> If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
> is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
> yours.
Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.
They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.
I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).
Granted this is different than me instigating such an event (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.
How many do so?
Just my two cents.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
be made here.
Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
religious event... no?
I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
certainly will not baptize my own kids.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
On Nov 5, 6:39 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Answer_42]
> > If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
> > is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
> > yours.
> Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.
> They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.
> I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).
> Granted this is different than me instigating such an event (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.
> How many do so?
Me! I think being social outweighs everything - my loved ones are more
important than their beliefs, or lack of them. To borrow from
Christopher Hitchens, we are all fine mammals (except the sociopaths -
grrrrr - but I try to steer clear of them anyway). And I love parties,
if it's a wedding.
My problem with funerals is that every time I'm at one, I can't stop
thinking about that classic Mary Tyler Moore Show episode in which
there is a funeral for Krusty the Clown (am I confusing my TV
clowns?). The attendees spend their time stifling laughter because the
clown had died from being say upon by an elephant. So I usually spend
my time at funerals stifling laughter. I can't help it.
Of course if I were in charge everyone would want to have non-
religious ceremonies. My daughters weren't baptized either.
On Nov 5, 9:39 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Answer_42]
> > If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
> > is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
> > yours.
> Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.
So do I.
> They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.
> I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).
> Granted this is different than me instigating such an event
Which was what I was referring to...
> (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.
> How many do so?
> Just my two cents.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
On Nov 5, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
"high-ground" than I intended it to be.
Sorry about that.
The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
go back and change anytjhng...
I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
wrote about...
I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
for that.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
> On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> be made here.
> Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> religious event... no?
> I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> certainly will not baptize my own kids.
Spot on. That summarises my objection much more succinctly.
> On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> be made here.
> Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> religious event... no?
> I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> -- Peter Ustinov
> On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
> What makes something a "religious" event?
It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
Baptism.
> > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > _________________________________________________
> > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> be made here.
> Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> religious event... no?
Not necessarily.
This isn't a great example, but I suppose it's sort of along the same lines.
I've always had a feminist orientation and in the 1970s when I got married
for the first time, I didn't change my last name on any legal documents.
My mother-in-law found out and had a major fit that I was insulting my
husbands entire family by not taking my husbands name.
I conceded and changed my name to keep the peace.
Had I known she would react like that I would have initiated it.
In addition, even though my family doesn't follow ancient rituals like
dowries, my mother provided one for the same reasons.
I just see personal family relationships as separate from social issues I
guess.
> I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> -- Peter Ustinov
> --
> 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 5, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
> I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> Sorry about that.
> The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> go back and change anytjhng...
> I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> wrote about...
> I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> for that.
Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
punches with each other? Theists take offense at the scrutiny of their
beliefs because they form the foundation of a flimsy belief system
that grants them emotional support. We can't exactly pick apart a
theist belief system and then turn a blind eye to our own.
After the first post I made when my son was born, you can be rest
assured that I know what I'm getting into when I reveal that I do
things like this. (Not that I want to rehash the heated discussion
from them).
I know it may disappoint some people, but I don't have a completely
rational reason for doing things like this and, yes, it may sound (and
even be) directly contradictory with views I express here and with the
direction I hope humanity is going.
The only answer I have for that (and I know that it may seem like a
cop-out), is that this is the difference between idealism and
pragmatism. On this site, I get to address the ideals of things. I can
sit back and mentally go over an issue and tear it appear without
really worrying about how people feel about it. In real life, I don't
have that luxury. The effort I spend scrutinizing a given action
directly depends on how important the consequences of that action are.
For the baptism, I judged the consequences to be nil, thus I really
didn't spend much time considering how participating in a baptism fits
in with my world view. Human beings are contradictory. Yes, this is
something we should work to reduce, but there is also a prioritization
issue.
The other thing is that the preception of us on this site is
backwards. We see each other as we are here, not in real life. This
builds the expectation that our real life personalities are components
of our online personalities, when the opposite is true.
It's not that my real life personality doesn't mesh with my online
personality, it's that my real life personality includes so much more
than how I appear to be here. Here, I get to strip away many of the
things that make me a complicated, complex, contradictory person.
In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet. Yes, it is
completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.
Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:07 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
> > I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> > "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> > Sorry about that.
> > The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> > go back and change anytjhng...
> > I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> > wrote about...
> > I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> > for that.
> Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
> punches with each other? Theists take offense at the scrutiny of their
> beliefs because they form the foundation of a flimsy belief system
> that grants them emotional support. We can't exactly pick apart a
> theist belief system and then turn a blind eye to our own.
> After the first post I made when my son was born, you can be rest
> assured that I know what I'm getting into when I reveal that I do
> things like this. (Not that I want to rehash the heated discussion
> from them).
> I know it may disappoint some people, but I don't have a completely
> rational reason for doing things like this and, yes, it may sound (and
> even be) directly contradictory with views I express here and with the
> direction I hope humanity is going.
> The only answer I have for that (and I know that it may seem like a
> cop-out), is that this is the difference between idealism and
> pragmatism. On this site, I get to address the ideals of things. I can
> sit back and mentally go over an issue and tear it appear without
> really worrying about how people feel about it. In real life, I don't
> have that luxury. The effort I spend scrutinizing a given action
> directly depends on how important the consequences of that action are.
> For the baptism, I judged the consequences to be nil, thus I really
> didn't spend much time considering how participating in a baptism fits
> in with my world view. Human beings are contradictory. Yes, this is
> something we should work to reduce, but there is also a prioritization
> issue.
> The other thing is that the preception of us on this site is
> backwards. We see each other as we are here, not in real life. This
> builds the expectation that our real life personalities are components
> of our online personalities, when the opposite is true.
> It's not that my real life personality doesn't mesh with my online
> personality, it's that my real life personality includes so much more
> than how I appear to be here. Here, I get to strip away many of the
> things that make me a complicated, complex, contradictory person.
> In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
> at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet. Yes, it is
> completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.
> Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
> passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
> ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
> claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.
> > _________________________________________________
> > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > -- Peter Ustinov
> --
> 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 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > be made here.
> > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > religious event... no?
> > What makes something a "religious" event?
> It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> Baptism.
What about the following:
Wedding presided over by a minister.
Christmas party.
Easter party.
Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
much excludes doing any of the above.
Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
> > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > _________________________________________________
> > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 5, 10:34 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > > be made here.
> > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > religious event... no?
> > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > Baptism.
> What about the following:
> Wedding presided over by a minister.
> Christmas party.
> Easter party.
> Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
> Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
> atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
> much excludes doing any of the above.
If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
there are mitigating circumstances.
> Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.
So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
to your atheism.
> > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> On 5 Nov, 15:47, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 10:34 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > > > be made here.
> > > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > > religious event... no?
> > > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > > Baptism.
> > What about the following:
> > Wedding presided over by a minister.
> > Christmas party.
> > Easter party.
> > Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
> > Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
> > atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
> > much excludes doing any of the above.
> If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
> ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
> issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
> with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
> reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
> there are mitigating circumstances.
> > Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> > is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> > above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
> As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
> in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
> same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
> dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.
You mean like decorating a Christmas tree and exchanging presents?
> So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
> eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
> deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
> indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
> to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
> to your atheism.
Like I said, my motivation was I thought other members of my family,
who are religious, would take joy from it.
Mainly the elder parts of the family that live further away.
> > > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
> What makes something a "religious" event?
It is part of a religious dogma.
It was created within a religious group to answer to religious needs.
Baptism is a good example.
So is confirmation.
So is mass.
Marriage is a more problematic one.
Marriages as such are not a religious event.
However, they can be held according to religious tenets and doctrines,
then they become a religious event.
So, I guess I should have written "religious events and events held
according to religious guidelines"
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
> Not necessarily.
> This isn't a great example, but I suppose it's sort of along the same lines.
Well, it is not religious at all.
So, no, it does not match my statement in any shape or form.
> I've always had a feminist orientation and in the 1970s when I got married
> for the first time, I didn't change my last name on any legal documents.
> My mother-in-law found out and had a major fit that I was insulting my
> husbands entire family by not taking my husbands name.
> I conceded and changed my name to keep the peace.
> Had I known she would react like that I would have initiated it.
> In addition, even though my family doesn't follow ancient rituals like
> dowries, my mother provided one for the same reasons.
Is your mother an atheist
Are dowries a religious tradition?
> I just see personal family relationships as separate from social issues I
> guess.
> > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
i absolutely empathise with you motives. Can I ask whether you felt an
invitation to a secular "welcome to the world" ceremony would possibly
antagonise your older and more religious kin?
with the cold stare of intellect i cant agree that an athiest has any
reason to baptise a child. However, to keep the peace and have a party
celebrating a new addition to your extended family; meh, call it what
you want.
On 5 Nov, 16:13, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > > > > be made here.
> > > > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > > > religious event... no?
> > > > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > > > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > > > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > > > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > > > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > > > Baptism.
> > > What about the following:
> > > Wedding presided over by a minister.
> > > Christmas party.
> > > Easter party.
> > > Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
> > > Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
> > > atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
> > > much excludes doing any of the above.
> > If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
> > ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
> > issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
> > with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
> > reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
> > there are mitigating circumstances.
> > > Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> > > is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> > > above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
> > As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
> > in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
> > same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
> > dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.
> You mean like decorating a Christmas tree and exchanging presents?
> > So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
> > eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
> > deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
> > indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
> > to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
> > to your atheism.
> Like I said, my motivation was I thought other members of my family,
> who are religious, would take joy from it.
> Mainly the elder parts of the family that live further away.
> > > > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
> > I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> > "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> > Sorry about that.
> > The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> > go back and change anytjhng...
> > I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> > wrote about...
> > I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> > for that.
> Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
> punches with each other?
Indeed, except that my point was that the tone went beyond my actual
feelings/thoughts...
> Theists take offense at the scrutiny of their
> beliefs because they form the foundation of a flimsy belief system
> that grants them emotional support. We can't exactly pick apart a
> theist belief system and then turn a blind eye to our own.
> After the first post I made when my son was born, you can be rest
> assured that I know what I'm getting into when I reveal that I do
> things like this. (Not that I want to rehash the heated discussion
> from them).
> I know it may disappoint some people, but I don't have a completely
> rational reason for doing things like this and, yes, it may sound (and
> even be) directly contradictory with views I express here and with the
> direction I hope humanity is going.
> The only answer I have for that (and I know that it may seem like a
> cop-out), is that this is the difference between idealism and
> pragmatism. On this site, I get to address the ideals of things. I can
> sit back and mentally go over an issue and tear it appear without
> really worrying about how people feel about it. In real life, I don't
> have that luxury. The effort I spend scrutinizing a given action
> directly depends on how important the consequences of that action are.
> For the baptism, I judged the consequences to be nil, thus I really
> didn't spend much time considering how participating in a baptism fits
> in with my world view. Human beings are contradictory. Yes, this is
> something we should work to reduce, but there is also a prioritization
> issue.
> The other thing is that the preception of us on this site is
> backwards. We see each other as we are here, not in real life. This
> builds the expectation that our real life personalities are components
> of our online personalities, when the opposite is true.
> It's not that my real life personality doesn't mesh with my online
> personality, it's that my real life personality includes so much more
> than how I appear to be here. Here, I get to strip away many of the
> things that make me a complicated, complex, contradictory person.
Very true.
> In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
> at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet.
To you it is.
However, I was thinking about the religious people around you who now
that you are an atheist. They might think that you wanted the ceremony
out of some irrational fear similar to Pascal's wager, thus
reinforcing their own superstitious beliefs.
In other words, what you, and I, consider to be a meaningless ceremony
actually helps to propagate the very thing you think should disappear.
> Yes, it is
> completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.
> Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
> passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
> ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
> claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
> On Nov 5, 10:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > be made here.
> > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > religious event... no?
> > What makes something a "religious" event?
> It is part of a religious dogma.
> It was created within a religious group to answer to religious needs.
> Baptism is a good example.
> So is confirmation.
> So is mass.
> Marriage is a more problematic one.
> Marriages as such are not a religious event.
> However, they can be held according to religious tenets and doctrines,
> then they become a religious event.
> So, I guess I should have written "religious events and events held
> according to religious guidelines"
I don't entirely buy your distinction between baptism and marriage.
Yes, the concept of a civil union between two people is not a
religious invention. Nor is taking a bath.
So, both are simple events for which much pomp and ceremony is built
around. As far as the state is concerned, you're married as soon as
you get a marriage license and get it signed by someone with the
authority to do so. Anything above and beyond that has nothing to do
with the actual marriage.
The same is true of the symbolism and superstition tied to baptism.
Not seeing the bride before the wedding, the bride wearing white,
throwing rice, breaking glass, having a toast, tossing the boquet/
garter, first dance, etc. etc. These are all superstious rituals. Do
you regards these things the same as a baptism? I don't see the
difference.
If I had to make a guess, I would guess that if I made a post about
getting married, and mentioned that I willingly and voluntarily
participated in any of the above, I doubt I would be ellicting the
same reaction.
On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> i absolutely empathise with you motives. Can I ask whether you felt an
> invitation to a secular "welcome to the world" ceremony would possibly
> antagonise your older and more religious kin?
No, and I hadn't thought of doing that. While I doubt there would have
been any problems, I think that some of the older people that made a
long trip would not have come. It's also just more than pleasing
*them*. Some of these relatives are my in-laws and it meant a lot to
my wife that they came to celebrate since they aren't too keen on
travelling anyway.
> with the cold stare of intellect i cant agree that an athiest has any
> reason to baptise a child. However, to keep the peace and have a party
> celebrating a new addition to your extended family; meh, call it what
> you want.
> On 5 Nov, 16:13, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:08 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 5 Nov, 15:47, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 10:34 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > > > > > be made here.
> > > > > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > > > > religious event... no?
> > > > > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > > > > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > > > > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > > > > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > > > > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > > > > Baptism.
> > > > What about the following:
> > > > Wedding presided over by a minister.
> > > > Christmas party.
> > > > Easter party.
> > > > Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
> > > > Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
> > > > atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
> > > > much excludes doing any of the above.
> > > If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
> > > ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
> > > issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
> > > with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
> > > reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
> > > there are mitigating circumstances.
> > > > Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> > > > is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> > > > above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
> > > As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
> > > in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
> > > same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
> > > dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.
> > You mean like decorating a Christmas tree and exchanging presents?
> > > So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
> > > eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
> > > deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
> > > indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
> > > to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
> > > to your atheism.
> > Like I said, my motivation was I thought other members of my family,
> > who are religious, would take joy from it.
> > Mainly the elder parts of the family that live further away.
> > > > > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 5, 10:38 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
> > > I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> > > "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> > > Sorry about that.
> > > The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> > > go back and change anytjhng...
> > > I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> > > wrote about...
> > > I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> > > for that.
> > Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
> > punches with each other?
> Indeed, except that my point was that the tone went beyond my actual
> feelings/thoughts...
> > Theists take offense at the scrutiny of their
> > beliefs because they form the foundation of a flimsy belief system
> > that grants them emotional support. We can't exactly pick apart a
> > theist belief system and then turn a blind eye to our own.
> > After the first post I made when my son was born, you can be rest
> > assured that I know what I'm getting into when I reveal that I do
> > things like this. (Not that I want to rehash the heated discussion
> > from them).
> > I know it may disappoint some people, but I don't have a completely
> > rational reason for doing things like this and, yes, it may sound (and
> > even be) directly contradictory with views I express here and with the
> > direction I hope humanity is going.
> > The only answer I have for that (and I know that it may seem like a
> > cop-out), is that this is the difference between idealism and
> > pragmatism. On this site, I get to address the ideals of things. I can
> > sit back and mentally go over an issue and tear it appear without
> > really worrying about how people feel about it. In real life, I don't
> > have that luxury. The effort I spend scrutinizing a given action
> > directly depends on how important the consequences of that action are.
> > For the baptism, I judged the consequences to be nil, thus I really
> > didn't spend much time considering how participating in a baptism fits
> > in with my world view. Human beings are contradictory. Yes, this is
> > something we should work to reduce, but there is also a prioritization
> > issue.
> > The other thing is that the preception of us on this site is
> > backwards. We see each other as we are here, not in real life. This
> > builds the expectation that our real life personalities are components
> > of our online personalities, when the opposite is true.
> > It's not that my real life personality doesn't mesh with my online
> > personality, it's that my real life personality includes so much more
> > than how I appear to be here. Here, I get to strip away many of the
> > things that make me a complicated, complex, contradictory person.
> Very true.
> > In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
> > at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet.
> To you it is.
> However, I was thinking about the religious people around you who now
> that you are an atheist. They might think that you wanted the ceremony
> out of some irrational fear similar to Pascal's wager, thus
> reinforcing their own superstitious beliefs.
> In other words, what you, and I, consider to be a meaningless ceremony
> actually helps to propagate the very thing you think should disappear.
No more so than celebrating any other occasion with religious
overtones (weddings, many holidays, etc.). One thing I think is
lending to the emphasis on Baptism is that it is not as umbiquitous
than, say, Christmas.
The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
The grounds for the condemnation of baptism that have been presented
here are just as easily applied to Christmas. In fact, I would say
more so. If I'm against baptism, that really doesn't say anything
about religion as a whole. But if I'm against Christimas, then that
sends a pretty clear message of atheism.
> > Yes, it is
> > completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.
> > Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
> > passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
> > ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
> > claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.
> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
Baptism is like getting your ticket punched, or buying heaven
insurance....and the entire idea of baptism etc as adopted by the early
church was to make "belief" and particular both cheap and simple...so that
everyone would stop fighting among themselves and spending so much money on
various religious festivals and prayers...that there would be peace among
King Constantine's army so he could fight the enemies of the empire...and
also there would be more money to tax. Constantine stayed a PAGAN all of his
life...even if he promoted xianity.....Xianity as a new religion had less
fiestas, less expensive prayer offerings, didn't need to slaughter a bunch
of cattle, took less time, and was simpler...and included "forgiveness"...so
that everyone could get back to fighting Constantine's enemies.
Constantine was baptised when he was in a coma on his death bed. And Queen
Helena his mother....now that is a really funny story. She became entranced
with xianity and made a trip into the "holy land"...and "paid" the village
locals to tell her "where jesus was born, or where he died...and so on. So,
the locals taking her money...showed her...hahahaha....
Places like Nazareth did not exist until 300 years later...and there were
two Bethlehems, but she didn't know that...so its a real toss up if any of
the place names where the imaginary jesus lived. The biggest problem was
that none of these locals ever met any of jesus' family...and didn't know
any of the stuff that is now quoted in the bible as "real" ...its all a
major 2000 year old hoax...and all the real, and honest scholars in bible
history...know it.
Anyone who does honest research of any of the books in the bible know that
95% of it is just made up myths. Now you know why Atheism is growing....to
be an Atheist is a moral and ethical state of mind...where one does not lie
to themselves or other people. Its called being truthful.
It is so sad, that all these xians make such claims about how morally
superior they are...but when you confront them with facts and proof...they
make up lie after lie after lie...and its actually called Apologetics.
If something is actually true and can be proven...then there is no need for
Apologetics and make stuff up.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 15:47, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 10:34 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the
> rituals,
> > > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting"
> those
> > > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is
> practiced by
> > > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or
> understood.
> > > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction
> to
> > > > > be made here.
> > > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > > religious event... no?
> > > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > > Baptism.
> > What about the following:
> > Wedding presided over by a minister.
> > Christmas party.
> > Easter party.
> > Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.
> > Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
> > atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
> > much excludes doing any of the above.
> If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
> ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
> issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
> with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
> reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
> there are mitigating circumstances.
> > Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> > is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> > above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
> As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
> in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
> same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
> dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.
> So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
> eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
> deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
> indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
> to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
> to your atheism.
> > > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- 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.
WE are all ATheists....except Atheists just believe in one less god than the
xians....
Babies are born Atheists....
AND if you really, really believe in your bible...then YOUR IMAGINARY GOD
ALSO CREATED "EVIL"....ISAIAH 45:7....So, all the evil you do, is not your
fault then. Don't you xians pray every day...for god to take over your
life...and you turn it all over to jesus? Now that's scary, when your god
created evil.
And...You xians have so much faith and trust that god created it all....that
even if you are EVIL...then it was your evil god who made you do
evil....Right? Wait....you state you have "free will"...but then your god
created you, and created evil, and also created cancer, retarded children,
hurricanes, disease, and flies. Wow...your god has really been buzy putting
a lot of evil and disgusting stuff into the world....and you worship this
god thingy? Amazing....
And if god created evil, satan, and the devil, and you are evil BORN
SINNERS...then, why its not your fault if you are evil either. After
all..its god's swill isn't it...whatever you do, evil or not...How
irresponsible and what an amazing, idiotic bible you people believe and have
faith and trust in (see bible verses below)
But....god was and is soooo evil, that even he realized it...so he "begot"
(meaning he made Mary pregnant with his penis and semen) to "save" the
world...but first god's son has to commit suicide and go to hell for three
days...I am so impressed....
Let me go over this bible story again....First god creates evil, including a
"talking snake" to fool Adam and Eve...and when they do what they are
programmed to do by god...god then kicks them out of the garden and they are
shamed. Then...god is so pissed off at the human race...god then creates a
flood to kill all those evil, bad people including their innocent babies and
children.... who won't do what he says...and when that doesn't work, god
creates his "son"...who he kills too. Amazing story. I think I'm going to
fall out of my chair laughing.
How really wonderful that you xians all believe, and have faith and trust
in an imaginary god who created evil....You knuckle dragging xians disgust
me.
I just know we are going to have a battle of the bible verses...or someone
is going to come back and say..."Oh, that's a bad translation, when in fact,
they are not PhD bible scholars, they do not speak Greek, Aramaic, or Latin
vulgate...and have not a clue who even wrote the books of the bible in the
first place. So, unless you are bible scholar, don't bother me with your
"faith" in your relgious imagination. And don't bother "cherry picking" out
the bible verses that you seek to prove your point...because the bible is
written in such a way that anyone can find an answer or a justification for
anything they do. What a philosophical MESS! And this is the "word of god?"
Hahahaha, oh puleeeze.
And I will bet that not a xian in here...knows that the Pentateuch or the
Old Testament was first written in GREEK...and not Hebrew, by two old Rabbis
who made it all up to create a history for the Jews...to compete with the
glorious Greek and Roman history. And...the Old Testament books were written
800 years later than the Jews claim...Worse, the Old Testament books were
stories stolen and plagiarized from many other religions, including Pagan
gods and Zoroastrianism...there is not one single story in the bible,
including jesus the messy, bloody messiah that is original...not one. But,
then that's the problem with religious training...is that they lie to you
xians alot.
And guess what...because religious teachers are such genetic and historical
liars...its all catching up to them, and millions are now concluding
rightly, that they have been lied to and there is no god. And we Atheists
thank you...all you preachers, just keep lying, and keep it up...
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does the existence of "Jews for Jesus" then disprove that prophecy?
> On Nov 5, 12:52 am, "rampant.sam" <rampant....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ComandanteBanana,
> > I'm not sure if someone has already posted this or not, I haven't
> > cared to read ahead, but, just to answer your "How can Jesus claim he
> > was the Messiah when he was a Jew and even the Jews deny him?"
> > question: He can do so without any trouble at all, the messianic
> > prophecy that is Isaiah 53:3 "He was despised and rejected by men, a
> > man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men
> > hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." They "we,"
> > here, is referring to the Jews. It was prophesied that the Messiah
> > would be rejected by his own people.
> > -Sam
> --
> 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 Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting"
> those
> > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is
> practiced by
> > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > be made here.
> > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > religious event... no?
> > What makes something a "religious" event?
> It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> Baptism.
> > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > _________________________________________________
> > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- 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.
You're relatively new here and you've created quite the flurry of
posts.
Allow me to give you a recommendation:
Stop.
Read some of the threads, build an understanding of the topics
discussed here and the people that post here.
Talk *to* us, not *at* us. You come off as using this board as simply
a target for shot-gun practice, shooting out post after post. You
don't come off as a person people can have a conversation with.
Firstly, I'm not a Christian. If you even bothered to read the post(s)
you are responding to, you'd know that.
People like you make me wish there was a captcha required to post,
because it's like you're a bot or something.
Be a human, please.
On Nov 5, 10:51 am, Diana Wilson <dwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WE are all ATheists....except Atheists just believe in one less god than the
> xians....
> Babies are born Atheists....
> AND if you really, really believe in your bible...then YOUR IMAGINARY GOD
> ALSO CREATED "EVIL"....ISAIAH 45:7....So, all the evil you do, is not your
> fault then. Don't you xians pray every day...for god to take over your
> life...and you turn it all over to jesus? Now that's scary, when your god
> created evil.
> And...You xians have so much faith and trust that god created it all....that
> even if you are EVIL...then it was your evil god who made you do
> evil....Right? Wait....you state you have "free will"...but then your god
> created you, and created evil, and also created cancer, retarded children,
> hurricanes, disease, and flies. Wow...your god has really been buzy putting
> a lot of evil and disgusting stuff into the world....and you worship this
> god thingy? Amazing....
> And if god created evil, satan, and the devil, and you are evil BORN
> SINNERS...then, why its not your fault if you are evil either. After
> all..its god's swill isn't it...whatever you do, evil or not...How
> irresponsible and what an amazing, idiotic bible you people believe and have
> faith and trust in (see bible verses below)
> But....god was and is soooo evil, that even he realized it...so he "begot"
> (meaning he made Mary pregnant with his penis and semen) to "save" the
> world...but first god's son has to commit suicide and go to hell for three
> days...I am so impressed....
> Let me go over this bible story again....First god creates evil, including a
> "talking snake" to fool Adam and Eve...and when they do what they are
> programmed to do by god...god then kicks them out of the garden and they are
> shamed. Then...god is so pissed off at the human race...god then creates a
> flood to kill all those evil, bad people including their innocent babies and
> children.... who won't do what he says...and when that doesn't work, god
> creates his "son"...who he kills too. Amazing story. I think I'm going to
> fall out of my chair laughing.
> God created evil:
> Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6
> - (Isaiah 45:7, KJV <http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/Isaiah%2045.7>) -
> "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
> LORD do all these things."
> - (Amos 3:6 <http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Amos%203.6>) - "Shall a
> trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be
> evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
> How really wonderful that you xians all believe, and have faith and trust
> in an imaginary god who created evil....You knuckle dragging xians disgust
> me.
> I just know we are going to have a battle of the bible verses...or someone
> is going to come back and say..."Oh, that's a bad translation, when in fact,
> they are not PhD bible scholars, they do not speak Greek, Aramaic, or Latin
> vulgate...and have not a clue who even wrote the books of the bible in the
> first place. So, unless you are bible scholar, don't bother me with your
> "faith" in your relgious imagination. And don't bother "cherry picking" out
> the bible verses that you seek to prove your point...because the bible is
> written in such a way that anyone can find an answer or a justification for
> anything they do. What a philosophical MESS! And this is the "word of god?"
> Hahahaha, oh puleeeze.
> And I will bet that not a xian in here...knows that the Pentateuch or the
> Old Testament was first written in GREEK...and not Hebrew, by two old Rabbis
> who made it all up to create a history for the Jews...to compete with the
> glorious Greek and Roman history. And...the Old Testament books were written
> 800 years later than the Jews claim...Worse, the Old Testament books were
> stories stolen and plagiarized from many other religions, including Pagan
> gods and Zoroastrianism...there is not one single story in the bible,
> including jesus the messy, bloody messiah that is original...not one. But,
> then that's the problem with religious training...is that they lie to you
> xians alot.
> And guess what...because religious teachers are such genetic and historical
> liars...its all catching up to them, and millions are now concluding
> rightly, that they have been lied to and there is no god. And we Atheists
> thank you...all you preachers, just keep lying, and keep it up...
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does the existence of "Jews for Jesus" then disprove that prophecy?
> > On Nov 5, 12:52 am, "rampant.sam" <rampant....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ComandanteBanana,
> > > I'm not sure if someone has already posted this or not, I haven't
> > > cared to read ahead, but, just to answer your "How can Jesus claim he
> > > was the Messiah when he was a Jew and even the Jews deny him?"
> > > question: He can do so without any trouble at all, the messianic
> > > prophecy that is Isaiah 53:3 "He was despised and rejected by men, a
> > > man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men
> > > hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." They "we,"
> > > here, is referring to the Jews. It was prophesied that the Messiah
> > > would be rejected by his own people.
> > > -Sam
> > --
> > 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 Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
> > On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting"
> > those
> > > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is
> > practiced by
> > > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
> > > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
> > > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > > be made here.
> > > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
> > > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > > religious event... no?
> > > What makes something a "religious" event?
> > It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> > definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> > give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
> > define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> > Baptism.
> > > > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > > > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> > > > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- 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.- Hide quoted text -
|
