01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHThis person could label themselves as agnostic if that's what they want to do.
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.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHIf an atheist self-identifies as a 'secret' one because of lack of courage, then maybe that would be a good addition to the survey's terms of reference. But somebody ambivalent about their lack of belief is not necessarily "fearful"; they may lack appetite for theist/atheist discourse, they may be diplomatic - as opposed to confrontational - they may not be 'evangelical' about their belief system, they may not think their beliefs are important - or not important enough - to broadcast them or to seek to persuade others, and so on and so forth. I'm not sure why you are going on about them being "fearful" or "timid" or refusing to label themselves atheists.
A self-identified atheist fearful of the label is a timid atheist not an ambivalent atheist.
Originally posted by JerryHThis basically:
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.
These are some of the scenarios discussed in the podcast [as summarized by me on page 3]. In bold, after each one, is your analysis/label [as you expressed them on page 4] in each case.
podcast: Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief. ~ JerryH: Timid atheist
podcast: 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. ~ JerryH: Timid atheist
podcast: 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. ~ JerryH: Timid atheist
podcast: 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. ~ JerryH: Timid atheist
podcast: 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. ~ JerryH: Timid atheist
FMF: Why do you call them "timid"? Do you believe they ought to be strident or vociferous or something?
JerryH: No I don't question their timidity or it's reasons.
So you are clearly labelling all of them as "timid atheists". You don't dispute this, right? But when called on it you seem to deny it.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFTimid atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
This basically:
These are some of the scenarios discussed in the podcast [as summarized by me on page 3]. In bold, after each one, is your analysis/label [as you expressed them on page 4] in each case.
podcast: Ambivalent atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief. ~ JerryH: [b]Timid atheist
podc ...[text shortened]... m as "timid atheists". You don't dispute this, right? But when called on it you seem to deny it.[/b]
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
FMF: Why do you call them "timid"? Do you believe they ought to be strident or vociferous or something?
No I don't believe they ought anything but If one word is being used in the lines above I think timid fits better than ambivalent.
JerryH: No I don't question their timidity or it's reasons.
and I still don't.
So you are clearly labelling all of them as "timid atheists". You don't dispute this, right?
Nope no dispute.
But when called on it you seem to deny it.[/b]
I didn't realize you had called me on it. I may have misunderstood something you said.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHThe way I see it, the podcast is about the paucity of labels available to atheists when they self-identify and how, if greater nuance could be reflected in surveys, the resulting insights might shed more light on the nature of belief, lack of belief and resultant behaviour. The podcast speakers are in the business of being descriptive, I think, not prescriptive.
But is this type of person not labeled an ambivalent atheist in the podcast?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHTimid atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
Timid 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.
Look, I'm sorry. I think this is just nonsense.
I am no longer interested in loud and explicit declarations of my political opinions on the Debate Forum. You would describe this as me being "timid"?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFWas this Intended to end: I'm not sure why you are going on about them being "fearful" or "timid" [F]or refusing to label themselves atheists?
If an atheist self-identifies as a 'secret' one because of lack of courage, then maybe that would be a good addition to the survey's terms of reference. But somebody ambivalent about their lack of belief is not necessarily "fearful"; they may lack appetite for theist/atheist discourse, they may be diplomatic - as opposed to confrontational - they may not be 'eva ...[text shortened]... you are going on about them being "fearful" or "timid" or refusing to label themselves atheists.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFOver ambivalent? How are you defining ambivalent?
[b]Timid atheists are those who are not interested in loud and explicit declarations of their non-belief.
Timid 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.
Timid atheists are those ...[text shortened]... tions of my political opinions on the Debate Forum. You would describe this as me being "timid"?
01 Nov 15
This would be my definition of a "timid atheist": someone who had a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, or who had a belief that there is no God, and who showed or felt fear and a lack of confidence or courage or who was easily frightened or alarmed. Perhaps the sociologist, the ethnographer, and the philosopher in the podcast could add "secret atheist" and "fearful atheist" to available labels? I could probably agree to that.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHMixed feelings. Uncertain about or unable to ~ or feeling negatively about ~ entering into discourse about their lack of belief or confronting those with different beliefs. Or perhaps a fluctuation in desire to enter into all this. Or negative or unsympathetic feelings about the argumentation or behaviour of other people categorized in the same way. Being uncertain or unclear about how one feels about the need to share or discuss one's disbelief and therefore opting not to. You have my attempted definition of "timid atheist" above too.
Over ambivalent? How are you defining ambivalent?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHNo, of course not. I intended to end the post exactly as I did, although I will insert the word "them" to make it clearer, if it helps, as follows: "I'm not sure why you are going on about them being "fearful" or "timid" or them refusing to label themselves atheists." The "ambivalent atheists" I described (using the podcast's discussion as a guide) on page 3 are mostly not refusing to label themselves atheists.
Was this Intended to end: I'm not sure why you are going on about them being "fearful" or "timid" [F]or refusing to label themselves atheists?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFBy chance do you mean that in place of all the atheists marked ambivalent atheists in your list of 6 ambivalent atheists you would have some other description such as diplomatic atheists to be chosen on a survey?
The way I see it, the podcast is about the paucity of labels available to atheists when they self-identify and how, if greater nuance could be reflected in surveys, the resulting insights might shed more light on the nature of belief, lack of belief and resultant behaviour. The podcast speakers are in the business of being descriptive, I think, not prescriptive.