Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
having voiced any opinions on the topic. Just as your baby was given
at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
Drafterbaby decide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> whatsoever.
On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> having voiced any opinions on the topic.
No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
inappropriately.
> Just as your baby was given
> at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
the point of a post.
> You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
"Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.
> For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
refuted via reductio ad absurdum.
> Drafterbaby decide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
> On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.
> So was Bigfoot!
All of humankind, except Christ, have had a sinful nature. But God
offers mercy and pardon through Christ to each and every sinner who
will submit to Him. He is worthy of praise and adoration! :)
On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
WTF?
You got some 'splaining to do!
> has a
> Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> whatsoever.
Of course not!
_______________________________________________
I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and
appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both.
-- Linus Torvalds
> On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
> WTF?
> You got some 'splaining to do!
Ha, I knew I'd get this response from you. Like I said, if
Christianity can hijack other religious events for their purposes,
then I can hijack theirs for mine.
> > has a
> > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > whatsoever.
> Of course not!
> _______________________________________________
> I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and
> appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both.
> -- Linus Torvalds
On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > whatsoever.
> It's worth considering:
> All of humankind born through natural generation have a sinful nature.
The simple believeth every word.
Pr. 14:15
_______________________________________________
I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and
appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both.
-- Linus Torvalds
Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
good things come from mommy.
On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> > having voiced any opinions on the topic.
> No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
> belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
> inappropriately.
> > Just as your baby was given
> > at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> > born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
> Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
> his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
> the point of a post.
> > You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> > from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> > witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
> Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
> "Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
> statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.
> > For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> > and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> > teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> > unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
> I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
> ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
> false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
> refuted via reductio ad absurdum.
> >Drafterbabydecide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
> No.
> > On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem thatDrafterbaby(now
> > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 4, 11:56 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.
That drafterBelief is consistent with the empirical drafterEvidence.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.
Mommy is real and all good things probably do come from her.
> On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> > > having voiced any opinions on the topic.
> > No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
> > belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
> > inappropriately.
> > > Just as your baby was given
> > > at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> > > born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
> > Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
> > his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
> > the point of a post.
> > > You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> > > from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> > > witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
> > Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
> > "Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
> > statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.
> > > For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> > > and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> > > teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> > > unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
> > I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
> > ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
> > false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
> > refuted via reductio ad absurdum.
> > >Drafterbabydecide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
> > No.
> > > On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in
> god
> > > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem thatDrafterbaby(now
> > > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > > > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > > > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > > > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > > > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 3, 7:56 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.
First, he doesn't. Let's not make a god out of baseless assumptions.
Second, that's not the same thing as believing in god, which he
doesn't. Let's not make a god out of not knowing what we're talking
about.
> On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> > > having voiced any opinions on the topic.
> > No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
> > belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
> > inappropriately.
> > > Just as your baby was given
> > > at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> > > born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
> > Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
> > his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
> > the point of a post.
> > > You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> > > from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> > > witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
> > Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
> > "Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
> > statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.
> > > For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> > > and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> > > teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> > > unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
> > I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
> > ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
> > false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
> > refuted via reductio ad absurdum.
> > >Drafterbabydecide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
> > No.
> > > On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem thatDrafterbaby(now
> > > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > > > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > > > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > > > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > > > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
Interesting point here, here, Alan... as children, we are continually
trained to "accept authority" from a magic giver of good things in the
world (Mom and Dad). This is clearly an evolutionary adaptation,
numerous other species act in much the same way (especially other
primates).
When we grow up, those nascent neural passageways that are formed in
our childhood as an evolutionary adaptation are also SPECTACULARLY
well-suited to CONTINUE to "accept authority" from a magic giver of
good things in the world, despite the likely fact that whatever we
conceive of is merely a "simulation" that is an extension of exactly
what we saw in our parents, as children. Christians even actively
cultivate this imagery and mentality!
Ironically, though, Drafterbaby has actual, repeatable,
distinguishable hard evidence to support his "mommy and daddy
worship", whereas as adults with the other "daddy" you call "God", we
don't. So far, Drafterbaby is acting exactly in accordance to his
appeals to "physical evidence and reasoned logic". He is starting to
model the world around him, and to try to make predictions. If
Drafterbaby is anything like RappoccioToddler1 or RappoccioToddler2,
Drafterbaby gets very upset when his "predictions" are not met with
his expectations (this is commonly referred to in the academic
literature as "throwing a shit fit" ;)). Sounds like he's making good
progress to me!
On Nov 3, 7:56 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.
> On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> > > having voiced any opinions on the topic.
> > No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
> > belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
> > inappropriately.
> > > Just as your baby was given
> > > at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> > > born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.
> > Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
> > his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
> > the point of a post.
> > > You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> > > from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> > > witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.
> > Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
> > "Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
> > statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.
> > > For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> > > and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> > > teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> > > unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.
> > I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
> > ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
> > false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
> > refuted via reductio ad absurdum.
> > >Drafterbabydecide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.
> > No.
> > > On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem thatDrafterbaby(now
> > > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > > > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > > > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > > > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > > > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 3, 4:08 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
> > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
> > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
> > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
> > WTF?
> > You got some 'splaining to do!
> Ha, I knew I'd get this response from you. Like I said, if
> Christianity can hijack other religious events for their purposes,
> then I can hijack theirs for mine.
I was faced with a similar dilemma. I chose to baptize both my kids.
The first was before I was really an "out-and-out" atheist, but pretty
well on the way. The second was after, and I decided to "keep the
peace" with my parents. This was ultimately a terrible idea because
they were more upset at the fact that I hid my deconversion from them,
than the fact that I deconverted. I should have given them much more
credit, and I deeply regret that.
> > > has a
> > > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > > whatsoever.
> > Of course not!
> > _______________________________________________
> > I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and
> > appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both.
> > -- Linus Torvalds
> > > > > I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
> > > > > To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so
> > > > if
> > > > > it makes the family happy why fight over it.
> > > > That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
> > > > more important than making a principled stance over something like
> > > > this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
> > > > liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
> > > > that do by acting as if they do.
> > > Meaningless gestures don't amount to principles IMO.
> > > So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
> > I doubt the bishop or priest or whoever does the baptism will see it
> > as a meaningless gesture, nor will most of the congregation. It’s
> > also clear that the catholic school who will only accept pupils if
> > they have been baptised see it as a meaningless gesture.
> > It is pandering to the catholic institutions; there may actually be no
> > one left on the planet who is truly a catholic yet it maintains its
> > position due to people simply conforming to its rules whilst actually
> > considering them as nothing more than meaningless gestures.
> > However, if the best schools in your area are catholic schools and all
> > your family would be upset if the baby was not baptised then that
> > might be enough to overcome the above objections.
> > I don’t mean to judge Dmans actions on this, just trying to explain
> > the way I feel on the subject. I may have a baby myself in the not
> > too distant future and these are all issues I will have to deal with
> > as well.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I understand where you're coming from: that this ceremony is implicit
> reinforcement of their religious beliefs and, in some way, is making
> the "problem" worse.
> I'm not sure that I agree that it is the case. For the Father, it's
> just one in a long line of ceremonies. I imagine he does hundreds of
> baptisms a year, one less or one more is unlikely to affect the
> strength of his belief in a non-neglible way, especially compared with
> the years of indoctrination he went through to become a Father to
> begin with.
This is the same kind of argument people use to excuse their excessive
greenhouse gas emissions when accused of making global warming worse.
It’s the same kind of reasoning a thief uses when stealing money from
a large corporation.
We as individuals should take responsibility for our actions. If all
atheists thought like you on this one then the catholic church (or at
least its baptisms and number of schools) would almost double in size.
Its true that as an individual your actions are pretty much irrelevant
to the world at large, but I doubt you apply this kind of reasoning to
other areas of your life.
> That leaves the the people that were there. It was a family-only
> ceremony. Now, I don't know the exact nature of and magnitude of the
> religious proclivaties of my various family, friends and inlaws, but
> if I had to divide them into groups it would be:
> The non-religious.
> The religious yet not practicing (those whose religion is assumed and
> taken for granted, even by them, and they've never really thought
> about the alternative).
> The consciously religious.
> The non-religious would see it the same as I do, so their beliefs
> remain unaffected.
> The consciously religious would be in the same category as the Father,
> so their beliefs remain unaffected. Their belief is already as strong
> as it is going to get.
> That leaves the middle group (which I feel comprises the majority of
> the population).
> Perhaps, during the process of the the cermony certain religious
> feelings and emotions are brought to the surface. Will it have a
> lasting effect? Will they be, "Well, I was going to vote for Obama to
> have a second term, but my Nephew got baptized, so I'll vote for
> Palin." (exageration, I know). I can't say.
> Like I said, I see this as nothing different than Christmas,
> Thanksgiving and Easter. These holidays exist and are celebrated, I
> don't think that participating in them with family exacerbates the
> situation.
> If the Christians can hijack formerly pagan holidays and rituals and
> twist them to meet their goals and desires, why can't I, as an
> atheist, hijack their holidays and rituals and twist them to meet my
> goals and desires?
I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
world day”. You could get together with family and friends, make some
speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
to look after him of anything were to happen to you. All this could
be done without the superstition and appeal to God and Jesus to watch
over him. For me this kind of superstitious nonsense devalues what
actually should be a hugely important day designed to welcome your
baby to planet earth.
However you have not hijacked the idea of baptism you have simply
conformed to it and taken it on with all its supernatural dogmatic
baggage.
When you celebrate Christmas, do you go to church and praise Jesus
Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins? Or do you get together
with family, give presents and generally celebrate it in a purely
secular way?
I have to admit that as you are an atheist who I respect on this group
I feel a similar emotion regarding this as I would if I had just
caught Peter Singer eating some sausages.
> > > > > > I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
> > > > > > To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so
> > > > > if
> > > > > > it makes the family happy why fight over it.
> > > > > That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
> > > > > more important than making a principled stance over something like
> > > > > this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
> > > > > liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
> > > > > that do by acting as if they do.
> > > > So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
> > > I doubt the bishop or priest or whoever does the baptism will see it
> > > as a meaningless gesture, nor will most of the congregation. It’s
> > > also clear that the catholic school who will only accept pupils if
> > > they have been baptised see it as a meaningless gesture.
> > > It is pandering to the catholic institutions; there may actually be no
> > > one left on the planet who is truly a catholic yet it maintains its
> > > position due to people simply conforming to its rules whilst actually
> > > considering them as nothing more than meaningless gestures.
> > > However, if the best schools in your area are catholic schools and all
> > > your family would be upset if the baby was not baptised then that
> > > might be enough to overcome the above objections.
> > > I don’t mean to judge Dmans actions on this, just trying to explain
> > > the way I feel on the subject. I may have a baby myself in the not
> > > too distant future and these are all issues I will have to deal with
> > > as well.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > I understand where you're coming from: that this ceremony is implicit
> > reinforcement of their religious beliefs and, in some way, is making
> > the "problem" worse.
> > I'm not sure that I agree that it is the case. For the Father, it's
> > just one in a long line of ceremonies. I imagine he does hundreds of
> > baptisms a year, one less or one more is unlikely to affect the
> > strength of his belief in a non-neglible way, especially compared with
> > the years of indoctrination he went through to become a Father to
> > begin with.
> This is the same kind of argument people use to excuse their excessive
> greenhouse gas emissions when accused of making global warming worse.
> It’s the same kind of reasoning a thief uses when stealing money from
> a large corporation.
The difference here is between perceivable and actual effects. The
arguments you mention here are about actual effects that the offenders
here fail to perceive. Regardless of whether or not they think the
effect has any significance, contribution to global warming and theft
have actual, tangible effects.
My argument is that this baptism had no effects whatsoever.
> We as individuals should take responsibility for our actions. If all
> atheists thought like you on this one then the catholic church (or at
> least its baptisms and number of schools) would almost double in size.
I'm not sure I agree with this. This suggests that there are atheists
out there that want to get their kids baptized, but are refusing
because they don't want to support the Catholic church. I doubt that
there are. If there are, I seriously doubt that their numbers would
result in the doubling of the population of the catholic church.
> Its true that as an individual your actions are pretty much irrelevant
> to the world at large, but I doubt you apply this kind of reasoning to
> other areas of your life.
> > That leaves the the people that were there. It was a family-only
> > ceremony. Now, I don't know the exact nature of and magnitude of the
> > religious proclivaties of my various family, friends and inlaws, but
> > if I had to divide them into groups it would be:
> > The non-religious.
> > The religious yet not practicing (those whose religion is assumed and
> > taken for granted, even by them, and they've never really thought
> > about the alternative).
> > The consciously religious.
> > The non-religious would see it the same as I do, so their beliefs
> > remain unaffected.
> > The consciously religious would be in the same category as the Father,
> > so their beliefs remain unaffected. Their belief is already as strong
> > as it is going to get.
> > That leaves the middle group (which I feel comprises the majority of
> > the population).
> > Perhaps, during the process of the the cermony certain religious
> > feelings and emotions are brought to the surface. Will it have a
> > lasting effect? Will they be, "Well, I was going to vote for Obama to
> > have a second term, but my Nephew got baptized, so I'll vote for
> > Palin." (exageration, I know). I can't say.
> > Like I said, I see this as nothing different than Christmas,
> > Thanksgiving and Easter. These holidays exist and are celebrated, I
> > don't think that participating in them with family exacerbates the
> > situation.
> > If the Christians can hijack formerly pagan holidays and rituals and
> > twist them to meet their goals and desires, why can't I, as an
> > atheist, hijack their holidays and rituals and twist them to meet my
> > goals and desires?
> I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
> turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
> world day”. You could get together with family and friends, make some
> speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
> to look after him of anything were to happen to you. All this could
> be done without the superstition and appeal to God and Jesus to watch
> over him. For me this kind of superstitious nonsense devalues what
> actually should be a hugely important day designed to welcome your
> baby to planet earth.
I can't control the superstitions other people have.
> However you have not hijacked the idea of baptism you have simply
> conformed to it and taken it on with all its supernatural dogmatic
> baggage.
> When you celebrate Christmas, do you go to church and praise Jesus
> Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins? Or do you get together
> with family, give presents and generally celebrate it in a purely
> secular way?
No. I don't go to Church and praise Jesus. I do, however, get a tree,
decorate it, hang stockings, exchange presents. All of these things
have their roots in superstitious, supernatural baggage. All of it
started out as religious symbolism (mix of Christian and pagan). I do
not feel that doing these things is an endorsement of the
superstitions that led to their creation. And I apply that to the
baptism as well.
> I have to admit that as you are an atheist who I respect on this group
> I feel a similar emotion regarding this as I would if I had just
> caught Peter Singer eating some sausages.
I just don't see it in the same light as you. This was most certainly
not appeasement. We could have not had the baptism at all, and there
would have been no backlash. We volunteered to do it because we
thought it would be a nice thing to do. Did I fully process the event,
considering whether or not it fit in rationally with my atheism or
wordview? No, I didn't. I simply did not place that much importance on
the event.
> > > > > > > I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
> > > > > > > To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > it makes the family happy why fight over it.
> > > > > > That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
> > > > > > more important than making a principled stance over something like
> > > > > > this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
> > > > > > liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
> > > > > > that do by acting as if they do.
> > > > > So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
> > > > I doubt the bishop or priest or whoever does the baptism will see it
> > > > as a meaningless gesture, nor will most of the congregation. It’s
> > > > also clear that the catholic school who will only accept pupils if
> > > > they have been baptised see it as a meaningless gesture.
> > > > It is pandering to the catholic institutions; there may actually be no
> > > > one left on the planet who is truly a catholic yet it maintains its
> > > > position due to people simply conforming to its rules whilst actually
> > > > considering them as nothing more than meaningless gestures.
> > > > However, if the best schools in your area are catholic schools and all
> > > > your family would be upset if the baby was not baptised then that
> > > > might be enough to overcome the above objections.
> > > > I don’t mean to judge Dmans actions on this, just trying to explain
> > > > the way I feel on the subject. I may have a baby myself in the not
> > > > too distant future and these are all issues I will have to deal with
> > > > as well.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > I understand where you're coming from: that this ceremony is implicit
> > > reinforcement of their religious beliefs and, in some way, is making
> > > the "problem" worse.
> > > I'm not sure that I agree that it is the case. For the Father, it's
> > > just one in a long line of ceremonies. I imagine he does hundreds of
> > > baptisms a year, one less or one more is unlikely to affect the
> > > strength of his belief in a non-neglible way, especially compared with
> > > the years of indoctrination he went through to become a Father to
> > > begin with.
> > This is the same kind of argument people use to excuse their excessive
> > greenhouse gas emissions when accused of making global warming worse.
> > It’s the same kind of reasoning a thief uses when stealing money from
> > a large corporation.
> The difference here is between perceivable and actual effects. The
> arguments you mention here are about actual effects that the offenders
> here fail to perceive. Regardless of whether or not they think the
> effect has any significance, contribution to global warming and theft
> have actual, tangible effects.
> My argument is that this baptism had no effects whatsoever.
> > We as individuals should take responsibility for our actions. If all
> > atheists thought like you on this one then the catholic church (or at
> > least its baptisms and number of schools) would almost double in size.
> I'm not sure I agree with this. This suggests that there are atheists
> out there that want to get their kids baptized, but are refusing
> because they don't want to support the Catholic church. I doubt that
> there are. If there are, I seriously doubt that their numbers would
> result in the doubling of the population of the catholic church.
> > Its true that as an individual your actions are pretty much irrelevant
> > to the world at large, but I doubt you apply this kind of reasoning to
> > other areas of your life.
> > > That leaves the the people that were there. It was a family-only
> > > ceremony. Now, I don't know the exact nature of and magnitude of the
> > > religious proclivaties of my various family, friends and inlaws, but
> > > if I had to divide them into groups it would be:
> > > The non-religious.
> > > The religious yet not practicing (those whose religion is assumed and
> > > taken for granted, even by them, and they've never really thought
> > > about the alternative).
> > > The consciously religious.
> > > The non-religious would see it the same as I do, so their beliefs
> > > remain unaffected.
> > > The consciously religious would be in the same category as the Father,
> > > so their beliefs remain unaffected. Their belief is already as strong
> > > as it is going to get.
> > > That leaves the middle group (which I feel comprises the majority of
> > > the population).
> > > Perhaps, during the process of the the cermony certain religious
> > > feelings and emotions are brought to the surface. Will it have a
> > > lasting effect? Will they be, "Well, I was going to vote for Obama to
> > > have a second term, but my Nephew got baptized, so I'll vote for
> > > Palin." (exageration, I know). I can't say.
> > > Like I said, I see this as nothing different than Christmas,
> > > Thanksgiving and Easter. These holidays exist and are celebrated, I
> > > don't think that participating in them with family exacerbates the
> > > situation.
> > > If the Christians can hijack formerly pagan holidays and rituals and
> > > twist them to meet their goals and desires, why can't I, as an
> > > atheist, hijack their holidays and rituals and twist them to meet my
> > > goals and desires?
> > I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
> > turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
> > world day”. You could get together with family and friends, make some
> > speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
> > to look after him of anything were to happen to you. All this could
> > be done without the superstition and appeal to God and Jesus to watch
> > over him. For me this kind of superstitious nonsense devalues what
> > actually should be a hugely important day designed to welcome your
> > baby to planet earth.
> I can't control the superstitions other people have.
> > However you have not hijacked the idea of baptism you have simply
> > conformed to it and taken it on with all its supernatural dogmatic
> > baggage.
> > When you celebrate Christmas, do you go to church and praise Jesus
> > Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins? Or do you get together
> > with family, give presents and generally celebrate it in a purely
> > secular way?
> No. I don't go to Church and praise Jesus. I do, however, get a tree,
> decorate it, hang stockings, exchange presents. All of these things
> have their roots in superstitious, supernatural baggage. All of it
> started out as religious symbolism (mix of Christian and pagan). I do
> not feel that doing these things is an endorsement of the
> superstitions that led to their creation. And I apply that to the
> baptism as well.
> > I have to admit that as you are an atheist who I respect on this group
> > I feel a similar emotion regarding this as I would if I had just
> > caught Peter Singer eating some sausages.
> I just don't see it in the same light as you. This was most certainly
> not appeasement. We could have not had the baptism at all, and there
> would have been no backlash. We volunteered to do it because we
> thought it would be a nice thing to do. Did I fully process the event,
> considering whether or not it fit in rationally with my atheism or
> wordview? No, I didn't. I simply did not place that much importance on
> the event.
Its been interesting speaking to you on this topic d-man as it is
something which I will likely have to deal with myself in the not too
distant future. It is something that has been bothering me lately, in
particular the issue with the best schools in our area being catholic
schools which will only admit children that have been baptised.
I feel strongly that I should not conform to such bullying tactics but
at what point do strongly held principles become more important than
your own child’s education?
Hopefully there will have been a change in the law in the UK (which
myself and many other are campaigning for) so that children are not
segregated based on their parents religion (or professed religion in
your case) but I don’t feel entirely confident this will happen any
time soon.
On Nov 4, 2:09 pm, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I feel strongly that I should not conform to such bullying tactics but
> at what point do strongly held principles become more important than
> your own child’s education?
> Hopefully there will have been a change in the law in the UK (which
> myself and many other are campaigning for) so that children are not
> segregated based on their parents religion (or professed religion in
> your case) but I don’t feel entirely confident this will happen any
> time soon.
Would it not be better to work out why catholic schools are better and
replicate that. I suspect that if you broke up those schools then you
might lose the element of the formula that makes them work better.
|
