h a l f b a k e r yThis ain't rocket surgery.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Albert Einstein, whom I understand either to be atheist or
agnostic, though maybe he was pantheist, once said "God
does not play dice with the Universe", and if I remember
correctly Stephen Hawking, whom I assume to be atheist,
said something about knowing the mind of God. Similarly,
if you
talk sloppily in biological terms in particular you find
yourself adopting the intentional stance and referring to
things as if they had purposes rather than functions, and in
fact even the idea of function might be a bit dodgy. When
people talk this way and refer to God poetically or
metaphorically, they frequently confuse people and then
their quote gets used to shore up theism, since theists can
then say "look, this great iconic genius scientist believes in
God, so who are you to say God doesn't exist?". This is
particularly likely to happen when someone is not
particularly well-informed or au fait with science, or
apparently even literature as they can't recognise a
metaphor. This also happens elsewhere, for instance in
rolling your eyes in exasperation or referring to an Act Of
God.
Fictional ideas are sometimes inserted into lazy
understandings of science in a sloppy kind of way, such as
the ideas of centrifugal force or levity, i.e. something
which makes the likes of helium rise. The intentional
stance itself is possibly an example of this, and of course
corresponds to the literary device of the pathetic fallacy.
In order to obviate this confusion, I therefore suggest that
we invent a fictional being and call it the Atheon. This
being is the "God" referred to in such phrases as "Act Of
God" and the being whom gets eyes rolled at, designs
organisms, doesn't play dice with the Universe and so on.
Also, this being does not exist. Insurance companies should
talk about "Acts Of The Atheon", Einstein should be quoted
as saying "The Atheon does not play dice with the Universe"
and so on. The Atheon is not the same as the Flying
Spaghetti Monster or the Inivisible Pink Unicorn because it's
active in the world in the same way as God is seen as
being. In fact, probably even theists should use the
concept because they may in fact feel their God is being
maligned by being seen as causing floods, earthquakes and
fires, for example, but never nicer things like puppies,
kittens and babies. Also, it would then be possible to talk
about living systems being designed and having purposes,
in the same spirit as the idea that something is pulling a
helium balloon upwards rather than pushing it - it just
makes it easier to talk about without getting bogged down
in pedantry, which is fun but annoys people and wastes
time.
I chose the name "Atheon" because it's the God of the
atheists, and is clearly non-existent and therefore neither
female nor male, so it has a neuter ending.
One drawback I can see is that it would back up the vapid
fundie claim that atheism is a religion, because if people
can't grasp the idea that Einstein was speaking
metaphorically, maybe they can't grasp that this is a
metaphor either.
[link]
|
| |
Surely much the same could be achieved by referring
to "gods", lowercase plural, as in "gods only know
when this bus will arrive"? |
|
| |
I find that phrasing awkward although I have some sympathy
for it. It violates Ockham's Razor though, surely? Assume
there are zero or one deities until you have evidence there
is more than one, I'd've thought. |
|
| |
Ah, but by assuming that there are many, you
imply that there are none. |
|
| |
Also, it will be an uphill struggle to educate the
wider public to the point where you can say "for
Atheon's sake, turn it down!", and not simply
receive quizzical looks (or a kick in the bollocks,
depending on location*). |
|
| |
(*Your location, that is, not the location of your
bollocks, although the two often coincide.) |
|
| |
Well obviously I'm aiming for my bollocks to be in a
hospital incinerator but in the meantime kicking me in
them is unlikely to yield much of a result or even be
physically possible. |
|
| |
Could you maybe posit that there are so many of them
that they become atomised and form a sort of goo or gas,
or perhaps a powder? In which case, I suppose atheon is
a noble gas - made of single particles smaller than even
diatomic molecules and not interacting with ordinary
matter much. |
|
| |
//Could you maybe posit that there are so many of
them that they become atomised and form a sort of
goo or gas, or perhaps a powder?// |
|
| |
The bollocks? I think the normal number is two per
male. As far as I know this is a general phenomenon. |
|
| |
The mean is less than two, but no, and you make me think
of gaseous semen now, which is a bit interesting but not
what I meant. |
|
| |
// it will be an uphill struggle to educate the wider public // |
|
| |
Where language is concerned, the path of least resistance is to transpose into a similar sounding word rather than trying to go all highbrow. I therefore offer a counter-proposal that 'God' should be replace with 'Bob' in all of these scenarios. I would take great comfort in knowing that all the world's ills are ascribed to Acts of Bob. I think it's a winner (& also more likely to be true). |
|
| |
In addition to the intentional stance one could use this in the imperative stance, as in "get your Atheon that chair right now!". |
|
| |
So not a new Intel processor. |
|
| |
From the atheist perspective - if the Atheon does not exist, how does it differ from the theist God? One may as well continue using one term as another. |
|
| |
I like the "Bob" idea quite a bit, I can imagine much satisfaction in yelling "Bob damn it!" |
|
| |
// So not a new Intel processor // - only if we're in the
Matrix. |
|
| |
I can see the argument for 'Bob', but it's not fancy enough
for me and it doesn't sound particularly Greek or
otherwise foreign. There are lots of deities with Greek
names, especially but not exclusively Greek ones, but not
many with English names unless you count Godfrey I
suppose. I wouldn't want some poor guy named Robert to
develop a persecution complex but as far as I know
nobody is called Atheon, which of course is the point in a
way. |
|
| |
From the atheist perspective, [tatterdemalion], it differs
from the theist God in that it's less likely to lead to
obtuse theists thinking people are theists. It would,
however, be a bit of a concession in that anti-theist
atheists would be doing something to counter theists
rather than just ignoring them. |
|
| |
Incidentally, I also think there should be a being
responsible for bad-taste clothing called the Polyesteron,
but that's another story. |
|
| |
//a being responsible for bad-taste clothing called the Polyesteron// That'd be the devil. |
|
| |
I sacrifice my initials for the atheist. "bm" dammit. Or shit
please. |
|
| |
// it's less likely to lead to obtuse theists thinking people are theists |
|
| |
Why do we care what they think? We already put up with their silly thoughts on god-things so let's not worry about their other silly thoughts. |
|
| |
Perhaps it's better to follow Einstein and Hawking's lead and co-opt the god concept for our own purposes, devaluing it in the process. |
|
| |
//co-opt the god concept// |
|
| |
Which reminds me of my solution (as yet un-revealed
to the world; you lot will have to do instead) to the
problem of Islamic State. |
|
| |
The solution, of course, is for _everybody_ to join ISIS,
and for everyone to declare themselves muslim. Once
MacDonalds, Budweiser and Danepak sign up and
proudly display the ISIS flag on their corporate web
pages, the entire ISIS brand will be eroded
irretrievably. A few ads along the lines of "Trotter's -
The Pork Rinds Allah Would Choose" ought to pretty
much take the wind out of their kalashnikovs. |
|
| |
So Atheists can still believe in life after death right? just there can't be any deities. Atheon could be a place. |
|
| |
How does this idea differ from the next one in the category ? |
|
| |
[Ian Tindale] Under my thinking, it is easier to use the energy slope than to go against the grain.Put it another way, I don't think we will be a point ever again. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] Was that the Craggy Island schism? |
|
| |
I do care about what certain theists do and think because
they influence public policy and the like. |
|
| |
It's not the same as evoking the Great Non-Deity because it
has a snappier name and is mainly to be used as a useful
fiction for the purposes of brevity and language style. |
|
| |
//people can't grasp the idea that Einstein was speaking metaphorically// |
|
| |
Of course, according to Nietzsche, everyone is speaking metaphorically. Consequently, Einstein was not speaking any *more* metaphorically than the vapid fundies themselves. |
|
| |
Incidentally, not all fund managers are idiots; it's just the micro-economic incentives that make them look that way. Oh, wait, you didn't mean them... |
|
| |
// Of course, according to Nietzsche, everyone is speaking metaphorically |
|
| |
Yes , but Nietzsche was speaking metaphorically. |
|
| |
//Well obviously I'm aiming for my bollocks to be
in a hospital incinerator but in the meantime...// |
|
| |
One thing puzzles me, [nineteenthly]. Why are
you so patient in waiting for the NHS to remove
these things which you seem so anxious to be rid
of? If I had a bodypart which I didn't feel belonged
with me, I think I'd give the NHS about 48 hours to
get rid of it. Otherwise, I'd sort it out myself and
leave the NHS to staunch the bleeding, which they
generally _do_ do within 48 hours - sometimes
less. |
|
| |