Ambivalent atheism

Originally posted by JerryH
You 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.

You don't define the earth as the third planet from the sun in our solar system?

No, that' s an observation and not a definition.

If [when] Mercury's orbit destabilises and it flies out the solar system [or into the Sun] the
Earth wont stop being the Earth.

If we decide to extend the life span of the Earth by moving it farther out from the Sun as the
Sun ages and expands and we swap places with Mars it wont stop being the Earth.

A planet is not now defined as being spherical?

Nope.
First no planet [we know of] IS spherical. The Earth is an irregular oblate spheroid.

And again, this is an observation about the nature of our planet, and not a definition.

Planet originally meant 'wandering star' and was used to describe the bright 'stars' that moved across
the sky. It was only much later that we discovered that they ware not just points of light, and were
in fact huge lumps of rock/gas floating in space and that we were also on a planet of our own.

Originally posted by JerryH
A definition that I contest. .

Sorry to say that definitions cannot be contested. Definitions are never ever 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is to misunderstand the definition of 'definition'.
You can contest what is common usage of a definition, you can contest what was the original usage or the usage implied by the parts of a compound word etc.
As far as I can tell your initial objections in this thread were twofold:
1. That the definition has changed over time (which I believe you are mistaken about).
2. That the definition is not useful - again I think you are mistaken.
If you honestly wish to have a solid discussion about it, why not start a thread on it?

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you call them "timid"? Do you believe they ought to be strident or vociferous or something?

No I don't question their timidity or it's reasons. If they acknowledge being atheists but don't like being called atheists out of some fear, they are clearly different than those that don't like the current definition of atheism and it's application to them.

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe you know why you used the word "conflict" over and over again. You should listen to the podcast. It's worth a listen.

You should know why the term "conflict" is used, as it was pointed out very early on.

"having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action..."

"of or relating 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."

This is pretty much a textbook definition of the verbal use of the term conflict, as well as the third, fourth and fifth use of the term as a noun.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry to say that definitions cannot be contested. Definitions are never ever 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is to misunderstand the definition of 'definition'.
You can contest what is common usage of a definition, you can contest what was the original usage or the usage implied by the parts of a compound word etc.
As far as I can tell your initial obj ...[text shortened]... staken.
If you honestly wish to have a solid discussion about it, why not start a thread on it?

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition
a. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
b. A statement or description of the fundamental character or scope of something

So a statement of the meaning of a word can never ever be right or wrong?

If a definition is a special kind of statement are you sure that statements can never ever be right or wrong?

I'm in this thread because I feel the ambivalent atheists are at least partly people who contest the current definition of atheism.

Originally posted by googlefudge

You don't define the earth as the third planet from the sun in our solar system?

No, that' s an observation and not a definition.

If [when] Mercury's orbit destabilises and it flies out the solar system [or into the Sun] the
Earth wont stop being the Earth.

If we decide to extend the life span of the Earth by moving it farther o ...[text shortened]...
in fact huge lumps of rock/gas floating in space and that we were also on a planet of our own.

Please give your definition of the earth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry to say that definitions cannot be contested. Definitions are never ever 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is to misunderstand the definition of 'definition'.
You can contest what is common usage of a definition, you can contest what was the original usage or the usage implied by the parts of a compound word etc.
As far as I can tell your initial obj ...[text shortened]... staken.
If you honestly wish to have a solid discussion about it, why not start a thread on it?

Sorry to say that definitions cannot be contested. Definitions are never ever 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is to misunderstand the definition of 'definition'.
How about concepts?
Can they be contested?
Can we agree on contesting concepts?
When we contest concepts, our weapons will be words which are themselves, representative of concepts and which function as principal carriers of meaning.
Can we agree to the meaning of the words which are used in the contest of concepts?
If, after agreement on the meaning of the words, one of the combatants begins using one of the words in a fashion dissimilar to the agreed-upon meaning, can not the other combatants either cry foul and/or in similar fashion challenge the insertion of weapons not previously agreed upon?

Are we not gentlemen?

Originally posted by JerryH
No I don't question their timidity or it's reasons. If they acknowledge being atheists but don't like being called atheists out of some fear, they are clearly different than those that don't like the current definition of atheism and it's application to them.

You used to word "timid" over and over again. Do you believe that 'courage' somehow has to be factored in when people's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are surveyed? Do you believe that the word "ambivalent" as used in the podcast can be equated with 'fearful'?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You should know why the term "conflict" is used, as it was pointed out very early on.

"having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action..."

"of or relating to the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simult ...[text shortened]... rbal use of the term conflict, as well as the third, fourth and fifth use of the term as a noun.

So what "conflict" or "no conflict" are you referring to?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You should know why the term "conflict" is used, as it was pointed out very early on.

Early on? What page?

Originally posted by JerryH
So a statement of the meaning of a word can never ever be right or wrong?

Correct. Words simply do not have unique unchangeable meanings. Only in context and communication do they gain meaning and only between the parties communicating is meaning assigned to them.

If a definition is a special kind of statement are you sure that statements can never ever be right or wrong?
No, that is not what I said. In fact I find it strange that you would come up with such a ridiculous generalisation from what I said.

I'm in this thread because I feel the ambivalent atheists are at least partly people who contest the current definition of atheism.
A lot of people contest various definitions. (they are wrong to do so) There isn't really a 'current definition' because it has been contested so much. There is currently a range of definitions in use.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct. Words simply do not have unique unchangeable meanings. Only in context and communication do they gain meaning and only between the parties communicating is meaning assigned to them.

[b]If a definition is a special kind of statement are you sure that statements can never ever be right or wrong?
No, that is not what I said. In fact I find ...[text shortened]... nition' because it has been contested so much. There is currently a range of definitions in use.[/b]

Quote twhitehead
["Sorry to say that definitions cannot be contested. Definitions are never ever 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is to misunderstand the definition of 'definition'."]

Quote googlefudge
["No, that' s an observation and not a definition.

If [when] Mercury's orbit destabilises and it flies out the solar system [or into the Sun] the Earth wont stop being the Earth.

If we decide to extend the life span of the Earth by moving it farther out from the Sun as the Sun ages and expands and we swap places with Mars it wont stop being the Earth."]

You, googlefudge and others seem to be making the same error. You are confusing objects with their definitions.

The earth won't change in the sense the that googlefudge means it won't change when[if] Mercury's orbit destabilizes but it's definition will.

A definition is an imperfect attempt to capture the truth of an object. A definition can be wrong. A definition is made up of observations. A definition can and even must change as it approaches the ultimate truth of an object.

And yes concepts are also objects, which is definitely for another thread lol

Originally posted by FMF
Early on? What page?

What a troll.

First page, seventh post.
Do you ever actually engage in honest dialogue, or is it all this tripe?

Originally posted by FMF
I 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?

I'm asking about you, not the podcast. Care to answer the question?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What a troll.

First page, seventh post.
Do you ever actually engage in honest dialogue, or is it all this tripe?

All tripe, all the time.

But he seems damaged and not able to participate in actual back and forth conversation without the comfort of attempting to make his conversational partner, i.e. his "opponent", look as bad as possible. Sadly, many here are his students.