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.
Hmm. Will I also be able to drink beer again?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/phdkhxlIAXk/hqdefault.jpg
I’m really mad this time!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/phdkhxlIAXk/hqdefault.jpg
You are prepared to defend this assertion, correct? You actually believe there is no evidence for the existence of God. You claim to know this.
But you also want to claim that we are wrong to say that you believe that God does not exist. I’m not buying it.
Mung’s account appears to have been hijacked by frankenjoe.
Why don’t you just man up and admit your “objective empirical evidence” test isn’t meant for you, it’s meant for others?
Might if it were real beer.
Glen Davidson
It’s prolly indistinguishable from Coors Light.
– from a National Kidney Foundation t-shirt I’ve got.
Please just respond to his doggie.
The problem is there are too many theists, all just a little bit different. Arguing with all y’all is like playing whack-a-mole. Fortunately you all have the same amount of evidence for their beliefs.
Heaven as an eternal April Fools prank.
Glen Davidson
You’ll note that I wrote that I have never been presented with any objective, empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing. If you’ve got any, please present it.
Allan Miller,
I am referring to the ability to consume citrate in an aerobic condition. This was enabled through transcription of an existing enzyme.
I am calling these events origin events because there is not an identified mechanism for transition due to the dramatic biochemical changes required. For your last question changes like chimp to man are observed to require novel proteins DNA timing changes and splicing changes that are more than a few adaptions. With macro changes like exon shuffling or HGT you still need modified sequences.
Patrick, you also wrote
Maybe those who believe something “sacred” is revealed to them on occasion deserve the same sort of treatment you’d like for your views about, e.g., what you mean when you say something? I mean, even if they may not be right when they believe that?
Everybody’s often wrong, you know, with or without “objective, empirical evidence”–whatever that is, exactly.
OMagain,
Yes, if accompanied with an observed mechanism it would be.
EML4-ALK, or Philadelphia chromosome
Hey, they aren’t exactly adaptive, but it was an observed mechanism that you asked for…
Heh. I’ll bet my eternal soul that Patrick can’t do that.
We already know that using the dictionary definition of “atheism” won’t convince Patrick that he is anything other than 100% infallibly correct.
Most dictionaries provide a definition like this:
Well, dictionaries are always behind the times, and like I already said, I think Patrick is trying to be the advanced standard bearer for a (perhaps-to-be) future where “atheism” means nothing more or less than “lack of belief” rather than positive “disbelief”.
Indeed, Urban Dictionary notes this:
Given that the vast majority of world population are god-believers, we clearly live in a cultural consensus where UD #2 wins, (even while there is growing awareness that def#1 might be valid).
Really, Patrick and his ilk should have invented another term instead of hijacking the one we already have as a culture.
But of course, cultural-consensus arguments will be no more moving to Patrick than dictionary-definition arguments will be. We already see that.
That’s not what I’ve heard
🙂 🙂
It isn’t just Patrick.
I find this “stones lack beliefs so they must be atheist” sort of childish TBH. They also lack melanin, does that mean they’re albino too?
I note that both the Urban dictionary and the “official” dictionary place Partick’s definition (non belief) numerically before the positive assertion that there are no gods. In the old days, definitions were numbered by frequency of usage.
I find it odd that there are so many black and white arguers here. I would have expected a bit more playfulness, a little more recognition of orthogonal thinking.
Pastafarians have a beer volcano and stripper factories… beat that
Is that towards me? because I explicitly said it wasn’t just Patrick …
but it’s still an almost-invisible minority of world culture who accept the definition of “atheist” which Patrick advances.
In a world where people are brutally hacked to death for identifying as “atheist”, the term shouldn’t be hijacked by Patrick and his ilk to mean something as insignificant as mere lack of belief.
Including you in “ilk” if you’re going along with Patrick here.
What official dictionary are you looking at?
Not Merriam-Webster, which is the one I used (and which is the top of page when I asked google to “define atheism”.
I’m not sure I have an ilk.
I contend that it is other atheists, like your good self, who are attempting to coopt the word. I’m using it as inclusively as possible. What word do you suggest that includes those who simply lack belief, those who are positive no gods exist, those who are anti-theist, those who are “Godless and Proud”, and those who combine one or more of those positions with various political views?
I say they’re all atheists. Their defining characteristic is that they don’t have a belief in any gods. That’s all one can reasonably conclude from the statement “I am an atheist.”
Do the factories make strippers or are they staffed by strippers?
(Purely intellectual curiosity, I assure you.)
Of course you would contend that. In spite of all historical evidence, you would contend that.
Self-awareness has never looked to be your strong suit, Patrick.
walto loses his bet.
More.
Next result on google page (after Urban Dictionary, which I already showed)
Dictionary.com:
thefreedictionary.com (compiled from Colliers, American Heritage, Webster’s)
So the evidence supports me that “atheism” is generally used to mean disbelief, not mere lack of belief.
Contra Patrick, and petrushka, and whomever else wants to join the namby-pamby brigade.
Then I ask again, what do you call the superset of people who share the characteristic of lacking belief in gods?
I’m willing to take the political fight to anyone who tries to impose their sectarian beliefs on the public. What I’m not interested in doing is restricting who may call themselves an atheist. That’s your approach.
I’ve said throughout that one is free to pick their favorite definitions here. It’s Patrick who has pontificated (providing no “objective evidence) that his and only his are correct.
I see that now Patrick is taking the position that his definition is best for political reasons. Can we get some evidence for that theory now?
Oh, finally you’re asking the right question!
Yes, yes, we do need a term for that superset of people.
You’re the smart one. Why don’t you invent a valid term? You’re smart enough not to have to hijack the historical/cultural basis of my positive identity.
Well, it’s the second time I asked it, but let’s carry on.
Let’s see, what would be the most descriptive term that encompasses everyone in the group of people who share the sole characteristic of lacking belief in gods…. Since they are without (a-) gods (theist) it seems like “atheist” is the most appropriate name.
I don’t think that impacts your “positive identity” any more than SSM impacts “traditional marriage”. It certainly doesn’t prevent you from being “Godless and Proud.”
“Really, Patrick and his ilk should have invented another term instead of hijacking the one we already have as a culture.”
That’s gonna leave a mark.
I’m not sure how much evidence he needs. His only point is that the content of a belief is conceptually distinct from the warrant for that belief, and therefore for the degree of warrant.
It is perfectly intelligible, as a bit of ordinary language, to say, “I don’t believe in God, but I don’t really know whether God exists or not”. One can express a cognitive attitude of believing that God doesn’t exist, while at the same time acknowledging that one lacks sufficient evidence for justifying that belief. That’s all that Patrick’s position involves (from what I understand of it).
If you’re going to consult dictionaries, at least it would be advisable to consider what a philosophy encyclopedia states atheism to be:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy
Not the final word, either, but they are more aware of what “atheism” means as a preferred intellectual position. I happen to think they’re right, of course, but just went to that site rather than, say, picking and choosing.
I mean, clearly it’s not impossible to use “atheist” broadly enough to include babies, dogs, whatever. But it doesn’t mean much then, and usually people do mean more with the term.
Glen Davidson
OF course it was for political reasons all along. That’s why a small group of atheists began to push the new definition (lack of belief) forward to begin with. Not as a conspiracy, mind you, but as a personal-political strategy to expand the atheist tent to include those who weren’t comfortable self-identifying as god-deniers.
Patrick could have written the American Atheist manifesto:
I don’t know when that was composed, but as an organization they’ve been around almost as long as I have.
And I actually do think it’s a good thing to pretend that lack of belief in gods is so normal that it doesn’t even need a special term. That’s the world I want my non-existent grandchildren to grow up in. Vonnegut said (introduction to Mother Night )
Yes, it’s a cautionary quote, but if you do use reasonable caution, if you are careful, what you pretend to be can be a fine thing.
But we’re not there yet as a whole society. And if we can’t be honest that we (“atheists”) now actively disbelieve in all their gods, that we find their ideas ludicrous at best and evil at worst, then I don’t see how we’re ever going to get to that potential future.
The funny thing is that American Atheist org, which pretends that atheism is mere unbelief, exists to politically and socially promote positive atheism / criticism of religion. As they themselves say:
Gah. The American Atheists are all hypocrites. What’s there to be Proud of, what under god’s blue heaven do Atheist Pride marches mean, if “atheism” is nothing more than mere lack of belief.
Where in the world is there a club for the not-stamp-collectors?
HInt: there isn’t one. Because you don’t spend your life arguing on the internet, or spending money to become a member of an org like American Atheists, or writing or reading books which criticize religion, etc, unless your atheism means more to you than a mere not-hobby like not-stamp-collecting.
But if a little hypocrisy is what it takes to underpin their political activism, okay, I’m okay with that. Hypocrisy is not a sin.
Oh, for christ’s sake.
Don’t be more of an arse than you have to be.
Of course you don’t think that.
Empathy and understanding of others has never looked to be one of your strong suits, Patrick.
That might be what Patrick’s position involves, but that’s not what Patrick actually says.
And it’s what he actually says which is the problem here.
And more:
Atheism is the view that there is no God.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.
I hadn’t noticed that. What I read (possible misread) is that one can call oneself an atheist without implying any belief in the nonexistence of god.
That was followed by disparaging remarks about wimpiness and boringness.
And accusations by mung, of lying.
I find this rather annoying.
I think of myself as a nonbeliever. That applies to all areas of thought, not just theology. It’s been that way all my life. At age 20, I was ridiculed and given the nickname Old More Or Less.
Every fact in my universe is gray and provisional. I get along fine, because the facts required to navigate life are pretty stable. But I am never shocked by turnabouts on nutrition or medical advice, never shocked by political shifts.
I expect science to progress and to render fond beliefs obsolete. I have degrees and hierarchies of certainty. I have no trouble asserting that something is a fact, even though I accept a possibility that it will be modified or overturned.
If you go to the beach and stand in front of a big wave, the water is real, the wave is real, but it is also fluid. I can knock you over, but you can also pass trough it.
I see facts like that. Real, but fluid.
Glen, that definition is more akin to what hotshoe and I have been pushing. I’m happy with it, anyhow.
And as it’s important to Patrick to have a blanket term for atheists, agnostics and people who’ve never considered the matter, I’d suggest “non-theists”. I do think, though, that our time could be spent more sensibly than on what is nothing but a verbal preference. (I concede that I’ve spent a lot of time on it myself, but I’ve mostly just been trying to get Patrick to understand that he isn’t really RIGHT about this: on the contrary, “it just doesn’t matter” what terms we pick as long as we’re clear and don’t contradict ourselves when using them. (Or insist that we’re right and everyone who prefers a different usage is wrong, or that we have some sort of “objective empirical evidence” for our preference when it’s quite clear that we don’t)
I could have done all that more quickly, but for the annoying yorkie that nips at my ankles whenever I even look askance at his master.
That’s not been “his only point” at all, KN. He’s suggested that his particular taxonomy is best and that all others are incorrect. And the fairly obvious point about the existence of a belief being separable from its warrant, is actually something Patrick has demonstrated significant confusion about. He’s said, e.g., that he doesn’t want to commit to DISbelief because its logically possible that he’s wrong and because he doesn’t KNOW (or believe that there’s DEFINITELY) no God. Believing there’s no God doesn’t require any of that.
I wish I could say the same. I’m constantly shocked (and dismayed).
Right. Even when accompanied by a jolly “Oho!”
I don’t see Patrick as trying to impose a black and white definition.
I see him as sharing annoyance at people who assume that atheism implies a positive assertion of the nonexistence of god.
It is really an annoyance at being labeled in a way that assumes an unwarranted extension of the meaning of the word.
If I say I am an atheist, and you wish to have a conversation with me, I would hope that you might inquire what i mean by the term.
For most of my life I have thought of myself as agnostic, but that doesn’t communicate my belief that there are no actual, historical revelations.
My takeaway from all this is that if you what to know something about a person’s ideas, ask.
I totally agree with that. But I have no idea why you characterize Patrick’s posts on this matter the way you have. He has clearly and repeatedly insisted that his definition of “atheism” is the only appropriate one. Just go back and read his posts on this instead of guessing.
I think that in the absence of clarification, atheism should be taken to mean absence of belief.
This is the first definition in the Urban Dictionary, and has priority in Websters.
The extended definition has obvious pejorative implications; it implies a hardened position, possibly a closed mind.
So without clarification, the preferred reading is the softer one.