Ambivalent atheism

Originally posted by FMF
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?

If I rephrase your quote above to: So how can it possibly be an analogy for people who have a belief that there is a need to carry knives and people who do not have a belief that there is a need to carry knives, does it help?

The heart of the analogy is belief or nonbelief, without need of reasons for such, as criteria for categorisation.

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.

You are nothing if not "certain, definite, resolved, settled, sure, unequivocal."

Originally posted by wolfgang59

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?

I'm sorry if I confused. Sometimes I'm not so formal. I disagree with them equally 🙂

Originally posted by wolfgang59
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.

And what is the analogy to belief or non-belief without requiring the basis for belief or non-belief when creating categories?

Originally posted by JerryH
If I rephrase your quote above to: So how can it possibly be an analogy for people who have a belief that there is a need to carry knives and people who do not have a belief that there is a need to carry knives, does it help?

The heart of the analogy is belief or nonbelief, without need of reasons for such, as criteria for categorisation.

Why don't you start a thread about humans' "need" to believe in God and your "aknifeism" thing? I am interested in discussing the podcast in the OP.

Originally posted by JerryH
And what is the analogy to belief or non-belief without requiring the basis for belief or non-belief when creating categories?

Are you asking for an analogy for "belief"?
I cannot think of a useful one.
Nor do I see the point - we all understand the concept of "belief".

Originally posted by JerryH
And what is the analogy to belief or non-belief without requiring the basis for belief or non-belief when creating categories?

Metaphors We Live By,
Lakoff, Johnson

Is a good place to look for potential metaphors and analogies for belief and non-belief.

Instead of starting with belief, start by listing some potential metaphors.

Container: containing a belief or not containing it.

Possession: Possessing, or not.

Possession: Being possessed, or not.

Infection: Being infected or not (like memes).

Weapon: with one in a battle/war, or without.

etc.

Some of these, particularly weapon, convey a definite bias toward belief. Infection conveys the opposite.

This shows, in arguments, that the one whose metaphor prevails will be favored.

Good thread topic, FMF.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Are you asking for an analogy for "belief"?
I cannot think of a useful one.
Nor do I see the point - we all understand the concept of "belief".

Nor do I see the point - we all understand the concept of "belief".
Really?
Tell us about your beliefs in God, then.

Originally posted by sonship

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 rationali ...[text shortened]... s. And anyone believing he is a disciple of Jesus can only be disqualified on general principle.

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.

What exactly precludes a true disciple of Jesus from having existed or being able to exist? Jesus is quite clear that His true disciples will be freed from committing sin. From what I can surmise, it's because you don't believe Jesus.

I wrote the following:

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".

The above simply reiterates the following in about as straight-forward manner as possible:

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.”... 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.

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."

Like josephw you have taken the words of Jesus out of context toward your own ends.

Within the context of Matthew 23 Jesus cites example after example how the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven prevent others from doing so and is summarized in the following:

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them....
27“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

It is because they do not DO the will of God (i.e., they continue to commit sin), yet purport to be righteous which misleads others into also not DOING the will of God.

This is exactly what is being done by those who believe that one can continue to sin and enter the kingdom of heaven and tell others likewise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Nor do I see the point - we all understand the concept of "belief".
Really?
Tell us about your beliefs in God, then.[/b]

What a dumb request!

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

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" activists or 'evangelists' (so to speak), or proactive polemicists.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What a dumb request!

So you agree that you don't really understand the concept of belief?

Originally 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.

So would you consider, in this usage, "ambivalent" to be a complimentary adjective or a derogatory adjective when used to describe an atheist?

And, as a follow-up, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

Originally posted by Suzianne
So would you consider, in this usage, "ambivalent" to be a complimentary adjective or a derogatory adjective when used to describe an atheist?

And, as a follow-up, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

So would you consider, in this usage, "ambivalent" to be a complimentary adjective or a derogatory adjective when used to describe an atheist?

Why does it have to be either?

And, as a follow-up, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

Unless he has changed his position recently, he is still a non-Christian theist.
As he has explained many many times.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And, as a follow-up, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

No. This is something you have asked me before - several times - and each time I've answered it, you have just ignored it.