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.
Wait a minute. YEC is based on christianity. So you would be saying Christianity is full of pig headed people. (unless your kidding). Then everyone could say this, and did, about everyones faith. Which would mean almost everyone or everyone since non believers are also in faith.
YEC would say evolutionism is insisted in without evidence to fill the glove comparment.
Whee is the biological scientific evidence for a biological hypothesis of operations from start to finish? Its like a conspiracy of silence as this YEC sees it and anyone who pays careful attention.
Sure there are conspiracy’s. By the way the merits of a conspiracy is that it is hidden and/or denied.
The American Suprem court said there was a conspiracy to interfere with people based on race/sex and so this led to the rejection of the peoples rights to employment etc until things were fixed.
There was no actual trial on the Americans but a decisaion was made and now rules the land justifying affirmative action.
I agree there is a interference as the judges all were selected on identity.
however I disagree there is a conspiracy in the Americans against race/sex for jobs etc.
Yet the court said there was.
Conspiracy’s are real and its about plausibility of which are real.
Robert Byers,
Not really. YEC is based on Old Testament literalism, not Christianity at all.
No, we’re not. Quite the opposite, actually.
In a world where “looks designed” is evidence, I suppose.
But then there’s reality…
Glen Davidson
Since theists seem to like arguing from definitions, here’s a definition of faith:
1. allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
2a. belief and trust in and loyalty to God
2b. firm belief in something for which there is no proof
3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction
And belief:
1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2. a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
I think these can be stretched to imply that skeptics and atheists have a strong conviction that empiricism gets results and increases the store of knowledge about how things work.
It involves stretching third definitions beyond their usual bounds.
YEC is based on both testaments. the new is full of presumption that the old was true.Jesus constantly talks about origins and the others.
Even for a non believer it must be so or a option the writers of the NEW presumed their audience and themselves believe in the OLD testament.
God gave the best and most famous definition for faith.
FAITH is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence for things not seen.
So atheism is a faith because its a conclusion about something not seen. One does not see that there is no creator, as he would be invisible, but being convinced could only be faith.
Right or wrong.
Even if by accident, sometimes it comes out so appropriately.
Glen Davidson
Definitely full of it.
Robert Byers,
The ‘C’ part is based on the New, the ‘YE’ part on the old. You were asserting something along the lines that, if YEC is ‘pig-headed’, all of Christianity is. That doesn’t follow.
The ‘trailers were particularly busy this morning. About a dozen, criss-crossed, non-subliming as I came down the motorway. They’re up to no good I tells ya.
I see.
And the one correct Biblical interpretation of divorce would be…
No, atheism is a lack of belief. It’s refusing to draw a conclusion in the absence of any evidence.
My own atheism is somewhat stronger than that. For many standard conceptions of God, I believe there is no God.
I don’t think of piles of hay as atheists because they fail to believe in God.
I believe all revelations are bogus. I don’t think that says anything one way or another about the existence of god. Nor is my disbelief anything like proof. We’ve had thousands of years without proof, and I suspect we’ll get through a few more without proof.
Yet in drawing a atheist conclusion one has drawn a conclusion.
you don’t know there is no God. how would you know? you only say you see no evidence. Yet what that look like unless he was walking around?
Since most do conclude in God(s) then its all the more obvious its a conclusion to say no to a God.
If there was no evidence it would no mean there is no God. Just no evidence.
Yet athesism means no belief in a God. A conclusion surely.
That is not what atheism means. Read my post on that.
Bald is not a hair color, off is not a television channel, and atheism is not a faith.
Patrick, your post on that confuses belief and knowledge. Believing p doesn’t entail knowing that p or being justified that p.
walto:
walto,
Are we reading the same OP? Patrick distinguishes belief from knowledge within the first three sentences:
Yes, that is the remark that suggests the confusion right there. You don’t need to know that God doesn’t exist to believe God doesn’t exist. I think Patrick is confused about that.
walto,
No, he got it right.
True, and that’s exactly what Patrick is saying. Read his words again:
No. Piles of hay don’t believe in god either. Not believing something can’t make an atheist. You seem as confused as Patrick.
Or the inability to assess the evidence.
walto,
It’s a simple matter of reading comprehension.
You claim that Patrick is confusing knowledge with belief, when in fact he explicitly distinguishes the two:
It is the status of their beliefs, not the state of their knowledge, that distinguishes atheists from theists.
The warrant issue is entirely separate–or would be, if you two weren’t conflating th existence of a belief with its warrant.
This is largely a definitional quibble, but do you think rocks are atheists? How about newborns? I don’t care for definitions that aren’t consistent with the intuition that they aren’t. I actually prefer to call them agnostic, and I guess you and patrick join them in their lack of beliefs.
walto,
Again, this is a simple question of reading comprehension.
You claimed that
In fact, Patrick was careful to distinguish belief from knowledge:
The confusion was yours, walto, not his.
I think I’m confused about your quibble too, Walto. To my way of thinking, rocks and piles of hay have no capacity to “believe” things, let alone “know” things, so I’m not sure what your question is supposed to point out. Newborns strike me as being in a similar boat, though from some things I’ve read they do at least have some capacity to “know” things; believing is completely outside their capability however. So rocks, piles of hay, and newborns cannot be atheists since none of them can believe things, let alone believe things about god(s).
And from a definitional standpoint, atheism does mean not believing in God or gods.
Agnosticism is the perspective that while it’s possible that god(s) could exist, there is insufficient evidence to know either way.
So I’m curious, can you elaborate a bit on why you think Keiths and Patrick are confusing belief and knowledge?
No. The failure in comprehension (and the utter confusion) is your own. Much as I’d love to hash out this quibble with you indefinitely, I leave you and your buddy to wallow.
Patrick says (rightly) that one can be an atheist without knowing or proving that there is no God. But it doesn’t follow from that that one need have no beliefs about the matter to be an atheist. The questions are separate.
I like your definition of “agnosticism”: it seems to characterize Patrick’s position on the matter. My preferred def of “atheism” makes it require a belief (whether warranted or not–that’s what they’re confused about) that there is no God. As indicated, however, this is mostly a quibble: people can define their terms however they want, so long as they’re consistent. It’s just that, to the extent one can capture ordinary usage, it’s obviously sensible to do so.
walto,
That’s right. He distinguishes belief from knowledge, yet you claim he is confusing the two.
That was a quote mine, keiths.
Well no, it isn’t.
Rather, it is a disagreement over the meaning of “atheist”.
Patrick accepts that a haystack is atheist, while walto thinks that “atheist” implies a more than that.
Right, although one could amend the definition, as Robin suggested, to knock out haystacks. Just depends how much trouble one wants to take on the matter.
I’ve given this issue all of the thought that it deserves.
Glen Davidson
Ok. I agree with you that it doesn’t follow that one need have no beliefs to be an atheist, but the way I read Patrick’s comment, he’s just using the statement, “I do not believe that any gods exist” as a clause describing what he means by the term “atheist”.
Got it. That makes sense to me.
Still, I don’t think that Patrick was qualifying his position on being an atheist, but rather simply defining what he meant by the use of the term.
My summary assumed the context of beliefs and knowledge held by human beings. I didn’t intend my post to be proof against pedantry.
The core point is that atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive belief that gods definitely do not exist. It is no more a faith than not collecting stamps is a hobby, as the old saw goes.
Patrick,
The USSC disagrees
walto,
No, it wasn’t. The sentence I quoted (in bold) retains its meaning in context:
keiths:
Neil:
Sure it is. If walto had understood Patrick’s clear words, he wouldn’t have claimed that
The problem was a lack of reading comprehension on walto’s part.
Frankenfail. “… for First Amendment purposes….”
It’s the addition of “definitely” there that confuses this issue. One can believe that gods don’t exist without asserting that one knows or can prove that gods “definitely” don’t exist. The question is whether atheism requires a belief (not knowledge) that there are no Gods. I say it does–although, again, nothing of any importance rides on it.
ETA: also, while one could fix the definition as Robin has suggested, I don’t think adding “human being” is sufficient. Babies aren’t atheists; nor are adults who have never considered the issue. As I said, it all depends on how much trouble one wants to take on this. Much simpler, IMO, to say that atheists believe there is no God.
Wow, what a stupid post, keiths. Try to understand this issue, if you can: it’s really not that difficult.
It is pretty pointless, unless one is interested in the ethics of belief (“axiology”)–i.e., what are the alleged responsibilities associated with believing this or that.
It is apparently important to keiths and patrick to connect a belief that there is no god with having some sort of warrant for that belief. But weird things are important to some people here.
walto,
Patrick did not confuse belief with knowledge; he distinguished the two:
You made another mistake. Get over it.
His mistake was obviously too subtle for you to understand it. Let it sit awhile, maybe you’ll get it eventually.
Incidentally, I completely agree that being an atheist does not mean that one has knowledge or proof that no gods exist. But being right about that doesn’t mean one is not confused about the relations of belief and knowledge (Something else you can puzzle through when you feel up to it.)
Richardthughes,
Heh heh. A federal court, meantime, ruled that ID was religiously motivated, and ‘nothing less than the progeny of creationism‘. If we’re going on court rulings …
Neither one of them is a true atheist. And neither one of them is a true skeptic.
🙂
You may be right about that, mung.
There is no objective empirical evidence that Patrick lacks any belief in God or gods, nor could there be any such evidence. So I don’t believe Patrick when he says he’s an atheist.
RichieFAILs to make its case, again. How predictable