A Facebook friend of mine is a conspiracy nut. She was tagged in a post by a friend of hers, so up in my ‘news’ feed comes a post offering incontrovertible evidence that persistent contrails are in fact chemical spraying of the populace or the planet for nefarious purposes. I was dimly aware of this notion but was taken aback when encountering such people in the (virtual) flesh.
People who don’t buy it are portrayed as ‘ignorant’ or ‘duped’, and are urged to open their eyes and their minds to the Obvious Truth. Just Look Up! A rash of ‘proof’ videos gets posted in comments. If the statements were subsequently retracted, they’ve been ‘got at’. If they admit hoax, they’ve been got at or it was all part of the plot. The world is sharply divided into Believers and Non-Believers; the latter are either ‘sheeple’ or part of the Disinformation Plot. There is no conceivable evidence that can convince a Believer that they err, that the trails have a simple physical explanation, or that there is not a massive international Them out to get us. Non-believers could be convinced, but their evidential standards are clearly different. Yet both sides wrangle on, certain that if they can just find the right form of words, the other will see sense.
This all has a familiar ring.
To me, conspiracy theories don’t even get out of the starting gate because of basic human nature. The implausibility of a sustainable conspiracy involving even a handful of people with no blabbing, pricked conscience or deathbed confession, is enough to dismiss the entire lot. In the case of chemtrails we have airlines, airports, security allowing tankers airside, mechanics, ATC, airplane breakers yards, chemical factories, transportation, governments of every conceivable political hue, including those whose relations extend only to grudgingly allowing each others’ planes to land … tens of thousands of people having supposed knowledge of and complicity in the spraying of toxins on family, friends, neighbours or foreign nationals (and, incidentally, on Them), in a co-ordinated manner coming in from all points of the compass. Yet none of these people carries a smartphone? This elaborate hogwash is preferred over the physical explanation, that under certain atmospheric conditions contrails (like clouds) persist. It’s an approach to evidence I cannot even begin to comprehend. It beggars belief that people should subscribe to such tosh, but subscribe they do, in droves. One sees some amusing exchanges – such as here, where a surprising number of people takes it seriously, and is subjected in return to some hilariously deadpan responses (“Who needs mass vaccination anyway?” “You do”). Of course such sites, to the committed, are part of the disinformation plot, to make chemtrailers look ridiculous (!). It stops being funny when one sees people so incensed by the ‘poisoning’ to which they believe they are subjected that they advocate violence to pilots and planes. I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone takes action.
I know that some here have supported one conspiracy or another, so I thought an OP may generate some interest.
Oh boy :/
Neil:
Patrick:
So do I. There are plenty of people who consider themselves atheists, but don’t think that it’s particularly important.
Patrick:
walto:
walto,
Then you’ll be retracting this statement, correct?
Except that the word “God” is a meaningless concept for me. “God” conveys no meaning as a word to me.
My state is one of indifference. When someone can start a little on the path of explaining what “God” means or if someone stumbles across an entailment or two, maybe then I’ll need to give “God” some more consideration.
I like KN’s word, apatheism.
Alan, Apathy (again) suggests to me something that MIGHT care but just happens not to. If we want to include haystacks as well as those people who have never considered the subject at all, I prefer ‘non-theism’. Seems broader to me.
I’ll trot out an old word that used to be good for a few laughs, and lynchings.
Nonconformist.
You seem to be conflating my definition of atheism with my personal beliefs. Allow me to clear up the confusion.
The essential characteristic that allows one to categorize a person as either atheist or theist is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s the one position shared (or rather not shared) by everyone who identifies as an atheist. It is also shared by some people who prefer not to self-identify as atheists. While I respect their right to label themselves, those people still meet the criteria.
My personal position is that I have never been presented with any objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods. In fact, I’ve never been presented with a definition of a god or gods that is both internally consistent and not disconfirmed by objective, empirical evidence. Accordingly, I lack belief in any such putative entities.
With regard to the two examples I mentioned, the god described by a literal reading of the Christian bible and the god that is claimed to have created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago, the first is internally contradictory and the second is disconfirmed by the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines. Since they are unequivocally demonstrated not to exist, I’m not sure if it makes sense to talk about belief with regard to them.
Sure, and I look forward to the day when atheism is as lacking in social stigma as not stamp collecting. Unfortunately we’re nowhere near that point yet. That’s why I think it’s important to point out that atheism only means lack of belief in a god or gods. We’re not Satanists or baby eaters or even flaming assholes on the Internet. We’re your neighbors, friends, and family members who just happen not to share some of your beliefs.
Me either. Perhaps someday a theist will present an internally consistent and externally coherent definition of an entity that is worthy of that word, but I haven’t seen it yet.
It would be nice to get to the point in the U.S. where that is an option. It’s certainly my preference.
Subjective agodism. Who care what you [subjectively] find meaningless.
I actually thought that given your previous pronouncements here at TSZ you were an “I lack belief atheist.”
I’m more than willing to countenance the proposition that you were equivocating or lying.