31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFUnremarkable is that you're as out of touch with reality in this instance as you are with any other aspect of social communication. Comes from being a battle-scarred veteran of the forum combat, I'd wager. Complete with "shell-shock" when attempting to have a normal conversation.
She's just in blurt-swish mode, I think. 😛
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps because you've never fully answered the question to ANYone's satisfaction.
No. This is something you have asked me before - several times - and each time I've answered it, you have just ignored it.
You have spoken, in derogatory fashion, of certain people's "God figures". This easily leads one to believe that you do not have a belief in their God. Who IS your God, then? And exactly what IS your "religion"? Every single time you post about religion, it could be easily assumed that you do NOT believe in a "God".
So if you don't mind, answer the question for the first time, please. Who is your God and what is your religion? As a "non-atheist" this should be child's play. It is what it is. Just lay aside your knee-jerk reaction to hide behind semantics long enough to actually answer the question this time.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAren't definitions critical to the scientific method?
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?
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks for the interruption, and passing him ammunition under the table. 🙂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.
Yes, he's mentioned being a "non-Christian theist". Further illumination has escaped us all, mainly because he hasn't provided it.
And trainers, please stay behind the ropes.
Originally posted by JerryHNo. The Earth is simply the name we give to the world we live on. The rest of the information you supply is descriptive and doesn't form part of the definition.
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat would colonists from Earth to Mars say to "What is the definition of Earth?" It is not the planet on which they live.
No. The Earth is simply the name we give to the world we live on. The rest of the information you supply is descriptive and doesn't form part of the definition.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFWho are the ambivalent atheists of the podcast? I see them as those nonreligious in the survey who don't call themselves atheists because they are undecided that they are atheists. Those that don't call themselves atheists simply because they fear some repercussion are fearful atheists and not ambivalent atheists in my opinion. No I don't equate ambivalent with fearful and I don't think the podcast should have either. Did they? They seem to have.
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'?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHjospehw's post? josephw hadn't even listened to the podcast - and probably still hasn't. Have you listened to it yet? What "conflict" or "no conflict" are you referring to?
What a troll.
First page, seventh post.
Do you ever actually engage in honest dialogue, or is it all this tripe?
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's neither "complimentary" nor "derogatory". If you want to discuss "ambivalent atheist" - as a way people can label themselves and differentiate the nature of their convictions - as discussed in the podcast, then please just listen to the podcast. The term "ambivalent" is not "complimentary". And nor is it "derogatory".
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 SuzianneI have answered it head on numerous occasions. Here is a copy paste of a recent occasion:
So if you don't mind, answer the question for the first time, please. Who is your God and what is your religion? As a "non-atheist" this should be child's play. It is what it is. Just lay aside your knee-jerk reaction to hide behind semantics long enough to actually answer the question this time.
"I am a non-Christian/former Christian. Indeed, I am not a religionist of any kind. I don't see myself as an atheist because I feel an unclear and inexplicable instinct that there is a God.
I have no specific "beliefs" rooted in this instinctive belief ~ which perhaps can be referred to as deism ~ and there are no superstitions or notions of the supernatural that I know of or act upon in any way, let alone proselytize. Perhaps the "instinct" is hard wired into us - like morality - or only some of us - and/or its a product of factors that have had a bearing on our evolution. I really don't know for sure.
For example, I have no reason to believe there is an afterlife as there is no evidence of it. I am not aware of any revelation that God has made or of there being any 'instructions' for mankind.
I find the religions, such as those propagated here, completely unconvincing, although I attribute their putative attractions and purported functions as an understandable product of the human condition. None of the Christian proselytizers in this community are persuasive - in fact I find most of their mind maps and behaviour completely counter productive.
I do not "hope" that there will be a revelation as that strikes me as a rather spurious use of the human spirit; the same goes for contemplation of forms of immortality that there is no reason to think exists.
I am quite happy and reconciled with the fact that I will pass away in a decade or two from now, indeed I believe that its finite nature is in part what makes life delicious and wonderful.
I might say something different if I was due to die next week, but broadly speaking I am not interested in trying to soften the inevitability of death by subscribing to religion and dwelling on the peddled mumbo jumbo of ecclesiastical technocrats and their followers.
I am not interested in hoping for supernatural things to happen in order deal with real life. Personally I think it is a squandering of the amazing capacities of the human spirit which ~ perhaps ~ no one knows for sure ~ is God given."
Originally posted by JerryHWho are the ambivalent atheists of the podcast? I see them as those nonreligious in the survey who don't call themselves atheists because they are undecided that they are atheists. Those that don't call themselves atheists simply because they fear some repercussion are fearful atheists and not ambivalent atheists in my opinion. No I don't equate ambivalent with fearful and I don't think the podcast should have either. Did they? They seem to have.
The term "ambivalent atheists", it is proposed, could be used by self-identified atheists who [...now insert here my synopsis of the podcast's descriptions that I offered on page 3].
You may seek to call them "timid", and then say that you're not saying they are "timid", or you may want to appear to be questioning their courage and then say that you're not questioning their courage, or you say they don't want to call themselves atheists but then you concede that they do, or you say that they are fearful and then also say that you're not saying their fearful, but that disorganized rejection is something I would suggest you perhaps refine.
If you don't think that terminology which can help differentiate between a strident atheist like Richard Dawkins and atheists who are not motivated or interested (or even particularly able) to propagate their lack of belief or confront theist beliefs, then maybe you're not the kind of person who should be involved in surveying and mapping the nature and exercise of people's beliefs - which is something the people in the podcast are.
Perhaps you shouldn't use the term "ambivalent atheist" then. But I can't see how your opposition to it - and all your talk of "timid" people - has much to do with the discussion cited in the OP.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFA nonreligious person undecided over the current definition of atheist and unwilling to accept atheist as a label is reasonable called an ambivalent atheist by the people of the podcast under the definition of atheism that they hold. They are wrong but I understand them tacking ambivalent on top of their error.
[b]Who are the ambivalent atheists of the podcast? I see them as those nonreligious in the survey who don't call themselves atheists because they are undecided that they are atheists. Those that don't call themselves atheists simply because they fear some repercussion are fearful atheists and not ambivalent atheists in my opinion. No I don't equate ambivalent wi ...[text shortened]... o it - and all your talk of "timid" people - has much to do with the discussion cited in the OP.
A self-identified atheist is not ambivalent over atheism. A self-identified atheist fearful of the label is a timid atheist not an ambivalent atheist. The podpeople calling fearful atheists ambivalent atheists are now so wrong I should explode. 🙂
I don't understand, quote FMF "You may seek to call them "timid", and then say that you're not saying they are "timid", or you may want to appear to be questioning their courage and then say that you're not questioning their courage..." If you could quote where you think I've gone forth and then come back it would help.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHThe podcast, I think, is about how atheists could label themselves when information about their beliefs is being canvassed.
A nonreligious person undecided over the current definition of atheist and unwilling to accept atheist as a label is reasonable called an ambivalent atheist by the people of the podcast under the definition of atheism that they hold. They are wrong but I understand them tacking ambivalent on top of their error.
A self-identified atheist is not ambivalent o ...[text shortened]... courage..." If you could quote where you think I've gone forth and then come back it would help.