil and cannot hear His word. Those who are sons of the devil, want to do the desires of the devil and cannot hear His word; by extension continue to commit sin.

In John 8:51, Jesus clearly states that those who KEEP His word "will never see death." This echoes John 8:31-34 where Jesus says that those who no longer commit sin will "live in the house forever".

So aren't Christians who continue to commit sin likewise "'spiritually dead' to the truth" and " at least borderline schizophrenic, but certainly spiritually deaf and blind"?

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to the suburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character in the play.
Psychology. of or pertaining to the coexistence within an individual of positive and ...[text shortened]... ectual elite aided by their media lackeys followed by automatons unable to think for themselves.

The idea that you must be confused if you are ambivalent about something is just plain wrong.

unable to think for themselves

Says the man that ran to the dictionary to try and prove that being ambivalent and being confused were one and the same thing.

And then failed.

I think the term ambivalent atheism is nonsense and the list of those included under it are hopelessly immiscible.

Spiritual atheists that don't believe in god but do accept other god like things of equal mystery? Yes, let's group these spiritual atheists with atheist atheists who fear atheist is too inflammatory a term in their region. This makes perfect sense to the confused.

The problem is simply that atheism has become a junk term. A catch-all that has lost it's meaning and now needs to be qualified.

Originally posted by josephw
Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to the suburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character in the play.
Psychology. of or pertaining to the coexistence within an individual of positive and ...[text shortened]... ectual elite aided by their media lackeys followed by automatons unable to think for themselves.

Have you listened to the podcast?

Originally posted by JerryH
The problem is simply that atheism has become a junk term. A catch-all that has lost it's meaning and now needs to be qualified.

So which of the speakers in the podcast did you find yourself most in agreement with?

Originally posted by josephw
Your posts above proves my point. But maybe confused isn't the right word. Why don't we try "spiritually dead" to the truth. Or at least borderline schizophrenic, but certainly spiritually deaf and blind.

Well I am not an adherent of the religion that you just so happen to profess, if that's what you mean.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

In John 8:31-34, Jesus clearly states that His true disciples, will know the TRUTH, will no longer commit sin, and will "live in the house forever". Those who continue to commit sin will not "live in the house forever".

This exegesis seems to be designed to rationalize some things:

1.) It makes it impossible that ToO the rationalizer could ever be called upon to be a true disciple of Jesus. It absolves the rationalizing one of being a true disciple of Jesus on sheer impossibility. He's "off the hook" forever.

2.) It also assures that no one else could be a true disciple of Jesus.

3.) It also secures the rational that a true disciple of Jesus has never existed.

At first glance it seems that the rational has high regard for a life without sin. Actually the argument is devised to assure that in all history a true disciple of Jesus has never existed and cannot.

In John 8:43-44, Jesus clearly states that those who are sons of the devil want to do the desires of the devil and cannot hear His word. Those who are sons of the devil, want to do the desires of the devil and cannot hear His word; by extension continue to commit sin.

Jesus spoke of those unwilling to enter the kingdom of the heavens [God's administration] themselves but also forbade others to enter.

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you close off the kingdom of the heavens in the face of men;

for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to enter." (Matt. 23:13)

Ie. " I will not enter in the kingdom. But this is not good enough. I will assure that no one else enters or has ever entered or CAN ever enter."

So aren't Christians who continue to commit sin likewise "'spiritually dead' to the truth" and " at least borderline schizophrenic, but certainly spiritually deaf and blind"?

The apparent concern here seems to be a high ethical standard for Christians. But actually I think what is behind the facade is a rational assuring the expounder of Jesus's words is absolved from being a disciple and everyone else cannot.

Probably ToO teaches that the 12 apostles were not true disciples of Jesus.

The agenda is putting the thought of being a follower of Jesus out of reach for everyone. And those who seek to be followers of Jesus are all not true disciples of Jesus.

This may be a doctrine of demons. IE. None of the twelve disciples were true disciples of Jesus. None of the writers of the New Testament were true disciples of Jesus. And anyone believing he is a disciple of Jesus can only be disqualified on general principle.

sonship, if I may ask, did you listen to the podcast?