On Nov 6, 9:36 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Except that they are not religious in nature, just cultural.
> A superstition is a superstition. Why should we treat them
> differently?
To you and me they are equally inane.
However, to religious people, what we call religious superstitions
they call facts.
So, I am making the argument that I would not do anything that could
end up in reinforcing the belief that religions still deserve to be
around, or to reinforce the idea that their religious superstitions
might in fact be valid.
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> > > LL: It is, but if people were baptized or had the children baptized
> > > and thought better of it later: no harm, no foul. It's really not
> > > worth worrying about.
> > Well, since I would like to see religion disappear and be reduced to
> > the level of a personal belief system, one has to take a stance.
> > If even atheists initiate religious ceremonies because presumably they
> > are unimportant, how are we going to actually make them really
> > unimportant and eradicate the influence of religions in our lives?
> > Did your children attend Confirmation (Which is preceded by a few
> > weeks or religious studies at church)?
> LL: No, by the time they got to that age, I was more confident in my
> atheism. When they were very little I wasn't yet aware of the dangers
> of indoctrination. At first I worried about bringing up kids with no
> religion at all. This was a result of knowing absolutely no one who
> thought the way I did. Everyone I knew followed some kind of religion
> and they were quick to warn me of the dangers of kids being brought up
> with no religion--even my family doctor. Would my kids be outcasts?
> Would they suffer somehow? Would they be ruined for life? When you
> are alone these questions are not so easily answered. I did the best I
> could with what I had to work with. None of my kids hold it against me
> that they were baptized. They know that the whole thing was a learning
> process for me.
I understand.
Yes, it is a good thing that more and more we can reject all religions
without fear of being ostracized, at least, in many parts of the
world... It is just too bad that this is not something that is
universally accepted.
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> > > > > 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.
> > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > a religious event.
> > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > Thanksgiving is.
> And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
I know.
All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
a baptism as an excuse.
> > You can certainly celebrate Christmas with your family without getting
> > any priest involved... I do every year!
> Except the priest isn't a defining factor. Many Christians consider
> Christmas a religious occasion without involving a priest.
I did not say that a priest is the defining factor in order to
determine whether an event was religious or not.
I meant that if a priest is absolutely necessary then it is a
religious event. I understand that many religious event take place
without a priest being present. Baptisms are not one of those.
> > Not so with a baptism, otherwise it is not a baptism anymore.
> > > 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.
> > It sure does.
> No it doesn't, since many sects of Christianity don't include baptism.
Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
In any case, I am not disputing whether Christmas would be a better
repudiation of religion than baptisms are. All I am saying is that if
I take a stand against baptism (based on a lack of belief in gods, not
based on a doctrinal disagreement), I am also taking a stand against
religion.
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> On Nov 6, 9:36 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Except that they are not religious in nature, just cultural.
> > A superstition is a superstition. Why should we treat them
> > differently?
> To you and me they are equally inane.
> However, to religious people, what we call religious superstitions
> they call facts.
> So, I am making the argument that I would not do anything that could
> end up in reinforcing the belief that religions still deserve to be
> around, or to reinforce the idea that their religious superstitions
> might in fact be valid.
But you do that when you celebrate Christmas, unless you make a habit
of explicitly clarifying to everyone you meet that, while you are
participating in all of the pomp and ritual, you think it has no basis
in factuality.
> __________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
> On Nov 6, 9:38 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > a religious event.
> > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > Thanksgiving is.
> > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> I know.
> All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> a baptism as an excuse.
And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
as an excuse.
Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
event is still largely believed to be genuine.
Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
logically consistent.
> > > You can certainly celebrate Christmas with your family without getting
> > > any priest involved... I do every year!
> > Except the priest isn't a defining factor. Many Christians consider
> > Christmas a religious occasion without involving a priest.
> I did not say that a priest is the defining factor in order to
> determine whether an event was religious or not.
> I meant that if a priest is absolutely necessary then it is a
> religious event. I understand that many religious event take place
> without a priest being present. Baptisms are not one of those.
> > > Not so with a baptism, otherwise it is not a baptism anymore.
> > > > 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.
> > > It sure does.
> > No it doesn't, since many sects of Christianity don't include baptism.
> Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> In any case, I am not disputing whether Christmas would be a better
> repudiation of religion than baptisms are. All I am saying is that if
> I take a stand against baptism (based on a lack of belief in gods, not
> based on a doctrinal disagreement), I am also taking a stand against
> religion.
> __________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
> > > > > 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.
> > > > Except that they are not religious in nature, just cultural.
> > > A superstition is a superstition. Why should we treat them
> > > differently?
> > To you and me they are equally inane.
> > However, to religious people, what we call religious superstitions
> > they call facts.
> > So, I am making the argument that I would not do anything that could
> > end up in reinforcing the belief that religions still deserve to be
> > around, or to reinforce the idea that their religious superstitions
> > might in fact be valid.
> But you do that when you celebrate Christmas, unless you make a habit
> of explicitly clarifying to everyone you meet that, while you are
> participating in all of the pomp and ritual, you think it has no basis
> in factuality.
What "pomp and rituals" are you referring to?
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > a religious event.
> > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > I know.
> > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > a baptism as an excuse.
> And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> as an excuse.
> Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
Not quite.
Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
a given holiday on a given calendar day.
Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
to.
Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
societal event, which is a very different thing.
> I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> logically consistent.
Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
societal.
<snip>
> > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
there are other ways to refute religions.
Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
celebrate Christmas.
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> On Nov 7, 6:32 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Except that they are not religious in nature, just cultural.
> > > > A superstition is a superstition. Why should we treat them
> > > > differently?
> > > To you and me they are equally inane.
> > > However, to religious people, what we call religious superstitions
> > > they call facts.
> > > So, I am making the argument that I would not do anything that could
> > > end up in reinforcing the belief that religions still deserve to be
> > > around, or to reinforce the idea that their religious superstitions
> > > might in fact be valid.
> > But you do that when you celebrate Christmas, unless you make a habit
> > of explicitly clarifying to everyone you meet that, while you are
> > participating in all of the pomp and ritual, you think it has no basis
> > in factuality.
> What "pomp and rituals" are you referring to?
Have a tree, decorate it, exchange presents, hang a wreath, stockings.
> __________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
> On Nov 7, 6:35 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > I know.
> > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > as an excuse.
> > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> Not quite.
Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> a given holiday on a given calendar day.
Do you suppose it was always like that?
> Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> to.
> Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > logically consistent.
> Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> societal.
> <snip>
> > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> there are other ways to refute religions.
> Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> celebrate Christmas.
You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> __________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > Except that they are not religious in nature, just cultural.
> > > > > A superstition is a superstition. Why should we treat them
> > > > > differently?
> > > > To you and me they are equally inane.
> > > > However, to religious people, what we call religious superstitions
> > > > they call facts.
> > > > So, I am making the argument that I would not do anything that could
> > > > end up in reinforcing the belief that religions still deserve to be
> > > > around, or to reinforce the idea that their religious superstitions
> > > > might in fact be valid.
> > > But you do that when you celebrate Christmas, unless you make a habit
> > > of explicitly clarifying to everyone you meet that, while you are
> > > participating in all of the pomp and ritual, you think it has no basis
> > > in factuality.
> > What "pomp and rituals" are you referring to?
> Have a tree, decorate it, exchange presents, hang a wreath, stockings.
But these are not religious rituals.
In any case, see my comments lower down this thread.
The main difference for me is that Christmas is a societal event,
while baptisms are personal events.
____________________________________________
A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > I know.
> > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > as an excuse.
> > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > Not quite.
> Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
celebration.
Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
in the life of their progeny.
> > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> Do you suppose it was always like that?
Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > to.
> > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> Christmas had to be like that at some point.
No, it was not.
Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
might have decided to partake in.
Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
individual baptisms.
> > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > logically consistent.
> > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > societal.
> > <snip>
> > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > celebrate Christmas.
> You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
then it does become a stand agasint religion.
____________________________________________
A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
> On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > I know.
> > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > as an excuse.
> > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > Not quite.
> > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> celebration.
> Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> in the life of their progeny.
> > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > to.
> > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> No, it was not.
> Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> might have decided to partake in.
> Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> individual baptisms.
> > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > logically consistent.
> > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > societal.
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > celebrate Christmas.
> > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> ____________________________________________
> A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
objections as you do now?
> On Nov 9, 8:51 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > Not quite.
> > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > celebration.
> > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > to.
> > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > No, it was not.
> > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > might have decided to partake in.
> > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > individual baptisms.
> > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > societal.
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > ____________________________________________
> > A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> > -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> objections as you do now?- Hide quoted text -
Baptism (if I remember it correctly) includes an explicit public
profession of faith in a particular god. For me that is an issue if
the ceremony is instigated by an atheist or even by a muslim or a
pagan who do not actually believe in the god whom they are asking to
bless their child (by not torturing it for eternity if it happens to
die early in life).
None of this is explicit in the celebration of Christmas which for
many people has no significance other than giving and getting presents
and decorating their houses.
I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
Christmas.
> On 9 Nov, 14:35, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 8:51 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > > Not quite.
> > > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > > celebration.
> > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > > to.
> > > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > > No, it was not.
> > > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > > might have decided to partake in.
> > > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > > individual baptisms.
> > > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > > societal.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> > > -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > objections as you do now?- Hide quoted text -
> Baptism (if I remember it correctly) includes an explicit public
> profession of faith in a particular god. For me that is an issue if
> the ceremony is instigated by an atheist or even by a muslim or a
> pagan who do not actually believe in the god whom they are asking to
> bless their child (by not torturing it for eternity if it happens to
> die early in life).
I don't really recall the specific mumbo jumbo. There wasn't a
specific profession of faith on my part, but some acknowledgement that
we will raise the child according to some Christian values, etc. etc.
But since Christians values are whatever the person talking about them
wants them to be, this really isn't a problem (more post-hoc
rationalization, I know).
> None of this is explicit in the celebration of Christmas which for
> many people has no significance other than giving and getting presents
> and decorating their houses.
> I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
To be fair, there are two things going on here:
Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
do not subscribe to said religious signifiance.
I am not, however, using the above argument to justify what I did. I
admit that I did not think of any of this at the time. My reason for
intiating the event was to ensure that certain elderly family members
would make the trip and participate in the celebration of my child and
my primary motivation was that this would make my wife happy, as she
is concerned that, due to the infrequency in which we see those family
members, and their advanced age, the amount of time they will see
draftertoddler is limited already.
No, I did not go into this detail in the beginning (perhaps I should
have) and merely said I wanted to make some family happy. Upon
retrospect I realize that my concern was my wife's happiness rather
than some extended family.
> On Nov 9, 11:12 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 9 Nov, 14:35, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 8:51 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > > > Not quite.
> > > > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > > > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > > > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > > > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > > > celebration.
> > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > > > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > > > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > > > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > > > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > > > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > > > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > > > to.
> > > > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > > > No, it was not.
> > > > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > > > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > > > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > > > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > > > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > > > might have decided to partake in.
> > > > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > > > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > > > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > > > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > > > individual baptisms.
> > > > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > > > societal.
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > > > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > > > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > > > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> > > > -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > > objections as you do now?- Hide quoted text -
> > Baptism (if I remember it correctly) includes an explicit public
> > profession of faith in a particular god. For me that is an issue if
> > the ceremony is instigated by an atheist or even by a muslim or a
> > pagan who do not actually believe in the god whom they are asking to
> > bless their child (by not torturing it for eternity if it happens to
> > die early in life).
> I don't really recall the specific mumbo jumbo. There wasn't a
> specific profession of faith on my part, but some acknowledgement that
> we will raise the child according to some Christian values, etc. etc.
> But since Christians values are whatever the person talking about them
> wants them to be, this really isn't a problem (more post-hoc
> rationalization, I know).
> > None of this is explicit in the celebration of Christmas which for
> > many people has no significance other than giving and getting presents
> > and decorating their houses.
> > I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> > you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> > up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> > yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> > Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
> To be fair, there are two things going on here:
> Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
> occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
> overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
> is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
> from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
> secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
> phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
> do not subscribe to said religious signifiance.
> I am not, however, using the above argument to justify what I did. I
> admit that I did not think of any of this at the time. My reason for
> intiating the event was to ensure that certain elderly family members
> would make the trip and participate in the celebration of my child and
> my primary motivation was that this would make my wife happy, as she
> is concerned that, due to the infrequency in which we see those family
> members, and their advanced age, the amount of time they will see
> draftertoddler is limited already.
> No, I did not go into this detail in the beginning (perhaps I should
> have) and merely said I wanted to make some family happy. Upon
> retrospect I realize that my concern was my wife's happiness rather
> than some extended family.
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > Not quite.
> > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > celebration.
> > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > to.
> > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > No, it was not.
> > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > might have decided to partake in.
> > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > individual baptisms.
> > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > societal.
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> objections as you do now?
Well, if it was not held in a church, if no priest were involved, if
no biblical quotes were uttered, or any other religious trappings
involved (such as holy water), then no, or course not. In such a
situation, stripped of all religious affiliations, it would have been
reduced to a symbolic gesture of welcoming a new human being to the
world, or whatever significance each families might see.
____________________________________________
A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
> > > I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> > > you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> > > up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> > > yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> > > Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
> > To be fair, there are two things going on here:
> > Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
> > occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
> > overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
> > is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
> > from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
> > secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
> > phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
> > do not subscribe to said religious signifiance.
> > I am not, however, using the above argument to justify what I did. I
> > admit that I did not think of any of this at the time. My reason for
> > intiating the event was to ensure that certain elderly family members
> > would make the trip and participate in the celebration of my child and
> > my primary motivation was that this would make my wife happy, as she
> > is concerned that, due to the infrequency in which we see those family
> > members, and their advanced age, the amount of time they will see
> > draftertoddler is limited already.
> > No, I did not go into this detail in the beginning (perhaps I should
> > have) and merely said I wanted to make some family happy. Upon
> > retrospect I realize that my concern was my wife's happiness rather
> > than some extended family.
> I dont think anyone would question your motives but it does raise the
> question for me whether I would do anything differently. I probably
> wouldnt, other than maybe having my fingers crossed or asking for a
> copy of Origin to swear on.
> It shows the church in a bad light IMO (what again? sheesh!) That they
> insist on people denying their own intellect just to have a ceremony.
> I know the Xians will be going "wtf" at that statement but really, if
> you approached a priest and explained that you were an atheist but
> because of your love for your family, you would like your baby
> baptised as a way of bringing your extended kinfolk together, Im
> guessing you wouldnt find much encouragement.
Except that you can have a family event, inviting all your family and
friends, to welcome your baby to the world, without the baptism.
I do not think that if your invited your religious relatives to a non-
religious gathering in order to officially welcome your baby to the
world that those relatives would not come simply becasue it was not
actually a baptism (Similarly, such relatives usually show up to a
secular wedding or funeral...). If they did not, you might get a hint
that you do not need to associate yourself with those bozos anymore...
____________________________________________
A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
> On Nov 9, 9:35 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > > Not quite.
> > > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > > celebration.
> > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > > to.
> > > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > > No, it was not.
> > > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > > might have decided to partake in.
> > > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > > individual baptisms.
> > > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > > societal.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > objections as you do now?
> Well, if it was not held in a church, if no priest were involved, if
> no biblical quotes were uttered, or any other religious trappings
> involved (such as holy water), then no, or course not. In such a
> situation, stripped of all religious affiliations, it would have been
> reduced to a symbolic gesture of welcoming a new human being to the
> world, or whatever significance each families might see.
Ok. Now, if i had to guess, I would assume that you probably don't
care if baptism ever gets to that point as opposed to, say, simply
fading out of existence all together, but bear with me.
How do you suppose that baptism *could* get to this point?
I imagine it would necessarily involve people willing to bring it from
point A to B. But simply and immediately stripping it of all religious
trappings would simply create a secular version of baptism rather than
convert baptism itself. So you'd have two rituals side-by-side, which
is something else altogether.
Now, baptism is on a smaller scale, controled by a central authority
(the Catholic Church) which inhibits any changes (as opposed to
Christmas which is subject to change as the populace perceives it).
> ____________________________________________
> A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> On 9 Nov, 16:30, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 11:12 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 9 Nov, 14:35, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 8:51 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > > > > Not quite.
> > > > > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > > > > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > > > > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > > > > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > > > > celebration.
> > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > > > > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > > > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > > > > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > > > > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > > > > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > > > > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > > > > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > > > > to.
> > > > > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > > > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > > > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > > > > No, it was not.
> > > > > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > > > > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > > > > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > > > > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > > > > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > > > > might have decided to partake in.
> > > > > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > > > > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > > > > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > > > > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > > > > individual baptisms.
> > > > > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > > > > societal.
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > > > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > > > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > > > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > > > > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > > > > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > > > > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> > > > > -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > > > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > > > objections as you do now?- Hide quoted text -
> > > Baptism (if I remember it correctly) includes an explicit public
> > > profession of faith in a particular god. For me that is an issue if
> > > the ceremony is instigated by an atheist or even by a muslim or a
> > > pagan who do not actually believe in the god whom they are asking to
> > > bless their child (by not torturing it for eternity if it happens to
> > > die early in life).
> > I don't really recall the specific mumbo jumbo. There wasn't a
> > specific profession of faith on my part, but some acknowledgement that
> > we will raise the child according to some Christian values, etc. etc.
> > But since Christians values are whatever the person talking about them
> > wants them to be, this really isn't a problem (more post-hoc
> > rationalization, I know).
> > > None of this is explicit in the celebration of Christmas which for
> > > many people has no significance other than giving and getting presents
> > > and decorating their houses.
> > > I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> > > you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> > > up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> > > yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> > > Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
> > To be fair, there are two things going on here:
> > Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
> > occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
> > overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
> > is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
> > from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
> > secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
> > phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
> > do not subscribe to said religious signifiance.
> > I am not, however, using the above argument to justify what I did. I
> > admit that I did not think of any of this at the time. My reason for
> > intiating the event was to ensure that certain elderly family members
> > would make the trip and participate in the celebration of my child and
> > my primary motivation was that this would make my wife happy, as she
> > is concerned that, due to the infrequency in which we see those family
> > members, and their advanced age, the amount of time they
I also realise im in danger of getting a fence post up my arse but...
Although we fight the good fight here and give support or money there
because "theists" have the power. A couple of old ladies in the
backwoods bible belt, are not going to become atheists just because of
D-mans standing on principal. However, they may cause family problems
if they dont get to go to a baptism.
I suppose what im saying is "pick your battles".
On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:00 pm, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
> > > > I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> > > > you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> > > > up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> > > > yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> > > > Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
> > > To be fair, there are two things going on here:
> > > Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
> > > occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
> > > overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
> > > is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
> > > from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
> > > secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
> > > phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
> > > do not subscribe to said religious signifiance.
> > > I am not, however, using the above argument to justify what I did. I
> > > admit that I did not think of any of this at the time. My reason for
> > > intiating the event was to ensure that certain elderly family members
> > > would make the trip and participate in the celebration of my child and
> > > my primary motivation was that this would make my wife happy, as she
> > > is concerned that, due to the infrequency in which we see those family
> > > members, and their advanced age, the amount of time they will see
> > > draftertoddler is limited already.
> > > No, I did not go into this detail in the beginning (perhaps I should
> > > have) and merely said I wanted to make some family happy. Upon
> > > retrospect I realize that my concern was my wife's happiness rather
> > > than some extended family.
> > I dont think anyone would question your motives but it does raise the
> > question for me whether I would do anything differently. I probably
> > wouldnt, other than maybe having my fingers crossed or asking for a
> > copy of Origin to swear on.
> > It shows the church in a bad light IMO (what again? sheesh!) That they
> > insist on people denying their own intellect just to have a ceremony.
> > I know the Xians will be going "wtf" at that statement but really, if
> > you approached a priest and explained that you were an atheist but
> > because of your love for your family, you would like your baby
> > baptised as a way of bringing your extended kinfolk together, Im
> > guessing you wouldnt find much encouragement.
> Except that you can have a family event, inviting all your family and
> friends, to welcome your baby to the world, without the baptism.
> I do not think that if your invited your religious relatives to a non-
> religious gathering in order to officially welcome your baby to the
> world that those relatives would not come simply becasue it was not
> actually a baptism (Similarly, such relatives usually show up to a
> secular wedding or funeral...). If they did not, you might get a hint
> that you do not need to associate yourself with those bozos anymore...
> ____________________________________________
> A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> -- Lemuel K Washburn
D-man
"I wondered about that, since they do ask about the parent's religious
affiliation. I know that I was written down as a "none", but no one
ever really brought it up."
that both suprises and pleases me.
On 9 Nov, 19:35, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 9, 8:51 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Except that a baptism is not an event with religious over-tones, it IS
> > > > > > > > > > > > a religious event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you have a baptism without a priest?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, so it has lost a lot of its religious significance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In many cases, it is just an excuse for families to get together, like
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving is.
> > > > > > > > > > > And that's precisely what I used the baptism for.
> > > > > > > > > > I know.
> > > > > > > > > > All I am sayinig is that you could have had a family gathering without
> > > > > > > > > > a baptism as an excuse.
> > > > > > > > > And I can have a family gathering in December without using Christmas
> > > > > > > > > as an excuse.
> > > > > > > > > Christmas is being treated differently because its religious
> > > > > > > > > connections have been weakened, while baptism's have not.
> > > > > > > > > But you have to realize that to get to this point (Where people
> > > > > > > > > celebrate Christmas out of traditional, rather than acknowledgment of
> > > > > > > > > religious superstition) we *have* to go through this process where the
> > > > > > > > > event is still largely believed to be genuine.
> > > > > > > > > Christmas had to have been like baptism at some point, and couldn't
> > > > > > > > > have gotten the way it is today without people that didn't really
> > > > > > > > > believe in it nevertheless participating in it.
> > > > > > > > Not quite.
> > > > > > > Then can you explain how it can go from one to the other?
> > > > > > Becasue Xmas is a sociatal event on given date recurring every year.
> > > > > > Being collective, as soon as the collective that celebrated it became
> > > > > > dominant in a given nation, then the celebration became a national
> > > > > > celebration.
> > > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals decide to initiate once
> > > > > > in the life of their progeny.
> > > > > > > > Regardless, Christmas is different because no one initiates it, it is
> > > > > > > > a given holiday on a given calendar day.
> > > > > > > Do you suppose it was always like that?
> > > > > > Yes, as soon as the Church announced that Jesus was born on the 25...
> > > > > > It was always a non-personal event, with a mass and with people all
> > > > > > agreeing to celebrate the event on a given day once a year.
> > > > > > Of course, as time went on, it evolved and a secualr aspect took a
> > > > > > larger importance, especially since the rise of capitalism.
> > > > > > > > Baptisms are personal events that individuals initiate if they choose
> > > > > > > > to.
> > > > > > > > Whether you want to celebrate Christmas or not, it will be celebrated
> > > > > > > > around you. Nobody is going to baptize your child regardless of your
> > > > > > > > wishes, unless you are in a very very bad marriage!
> > > > > > > > And that is the main difference I am trying to highlight.
> > > > > > > I am acknowledging that difference but trying to highlight that
> > > > > > > Christmas had to be like that at some point.
> > > > > > No, it was not.
> > > > > > Christmas has always been impersonal in origin, it is the
> > > > > > acknowledgement of the birth of a third person and is celebrated on a
> > > > > > given day recurrently. Of course, the way it was celebrated at first
> > > > > > may have been personal, but I am sure that all churches held some kind
> > > > > > of collective event regardless of the type of celebration individuals
> > > > > > might have decided to partake in.
> > > > > > Baptisms are celebrated at a personal level once in the life of the
> > > > > > individual being celebrated. Without the parents instigating the
> > > > > > event, it would not take pale. Xmas, even if most people ignored it,
> > > > > > would still be acknowledged and celebrated by the church, not so with
> > > > > > individual baptisms.
> > > > > > > > In one case, an individual initiate the event, not in the other.
> > > > > > > > The best one can do in the second case is refuse to participate in a
> > > > > > > > societal event, which is a very different thing.
> > > > > > > > > I don't think you can accept one but reject the other while remaining
> > > > > > > > > logically consistent.
> > > > > > > > Yes, because as I stated, one is a personal event and the other is
> > > > > > > > societal.
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, since baptisms are religious events, how does taking a stand
> > > > > > > > > > against baptism not translate into a stand against religion?
> > > > > > > > > Because you can be religious and not agree with baptisms.
> > > > > > > > All I stated is that baptisms are 100% religious events, so by
> > > > > > > > refuting baptisms, you are refuting something religious, even though
> > > > > > > > there are other ways to refute religions.
> > > > > > > > Just like refuting Christmas can be a means of refuting religions (as
> > > > > > > > you stated, quite correctly), even though Zoroastrians do not
> > > > > > > > celebrate Christmas.
> > > > > > > You are refuting something religious, yes, but you are not taking a
> > > > > > > stand against religions because you can be religious (and thus support
> > > > > > > religions) and still take a stand against baptisms.
> > > > > > True, however you could use the exact same argument for Xmas.
> > > > > > Also, if the person taking the stand is known not to be a believer,
> > > > > > then it does become a stand agasint religion.
> > > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > > A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
> > > > > > -- Lemuel K Washburn- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > > > > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > > > > objections as you do now?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > Baptism (if I remember it correctly) includes an explicit public
> > > > profession of faith in a particular god. For me that is an issue if
> > > > the ceremony is instigated by an atheist or even by a muslim or a
> > > > pagan who do not actually believe in the god whom they are asking to
> > > > bless their child (by not torturing it for eternity if it happens to
> > > > die early in life).
> > > I don't really recall the specific mumbo jumbo. There wasn't a
> > > specific profession of faith on my part, but some acknowledgement that
> > > we will raise the child according to some Christian values, etc. etc.
> > > But since Christians values are whatever the person talking about them
> > > wants them to be, this really isn't a problem (more post-hoc
> > > rationalization, I know).
> > > > None of this is explicit in the celebration of Christmas which for
> > > > many people has no significance other than giving and getting presents
> > > > and decorating their houses.
> > > > I think you are engaging in some post-hoc rationalization here and as
> > > > you are a very good debater it does not surprise me that you can come
> > > > up with some reasonably logical arguments in order to convince
> > > > yourself that what you have done is really no different to celebrating
> > > > Christmas.- Hide quoted text -
> > > To be fair, there are two things going on here:
> > > Yes, I am analyzing the difference in perception between different
> > > occasions with religious overtones and those that have had said
> > > overtones diluted. What you highlight above I agree with and concede
> > > is a significance difference. My main argument here is that to get
> > > from one (inherently religious occasion) to the other (societal,
> > > secular occasion with religious history) you have to go through a
> > > phase where you have people participating (and even initiating) that
> > > do not subscribe
> > > Here's a question: if batpism was so common that people simply did it,
> > > without concern for its religious roots, would you have the same
> > > objections as you do now?
> > Well, if it was not held in a church, if no priest were involved, if
> > no biblical quotes were uttered, or any other religious trappings
> > involved (such as holy water), then no, or course not. In such a
> > situation, stripped of all religious affiliations, it would have been
> > reduced to a symbolic gesture of welcoming a new human being to the
> > world, or whatever significance each families might see.
> Ok. Now, if i had to guess, I would assume that you probably don't
> care if baptism ever gets to that point as opposed to, say, simply
> fading out of existence all together, but bear with me.
> How do you suppose that baptism *could* get to this point?
> I imagine it would necessarily involve people willing to bring it from
> point A to B. But simply and immediately stripping it of all religious
> trappings would simply create a secular version of baptism
And what's wrong with that?
> rather than
> convert baptism itself. So you'd have two rituals side-by-side, which
> is something else altogether.
And?
All we would need is a new word and we are in business!
> Now, baptism is on a smaller scale, controled by a central authority
> (the Catholic Church) which inhibits any changes (as opposed to
> Christmas which is subject to change as the populace perceives it).
Why this insistence that we should change it one small step at the
time?
Christmas became what it is through "unconsciousness."
If you are going to do something consciously, go all the way!
Again this is not a societal event, it would take way too long.
Just do not perform it, do something different, do not call it a
baptism, call it a party or what not.
Of course, I do appreciate that there are issues with relatives to
handle. I am speaking as an idealist...
As for my kids, I simply did not perform any baptism for any of my
kids, they don't care, I did care not to do it, my family did not care
one way or another... Now, not performing it is even a faster way to
get rid of it!
I guess not all families are like that though...
______________________________________________
A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
|
