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.
petrushka, obviously, one should only have beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of this or that thing if one has some conception of what properties this or that thing is supposed to have. If somebody says “God is life” then that person’s ‘God’ is A-OK with me. There may be some concepts of God that I take no position on, but I DISBELIEVE IN (not HAVE NO BELIEF REGARING) Krishna, Jesus Christ, and Zeus.
As I understand the term, “atheism” involves active disbelieving, not just belief failure, because, e.g., the idea never dawned on one.
FWIW, I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing, but I’d be willing to bet my car on it not being anything Jesus Christ did.
Well, you’re certainly not going to “cut them down to size” by invoking Patrick’s pablum formula:
A completely legitimate response to that quote is “well, neither does my dog.”
Are you sure you want to be on the same low level as haystacks and dogs and pre-verbal toddlers when it comes to your lack of god-belief?
Apparently everyone is fighting about what atheism means and at the same time everyone believes that it is very wrong to even question anyone’s claim that they are one.
Am I the only one who finds that odd? I would think you would need a proper definition before you could be certain about that sort of thing
just a drive by
peace
I’ve already bet my eternal life on that. Hah! Beats your bet. 🙂
I mean, unless Jesus loves atheists the best after all. In which case, we’ll both be there to share the win.
Yes, I feel comfortable there, because I have positions on other topics that set me apart from dogs or toddlers, but that particular one doesn’t deserve, intellectually, more attention than the attention available to dogs or toddlers
hotshoe_,
Yes! People on this site often say things like “Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence.” Absolutely. The thing is, at some point the assertions become so extraordinary in my opinion that it becomes reasonable to believe they are false. When it becomes more likely that people are all nuts or that science is basically wrong than that the claim is true, it’s time to, you know, think the stuff is false and stop wussing.
That is not Patrick’s way, apparently.
Just takes enough attention to consider what the hell they’re actually asserting, IMO. But basically yeah.
From your mouth to God’s ea…..
Wait.
OMagain,
I think you can safely hypothesize that the changes in the Lenski experiment were random. The challenge to using this as macro evolutionary change is how many mutations were required for these changes. We did not get novel proteins, we got epigenetic modifications which have been observed before.
When you look at new origins like eukaryotic cells, fish, birds, mammals, primates to explain the mechanism you need to show how new protein sequences arrived, new splicing sequences arrived and new gene timing arrived. Mathematically it is hard to model more that 6 adaptions in reasonable time for fish birds mammals and primates because populations and time are much less then for bacteria.
I always knew we could get along. That is of course the Christian position
quote:
When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
(Col 3:4)
end quote:
Why must “Jesus Christ” and “Life” be mutually exclusive concepts?
last drive by
peace
There’s nothing incompatible in not believing in something and believing it’s false
fifthmonarchyman,
FMM, my friend, you and I don’t understand these terms the same way at all, I don’t think. But If you give me a complete definition of “God” as you understand it, I will tell you whether I believe God exists. If you think the term is synonymous with “life” as that term is defined in, say, Websters, we’re probably going to agree. I think though, that you mean more by “God” than I mean by “life.”
I feel bad hijacking Allan’s thread, though. We should probably continue elsewhere, if you want to talk about that.
And I’m sorry for all this stuff, Allan–although I think Patrick may have started it. I just said I disagreed with something he said, and one of his bulldogs went apeshit.
Of course they are not incompatible! It’s contradictory to both believe (in) something and also believe it’s false. The point is that believing P is false is more than not simply not believing P. Because, again, stones don’t believe P.
Let us be more than stones!
needs more work to become the Atheist battle cry.
That seems mostly right to me. I do wonder if that criterion can be lifted or softened in cases where someone is using a word like “God” as a metaphor to express some deeply felt existential orientation. That is, it would be functioning expressively rather than assertorically. It’s problematic that English uses the single word “belief” to cover quite different cognitive/affective states.
Assuming the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” even makes good sense as a question in the first place. I am still just barely enough of a Kantian to think that it doesn’t.
Perhaps Patrick can tell us where to look in his brain for his “lack of belief in God or gods.” I want objective empirical evidence.
Frankie,
Oh, so we can pick and choose? OK, fuck the USSC’s ruling on atheism then. Excellent work Joe.
walto,
One has to hear the proposition in order to take a position on it. But I don’t know how ‘active’ that really is. To return to the OP, I’m a disbeliever in chemtrails, where once I was unaware that anyone thought there was such a thing. I’m not agnostic on chemtrails – I think the idea is bollocks. Likewise God.
Exactly.
+2
walto,
No, you claimed that Patrick was confusing belief with knowledge when in fact he was carefully distinguishing the two.
Where “went apeshit” means “corrected walto”.
I know you dislike mirrors, walto, but try rereading our exchange, paying attention to who actually “goes apeshit” (complete with false quotemining accusation) and who doesn’t.
And yet were I to point to to research showing that proteins tend to gain domains over time, becoming progressively longer and that many proteins are made of domains of different age, and that the fastest evolving parts correspond to the domains that have been acquired more recently would that be of interest?
Or would you find some new objection?
colewd,
No, the changes were genetic.
Why do you think there was an ‘origin’ as such, rather than a long series of divergent modifications from common ancestors?
Why would you need more than a couple, for modelling purposes? It’s fairly obvious that a process that can fix a couple is not going to just stop dead, unless mutation ceases and/or the environment becomes unrealistically static (which will not turn off drift).
Maybe, but the stuff that puzzles me of his on this thread (in addition to the confusion I’ve already point out) is this:
It’s my understanding that such “objective evidence” as one can give for (unstipulated) definitions one happens to like will generally be found in common usage–although if it forms part of some scientific theory other support may be given).
I don’t think Patrick’s claims here have either type of warrant, and I challenge him to provide empirical back-up for these categorical claims of his regarding the orthagonality of those items on his spectrum, etc. (though, not being a member of the “new order” I don’t require that he retract his claims if he doesn’t want to or can’t do so).
If, OTOH, these definitions are simply stipulations of his, they are neither true nor false, but on the order of “Let x = 7”. Patrick is perfectly free to make such stipulations, of course, but if that’s what he’s doing, his claims that one can or can’t be a this or a that if so and so, or that one is an atheist so long as one lacks this or that belief ought not to be stated as if they were a kind of factual claim–suggesting that people who disagreed are wrong or confused. These assertions would in that case just be remark about a (somewhat confusing, IMO) linguistic preference of his.
Where’s the empirical support?
walto,
I took Patrick’s stipulations to be such that one can say, “I believe that God doesn’t exist, but I lack sufficient justification for that belief” or “I believe that God does exist, but I lack sufficient justification for that belief” — the atheist agnostic and theist agnostic, respectively — as well as the gnostic complements of those positions.
My main reservation about Patrick’s stipulation is that it seems to exclude the possibility of a pure or radical agnosticism that is perfectly neutral about the existence of God. That could seem like a difficult position to maintain, and it seems to require a complementary affective disposition to find that the question of the reality of God to be utterly uninteresting. To be indifferent to the question of God, what I like to call (not my own invention) “apatheism”, is part of and perhaps necessary for radical agnosticism.
Could be, KN. My point is that, If they’re stipulations, they ought not to be asserted as if they are true, and that those who don’t like them are wrong.
Neuroscientists create ‘atlas’ showing how words are organised in the brain.
Bruce! What should we read at Quick? I want you to pick!
You’re conflating logic and politics. Logically we are there. There is no more evidence for gods than there is for leprechauns. That an unfortunate number of people still believe in such nonsense has nothing to do with the fact that either belief is equally unjustified.
“I believe that there isn’t any god” is not an accurate summary of my view. As I’ve said here before, I’ve never been presented with any objective, empirical evidence supporting the claim that a god or gods exist. I therefore have no reason to take such entities into consideration.
Further, as I’ve also said previously, I have never been presented with even a definition of a god or gods that is not either internally contradictory or inconsistent with what we observe. The Christian god worshipped by biblical literalists, for example, cannot exist because the bible contains a large number of internal contradictions. The definition of that entity is incoherent. The god worshipped by young Earth creationists also cannot exist, because the Earth is demonstrably more than 10,000 years old. Again, the definition references something that cannot actually exist.
It’s not appropriate to describe my attitude towards those specific claims as lack of belief. There is simply nothing to believe or disbelieve in.
None of that means that it isn’t logically possible for someone to provide evidence supporting the existence of a being worthy of the description “god”, of course. Since it’s never been done in recorded history, it’s not the way to bet, but the possibility means that “I lack belief in any god or gods.” is a rational position.
Words have meanings. When someone says “I’m an atheist.”, the only information being conveyed is that that person lacks belief in a god or gods. That’s it. Atheists are found all over the political spectrum and have a wide variety of other beliefs, both rational and irrational. The only characteristic we share is lack of belief in a god or gods.
Both the Atheism+ movement and PZ “The Toxic Atheist” Myers have tried to claim the word for their particular combination of anti-theism and authoritarian politics. They’ve failed. Atheists are a diverse group.
I agree that the subset of atheists who are “Godless and Proud” should have a description for themselves. Actually, “Godless and Proud” is a damn good one. If you want something shorter, “anti-theist” or “freethinker” are also good.
Those don’t describe all atheists, though. Our defining characteristic is lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more.
No, atheism simply means lack of belief in a god or gods. What you’re describing is sometimes called “strong atheism” or “gnostic atheism”.
The reason I wrote my orignal post on The A Word is because I’d like to see the stigma removed from the word “atheist”. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson describe themselves as “agnostic” despite lacking any belief in gods. That lack of belief makes them atheists by definition, but they’re extremely resistant to using the word. Part of the reason for that is that theists have been successful in stigmatizing it, with the help of some particularly obnoxious atheists.
“Agnostic” is not on the spectrum between “theist” and “atheist”. As it is currently used by people like Tyson, it really translates to “I’m not religious but I don’t want to piss off those who are.” It’s a cop out. Either you believe in gods or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re an atheist.
Trying to tie atheism to other positions perpetuates the stigma.
Well put. Fighting political battles requires different approaches, but in a rational discussion the utter lack of evidence for any god or gods means there’s literally no reason to consider them.
You could just follow the site rules and assume that I’m posting in good faith and being honest.
If you find a way to confirm to external observers that you really, actually believe the nonsense you claim to believe, I’ll be happy to take the same test. Frankly, the idea that someone is capable of living in the modern world while still believing the myths of bronze and iron age goat herders seems to me to require more support.
Logical possibility has nothing to do with anything. I don’t suspend disbelief regarding every logically possible entity. No rational person should.
Where may one find the “objective empirical evidence’ for the claims you are putting with utter confidence in this post? Many of them seem false to me.
Try to understand that some people disagree with you about what ‘atheism’ means, patrick. I’ll bet you can do this if you try really hard! Your repeated assertions are no more evidence than Erik’s claims regarding Biblical literalism that irked you so much.
You might lead by example, patrick. What’s your evidence for your odd insistence about how people ought to use the word ‘atheism’?
walto:
walto, earlier:
Try to understand that some people disagree with you about what ‘atheism’ means, walto. 🙂
Too funny.
My original post was simply to point out the difference between belief and knowledge. One could, I suppose, feel that one’s knowledge of gods is perfectly balanced between “I know at least one god exists” and “I don’t know if any gods exist”, but that’s quite the knife edge to balance on. Belief is different, either one believes in a god or one does not, at any given point in time.
Apatheism would be my preferred state. Unfortunately, the theists are still far too aggressive in the political realm here in the U.S.
Not really that funny, sorry As I indicated several times, I was expressing my own preferred usage. Patrick is doing that too–he just doesn’t realize it, and thinks he’s uttering deep truths.
BTW, does he pay you to defend him? The real humor is with the antics of your little kindy club. Go Mouseketeers! Don’t worry, patrick–Keiths will protect you!
walto,
That was after you barged in and insisted that your usage was the correct usage:
Try to reverse the order, walto. Think first, then post.
Debated where Joe? Here on TSZ? Of course I understand that what’s you want to debate, but again, for my work and literally hundreds of actual working science areas, the debate is irrelevant. There’s nothing to consider in terms of “guided evolution” because such isn’t a valid concept scientifically. Unless you do some actual work to demonstrate some actual relevance, it’s just moot.
Except most of didn’t learn about ID from blogs. I’ve read Dembski. I’ve read Johnson. I’ve read Behe. All of their talking points have nothing to do with science. Once again, moot from an actual scientific work standpoint.
But it’s just a claim. There’s no actual scientific work showing it has any validity as a concept.
I think Patrick confuses atheism with anti-theism. He is an anti-theist. But even then I think his position makes no sense, because, as he says, he doesn’t know what it is that he is actually against. I would think that he would argue that there are no theists. Perhaps he’s an a-theists.
Yes, well, they are wrong.
I came across a post yesterday where someone sent a letter to one of the online philosophy sites complaining about their definition of atheism and asking that it be changed because it was being used by theists against the Patrick-brand of atheists. *whine*
And then there was the article saying you can’t trust the dictionaries on this because they are written by theists.
Oy.
Grrr yip yip yip!
Objective empirical evidence, Patrick. Isn’t that what matters most to you, or is that just a club you use to beat others with?
Patrick’s ape gone batshit?
I’ve heard that there is free beer in heaven, if that helps anyone change their mind.
His little yorkie failing to understand what “in my own idiolect” means, but loving and protecting his master for all that.
It’s very sweet to see.