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.
Literally laughing out loud, Love ya’, walto.
And now I’ve really truly got to run. So thanks for the fun today!
Why must there be an absence of clarification?
Let us neither be stones nor non-clarifiers!
Non-clarifiers unite!
Or, you know, wander around aimlessly.
Glen Davidson
🙂
I like to go second. So I don’t get separated from everyone.
So if someone says he or she is an atheist, and through clarification, you find they mean non-believer, that’s it for the purpose of that discussion.
None of this bloody, fuckheaded mung about there being no such thing as a nonbeliever. That should go straight to guano.
Oh damn, I shouldn’t have read any further into this thread and gotten sucked back in.
Okay last bit, I promise …
petrushka, problem with what you just said: it is in no way an “unwarranted extension” of the meaning of atheist to assume that it means a positive disbelief in god(s). That’s what the word has meant for a few thousand years.
That may not be what it means to you personally – or to Patrick – or to the hypocrites at American Atheist — and the word may actually be evolving to take on a new meaning more in line with your mere unbelief rather than disbelief — but it’s foolish to be “annoyed” when people take it for granted that you use the word the way it’s always been used.
Worldwide, you – and Patrick and the rest of his ilk – are the exceptions, not the rule.
And I bet he’s not anywhere near as annoyed at “people who assume that atheism implies a positive assertion of the nonexistence of god” as he is simply annoyed that he doesn’t get to be ruler of all dictionaries and make his preferred definition the only one by fiat. I could be wrong of course.
But I have absolutely zero sympathy for the annoyance of any privileged little atheist who can’t be bothered to do so much as take a stand in favor of positive disbelief, much less risk their lives or their livelihoods for it. (And all the while, weak atheists caring enough about their own “non-belief” to spend their lives arguing about it on the internet. Do they think they’re fooling anyone? )
Why is Patrick so eager to have everyone join his non-stamp-collecting-hobby club? Why would he, or you, or anyone bother, if it’s just mere lack of belief?
Thank you, that’s what I was trying to convey. I know that I’m naturally prone to being prolix when I write, so I pared that original post down as much as I could to avoid misunderstanding. I love feeling naive.
For my next trick I’ll try a one sentence OP and see how many ways it gets interpreted.
You’re mixing up logic and politics again. The members of American Atheists lack belief in gods. That’s what makes them atheists. They are also political activists who support the separation of church and state. No hypocrisy is in evidence.
What word or phrase would you use to describe the set of people who lack belief in any gods, Mung?
Exactly this. There are a lot of different groups who want to claim the word for their own. When you group all of them together, the only shared characteristic is lack of belief in gods. That’s what makes them all atheists.
Does that make me a lumper rather than a splitter?
I do believe there’s a tendency — disappointing at this site — to interpret words and ideas in the most unfavorable light.
I personally get no kicks from winning arguments. I care about whether I can cast an argument intelligently. I have no illusions that I am changing other people’s minds.
I just want to know whether or not I understand the argument, and the best way to do this is jump in and see whether it works.
Indeed you could.
I started this subthread because Robert Byers claimed that atheism is a faith. It’s not.
Since we are arguing about definitions of “atheism” we should first address “god” definitions. I would say I lack a believe in “god” in the most vague sense of the word (first cause, etc…) while I disbelieve gods as they get more precisely defined: the god of the bible who supposedly sent his son, who walked on water and resuscitated and all that nonsense
I think I’ve been pretty clear and consistent in asserting that all revelations are bullshit. Made up. Not historical. Untrue.
You are welcome to whatever is left over, be it a warm feeling, or whatever.
I am with hotshoe, however, in opposing any political or legal rules or regulations being based on religion. I don’t consider that part of atheism. It’s just good sense, and was recognized as such by politicians 200 years ago, many of them theists.
Exactly. Specific god claims can be shown to be internally inconsistent or contradicted by evidence. I’m not sure if it makes sense to say you disbelieve in such things, though. They’ve simply been demonstrated not to exist.
I personally try to make a habit of disbelieving in things that have simply been demonstrated not to exist. I recommend the practice highly.
Money-saving, for one thing.
I not sure that is even a coherent position let alone a description of a set of people .
Probably the best definition of god that I’ve come across is this one.
quote:
Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.
end quote:
Martin Luther
Do you actually want to say that you disbelieve in “whatever that your heart clings to and confides in,”?
Are you claiming that there is a whole group of people who disbelieve in “any” possible thing “that your heart clings to and confides in,”?
I find that hard to believe
peace
I’ve had dogs that had things their heart clung to.
And I don’t mean food or hugs. I mean that dogs are capable of levels of altruism that would shame a saint.
This is not theology. It might say something interesting, but it is not religion.
Why not? Sounds like theology to me at least according to Luther’s fine definition.
peace
Given that we are talking about synonyms and meanings, and all that, here’s what I would like to know —
When did “chemtrail” become a synonym for “atheist”?
It’s been my experience that on this site every topic eventually becomes a discussion about God. It’s almost like folks here are obsessed with the subject.
peace
When it turned out that chemtrails don’t believe in any god.
Isn’t it obvious?
Glen Davidson
I note that you wrote the following:
Are you walking that back now? You’re not actually claiming to know that it is the case that “There is no more evidence for gods than there is for leprechauns”? Because it sure sounded like a knowledge claim to me.
If you want to be careful to distinguish between knowledge and belief perhaps you should change your style of writing.
Patrick believes there is no more evidence for gods than there is for leprechauns.
Patrick lacks belief that there is more evidence for gods than there is for leprechauns.
Patrick’s Big Tent. Nice title for an OP.
It wasn’t an accusation of lying, it was an accusation lying, more or less. You’re perfectly capable of being a partisan hack and often are, Old More Or Less.
Really.
Then try to make sense of the following:
I’m a leader, whether or not anyone else follows.
You should do two things:
1. Learn to read.
2. Work on getting a sense of humor.
Joe Gallien is an ID leader.
They do make the best atheists, imo.
Why should I accept the way you frame the question? I’ve read your comments in this thread and there are so many fallacies it’s not even funny.
Why does there need to be a term for people who lack belief in any gods? Is there a term for people who lack any belief in any leprechauns? I could go on and on with that question. So I deny your premise, that there need be any such term at all.
Why do you not consider yourself to be an agnostic? Do you give a shit about agnostics who don’t want to be lumped in with atheists, especially with the “New Atheists”? [We already know the answer to that one, don’t we.]
So you want to not just re-brand atheism, you want to re-brand agnosticism too, regardless of what they may think. Patrick’s Big Tent.
Why can’t we even be honest about the fact that this isn’t about “gods.” You lack a belief in “gods.” Yawn. So do I. Does that make me an atheist?
You’re a clown, whether or not anyone else laughs. But then again, everybody laughs at you
Sorry, dude, you don’t excite me that much.
Well, ya’ know what the smart-asses repeat:
[apparently that was written by one-hit atheist wonderboy Stephen F Roberts; he declines to fill us in as to exactly when and where he first said that, but sometime before 4/97 when he quotes himself on his pitiful blog]
Or howzabout some Dawkins:
{The God Delusion]
I’m sure that doesn’t actually answer your question, but then, I don’t figure you expected an answer …
Mung is not a clown. People are afraid of clowns.
Mung,
You heard wrong. Two drink minimum, tastes like piss.
I used to read your stuff, but never found it interesting or amusing. I see it now only when someone else responds to you. It still isn’t interesting. I could live a happy life if you never read another of my words. I do not seek you out or poke at you hoping for a response. I just don’t care what you think or say.
You do, however clutter up the sidebar on occasion. There are times when you and JoeG take up most of the list of recent posts. This is a bit irritating, but it passes.
colewd,
Still genetic though, not epigenetic. Which was my point.
Well, exactly. WHY do you think it was sudden and ‘dramatic biochemical changes’ were required (ie, it’s an ‘origin’)? You just assert it with no particular reason to do so. Presumably you now expect me to prove that it wasn’t sudden. You just say stuff, I have to actively disprove it.
Bong! There was no change from chimp to man. Chimps and men (and women) have a common ancestor.
You’re just chucking concepts at me there, rather than actually saying something.
Funny, one person contends we are all atheists some just don’t know it
and
another contends we are all theists some just don’t know it.
Apparently this atheism thingy is a slippery fish to hold on to.
“Roberts” rephrased…………
I contend we are both theists, I just believe in a better God than you do. When you understand why I reject yours as paltry and insufficient , you will understand why I know the one I worship is the true God.
peace
So long as you carefully quotemine, that is.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman,
I know you’re being rib-ticklingly hilarious, but on this occasion the subject of faith was raised by YEC Robert Byers.
I don’t understand
are you saying that Stephen F Roberts does not claim that monotheists are atheists in waiting who just need to understand why they reject all the other gods?
peace
I’ll have to take your word for it
When I checked in it was mostly Walto, Patrick and company no Robert Byers to be found.
anyway
The proper response to subjects you are uninterested in is indifferent silence is it not?
peace
Allan Miller,
fifthmonarchyman,
Many more people are greeting this topic with indifferent silence than discussion. You just can’t tell.
colewd,
You are making a claim. You are claiming that some vague set of transitions was sudden. Your evidence is based upon the differences between two chosen clades. Since it is perfectly possible for such net differences to arise cumulatively, not suddenly, you need to offer some evidence other than those differences to show that it was, indeed, sudden.
As a rule of thumb, the difference between any two clades is expected to be proportional to the amount of time separating them from their common ancestor. So you need a means of distinguishing ‘transition’ from this background process. I don’t need to ‘prove’ this background process – how, as a general principle, could it be otherwise in separated gene pools?
I understand the concepts you have chucked at me. Nonetheless, I think you will need to spell out to me what the point of that vague sentence actually was. As a starter, how much of the difference between human and chimp is represented in alternative exon shuffling and HGT?
colewd,
You could do worse. It’s my degree subject and all. All epigenetic factors are ultimately rooted in genetics. In the Lenski cit+, the change in regulation was due to a genetic mutation. I don’t know why you lot are so insistent on regulation as something apart from genetics. We’ve known about regulation for years. Suddenly it’s a new paradigm.
Aleprechaunist.
Because gnosis and theism are not on the same spectrum. If you ask someone if they are an atheist or a theist and they respond that they are an agnostic it is as non-responsive as if you asked them if they were male or female and they responded “Canadian.”
Here’s the diagram I referenced in my original post:
Again, gnostic-agnostic is orthogonal to theist-atheist.
Obviously there is a social stigma to self-describing as an atheist. One way to combat that is to show that the term doesn’t mean “anti-theist devil-worshipping baby-eater.” Some people do use “agnostic” to mean “I refuse to answer the question.” That’s fine, but it should be clear.
No rebranding, simply noting the precise meanings of the words and using them correctly.
I thought you believed in at least one god. If you insist on being pedantic rather than having a reasonable discussion, I’ll try to make a point of using the longer, but synonymous, “lack of belief in a god or gods.”
Right.
There is no real way to know that is the case then is there? Given methodological naturalism we should discount that theory as vacuous, correct?
I suppose positive evidence for a lack of obsession would be lots of long and active contentious threads here that don’t discuss the “g” word at all. Anecdotally I just don’t see that.
It would be interesting to see the actual data.
peace