> On 2012-07-06, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
> >>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
> >> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
> >> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
> >> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
> >> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
> >> How many times do we have to repeat this?
> > Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> > in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
> > every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
> > in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
> Here you're making the classic mistake of thinking someone is saying a
> person who is an atheist, has no beliefs (in other things).
> Seeing as atheism is merely "I don't believe in God" that's not a
> belief, not a system of beliefs.
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
Because the occurrence of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people
are motivated to reduce it; this is roughly analogous to the processes
involved in the induction and reduction of such drives as hunger or
thirst----except that, here, the driving force arises from cognitive
dissonance rather than physiological needs. To hold two ideas that
contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity, and---as Albert
Camus, the existentialist philosopher, has observed---humans are
creatures who spend their lives trying to convince themselves their
existence is not absurd.
> A atheist may have beliefs in various philosophies or moral systems but
> that doesn't form part of atheism which is one thing and one thing only.
> The *absence* of belief.
> What you're seeing quite often in this newsgroup is more a *reaction*
> to theist trolling the group, when they shouldn't be doing so.
> If you come into someone else's house and shit on their carpet,
> don't expect a warm welcome.
> >> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
> > Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
> > the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't participate
> > or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
> Perhaps you don't know what agnosticism means. Nobody is *just* an
> agnostic. You must be either a theist or atheist. You either believe
> in God or you do not.
> Agnosticism is about if you know for certain that God exists (the
> agnostic stance is that they *do not* _KNOW_).
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:10:32 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
> non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400
>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
>>> clitoris hacked off, for example?
>> According to religious right-wing-nuts, it's the will of one or more
>> deities and is an act of love that must be respected at all costs.
> Actually, it isn't. Or at least, justification on religious
> grounds is very much a minority argument and is rejected by the
> mainstream of all monotheist faiths. This practice appears to be
> a cultural holdover from pre-monotheist days.
That's interesting.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Well, most people do themselves wrong."
-- Charles Milles Manson
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:27:04 +0100
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:10:32 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
>> non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400
>>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
>>>> clitoris hacked off, for example?
>>> According to religious right-wing-nuts, it's the will of one or more
>>> deities and is an act of love that must be respected at all costs.
>> Actually, it isn't. Or at least, justification on religious
>> grounds is very much a minority argument and is rejected by the
>> mainstream of all monotheist faiths. This practice appears to be
>> a cultural holdover from pre-monotheist days.
> That's interesting.
I thought so myself. It's far from unknown to have such cultural
fossils cropping up (think Halloween, Easter eggs, may pole
dancing, etc), but it had not occurred to me that FGM might be
one such case, particularly since male genital mutilation does
have an expressly religious jsutification.
