1 year and still an atheist.

[Drafterman]

About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.

It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
(or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
Draftertoddler) is an atheist.

Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?

That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
whatsoever.

[Kippers]

Also the rare cases of feral children who have been raised either by
some animals or totally by themselves also seem to be atheists. It
certainly seems to be the default position.

I am a bit surprised that you have had your baby baptised. Is that in
order to get him into a catholic school and thereby also supporting
the state funded faith based schools initiative?

Sorry for the critical tone but I hate the idea of having children
ordained into a particular religious denomination before they know
anything about it almost as much as I hate the idea of faith based
schools. Presumably your wife is a catholic or this is a tactical
move regarding school admission?

[Trance Gemini]

The fun part starts when he equates gods with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (shock)

Kids who are not indoctrinated tend to do that (speaking from experience - hehe).

My son went to a Baptist day care for a while and loved wearing his "I'm a little devil t-shirt"  there. ;-)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[Trance Gemini]

I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.

To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so if it makes the family happy why fight over it.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Kippers]

On 3 Nov, 16:08, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
>
> To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so if
> it makes the family happy why fight over it.
>

That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
more important than making a principled stance over something like
this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
that do by acting as if they do.

>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

On 3 Nov, 16:08, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
>
> To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so if
> it makes the family happy why fight over it.
>

That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
more important than making a principled stance over something like
this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
that do by acting as if they do.

Meaningless gestures don't amount to principles IMO.

So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
 

>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

It was strictly a ceremonial thing that me and my wife decided to do
for two primary reasons:

To bestow the honor of god-parent hood on some close friends.
To make some of the older, more religious members of our family happy.

I am not offended by the tone, I know full well I'm bound to catch
some slack for this, probably more-so for the reasons I gave, as they
appear to be appeasement.

From my point of view, it was splashing water on his head and then
having a party with friends and family. We were under no pressure
(passive-aggressive or otherwise) from anyone to do this and it was
actually my idea to begin with. The godparents, while not regular
church attenders or bible thumpers are Catholic.

In short, I felt was a nice thing to do and the only cost to me and my
child was the time to take do the ceremony. I see no real difference
between this and celebrating Christmas or Thanksgiving with family.
Sure the tradition has religious roots and, sure, certain participants
will think the event imbuned with some supernatural significance, but
that's on them. I participate because I enjoy spending time with
family and it's tradition.

Whether or not this affects my child is, frankly, up to him when he
gets to an age to make those decisions.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

On 3 Nov, 16:08, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
>
> To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so if
> it makes the family happy why fight over it.
>

That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
more important than making a principled stance over something like
this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
that do by acting as if they do.

Just to elaborate a bit on this.

My family is very PC. They have all sorts of "principles" which they claim matter and should be employed in child rearing.

For example, my nieces and nephews weren't allowed to have Ken and Barbie dolls or GI Joe toys, etc. and this was considered some big principle.

I chose to ignore all of that and let my kids have whatever and didn't make a federal case out of their toys.

My daughter used to go to school with Cabbage Patch make up on, read idiotic books like Sweet Valley Twins and my son loved his GI Joe war games.

I focused on teaching them to think critically and express themselves with confidence.

Both my kids have grown into responsible intelligent adults who think critically.

My daughter isn't a Barbie Doll and my son isn't a War Monger.

I can't say the same about the rest of my nieces and nephews in terms of their attitudes.
 

>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Neil Kelsey]

Do the relgious relatives realize that you're an atheist?

[Kippers]

On 3 Nov, 16:22, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Nov, 16:08, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
>
> > > To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so
> > if
> > > it makes the family happy why fight over it.
>
> > That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
> > more important than making a principled stance over something like
> > this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
> > liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
> > that do by acting as if they do.
>
> Meaningless gestures don't amount to principles IMO.
>
> So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
>

I doubt the bishop or priest or whoever does the baptism will see it
as a meaningless gesture, nor will most of the congregation. It’s
also clear that the catholic school who will only accept pupils if
they have been baptised see it as a meaningless gesture.

It is pandering to the catholic institutions; there may actually be no
one left on the planet who is truly a catholic yet it maintains its
position due to people simply conforming to its rules whilst actually
considering them as nothing more than meaningless gestures.

However, if the best schools in your area are catholic schools and all
your family would be upset if the baby was not baptised then that
might be enough to overcome the above objections.

I don’t mean to judge Dmans actions on this, just trying to explain
the way I feel on the subject. I may have a baby myself in the not
too distant future and these are all issues I will have to deal with
as well.

[Trance Gemini]

Fair enough. Then this is a good discussion to have right now :-)

I don't consider making personal concessions for family appeasement.

Appeasement IMO is a political and strategic approach used in dealing with religious questions in society.

So that's how I would differentiate it.

So DMan's decision IMO is not an appeasement issue.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

In addition, how the church sees it is irrelevant.

What matters is how DMan sees it and what his motivation is which he's been clear about.
 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[Bob T.]

On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.

Congratulations! It's time for some Neil Young:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l3-3kmvuT8&feature=PlayList&p=6EBE218BC0B99D37&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=95

- Bob T.

[LL]

LL: Well, he's pretty young yet. He'll need several years of intense
indoctrination to seem like anything but an atheist.

I had 3 of my 4 children baptized for various family reasons--and
though I was on the atheist track I wasn't quite ready to take the
final step when it came to my children. The first one went to Sunday
School and received first communion, the second and third ones didn't.
The last one is my little heathen who was never baptized. I never
brought up religion or god, but answered their questions. They're all
good atheists, never got involved in drugs, got degrees, and have good
careers. Being atheists certainly did them no harm, though I worried
about that for a while.

***********************

On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

To be honest, no. I think revealing that would be an event akin to
"coming out of the closet".

>
>
>
> > In short, I felt was a nice thing to do and the only cost to me and my
> > child was the time to take do the ceremony. I see no real difference
> > between this and celebrating Christmas or Thanksgiving with family.
> > Sure the tradition has religious roots and, sure, certain participants
> > will think the event imbuned with some supernatural significance, but
> > that's on them. I participate because I enjoy spending time with
> > family and it's tradition.
>
> > Whether or not this affects my child is, frankly, up to him when he

> > gets to an age to make those decisions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Brock]

On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> whatsoever.

It's worth considering:

All of humankind born through natural generation have a sinful nature.

Regards,

Brock

[Drafterman]

> as well.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I understand where you're coming from: that this ceremony is implicit
reinforcement of their religious beliefs and, in some way, is making
the "problem" worse.

I'm not sure that I agree that it is the case. For the Father, it's
just one in a long line of ceremonies. I imagine he does hundreds of
baptisms a year, one less or one more is unlikely to affect the
strength of his belief in a non-neglible way, especially compared with
the years of indoctrination he went through to become a Father to
begin with.

That leaves the the people that were there. It was a family-only
ceremony. Now, I don't know the exact nature of and magnitude of the
religious proclivaties of my various family, friends and inlaws, but
if I had to divide them into groups it would be:

The non-religious.
The religious yet not practicing (those whose religion is assumed and
taken for granted, even by them, and they've never really thought
about the alternative).
The consciously religious.

The non-religious would see it the same as I do, so their beliefs
remain unaffected.
The consciously religious would be in the same category as the Father,
so their beliefs remain unaffected. Their belief is already as strong
as it is going to get.

That leaves the middle group (which I feel comprises the majority of
the population).

Perhaps, during the process of the the cermony certain religious
feelings and emotions are brought to the surface. Will it have a
lasting effect? Will they be, "Well, I was going to vote for Obama to
have a second term, but my Nephew got baptized, so I'll vote for
Palin." (exageration, I know). I can't say.

Like I said, I see this as nothing different than Christmas,
Thanksgiving and Easter. These holidays exist and are celebrated, I
don't think that participating in them with family exacerbates the
situation.

If the Christians can hijack formerly pagan holidays and rituals and
twist them to meet their goals and desires, why can't I, as an
atheist, hijack their holidays and rituals and twist them to meet my
goals and desires?

[Sebastian]

I'd have to agree. Having a baby baptised before they can decide
whether they want to be or not does not sound like a good idea to me.
Maybe when they grow up they will not see it as meaningless. Maybe
they will be happy about it, maybe they will think it's a bad thing
and they'd wish they hadn't been baptised or maybe they will think
nothing of it. But whatever they think, it should be their decision
whether to do it or not.

[Dead Kennedy]

"natural generation" as opposed to what? toilet seats?

if you mean sex brock, just come out and say it.

[Neil Kelsey]

aHA! ;D

Draftertoddler is going to out you anyway, eventually. He'll probably
be Drafterkid by then, but your days of appeasing the relatives are
numbered. This has "balloon boy blurts!" written all over it.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd have to agree. Having a baby baptised before they can decide
> whether they want to be or not does not sound like a good idea to me.
> Maybe when they grow up they will not see it as meaningless. Maybe
> they will be happy about it, maybe they will think it's a bad thing
> and they'd wish they hadn't been baptised or maybe they will think
> nothing of it. But whatever they think, it should be their decision
> whether to do it or not.

This argument could be used for any decision.
We've decided to go with a dinosaur theme with him. Room decorations,
clothes, toys. The primary theme is dinosaurs. Maybe he'll become a
paleontologist because of it. Maybe he'll hate dinosaurs because of
it. Maybe it won't affect him one way or the other. But because it
*may* affect his decisions later in life then we shouldn't have a
theme?
Same with day care.
Same with school.

Sorry, but as his parent it's my responsibility to make decisions for
him. He was splashed with water, a physically innocuous event. He is
physiologically incapable of remembering anything that happened. I
think it's safe to say that this will have no affect on him what-so-
ever.

The significance he places on it it will be a result of all of his
upbringing.

I wasn't baptised. When I found this out, I was surprised. I simply
took it for granted that children were baptized. This implicit
assumption certainly didn't have an adverse affect to me becoming an
atheist.

Chances are, if my child is going to place religious significance on
an event he only knows about because I had to recall it for him then
he's going to find a reason to become religious regardless.

> > as well.- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Everyone that cares will probably be dead by then.

[Neil Kelsey]

Hope not...but I'm sure you've got it covered.

I tried to do the same thing with my children about Santa Claus. I
told them that Santa Claus was just pretend, and we could have a fun
time playing along with the family members who tried to convince them
he was real. There was no way I was going to let my children be duped
by any training wheels for Jesus. They were thrilled to be in on a
conspiracy, and we laughed and cackled at the fun we'd have fooling
the grown ups. Of course the younger one immediately charged over to
her Catholic(ish) grandmother and spilled the beans. She actually got
mad at me. I was shocked, but I was also naive, not having been around
religious people while raising children. Bottom line, my kids were
going to be skeptics, if nothing else.

[Drafterman]

That's an interesting take. I hadn't considered doing something like
that. It's definitely something to consider.

>
>
>
> > > > > > In short, I felt was a nice thing to do and the only cost to me and my
> > > > > > child was the time to take do the ceremony. I see no real difference
> > > > > > between this and celebrating Christmas or Thanksgiving with family.
> > > > > > Sure the tradition has religious roots and, sure, certain participants
> > > > > > will think the event imbuned with some supernatural significance, but
> > > > > > that's on them. I participate because I enjoy spending time with
> > > > > > family and it's tradition.
>
> > > > > > Whether or not this affects my child is, frankly, up to him when he

> > > > > > gets to an age to make those decisions.-- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> "natural generation" as opposed to what?

Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.

Regards,

Brock

[Simon Ewins]

[Drafterman]

> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.

My little atheist is almost 30 now. :)

-- 

"However many holy words you read, however many you speak,

 what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"

[Buddha]

Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

[dali_70]

On Nov 3, 2:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.

So was Bigfoot! Coincidence?

[philosophy]

On Nov 4, 5:16 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > "natural generation" as opposed to what?
>
> Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.

Sorry Brock, just not true, read and learn (seeing you are always
putting the
Confession up for us to wade through).
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_The_Virgin_Birth.html

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Alan Wostenberg]

Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
having voiced any opinions on the topic. Just as your baby was given
at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
born into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.

You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.

For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.

Drafterbaby decide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.

On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
>

[Dead Kennedy]

having read all the versions of that story, occams razor leads me to
prefer the toilet seat theory.

On Nov 3, 7:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

On Nov 3, 3:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drafterman, you could as well say your baby is unamerican for not
> having voiced any opinions on the topic.

No I couldn't as being an American has nothing to do with his internal
belief system. Let's not make a god out of using words
inappropriately.

> Just as your baby was given
> at birth American citizenship, though not knowing it, so your baby was
> born  into Christ’s body the Church at baptism, though not knowing it.

Neither of which I addressed. I addressed his atheism, as a result of
his lack of belief in gods. Let's not make a god out of not getting
the point of a post.

>
> You kid yourself if you think you’re not “deliberately shielding him
> from any exposure to religion”. In a good Christian home, baby would
> witness mommy and daddy praying grace at meals, going to Mass, etc.

Unless you can show me the objectively verified measure of what a
"Good Christian home" is, then I see no reason to accept your
statement. Let's not make a god out of baseless accusations.

>
> For mommy and daddy teach the kids what they believe important by word
> and deed, and the things mommy and daddy refrain from doing or
> teaching, carry a collateral lesson: those things are false or
> unimportant. But don’t believe me, test this.

I have refrained from teaching my child how to carve a turkey, how to
ride a bike, and how to shuffle cards, ergo I believe those things are
false or unimportant? Let's not make a god out of arguments easily
refuted via reductio ad absurdum.

>
> Drafterbaby decide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.

No.

>
> On Nov 3, 7:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
>
> > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
>
> > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
>
> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit

> > whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

I thought Mary was hit in the uterus with a bullet that had first
passed through the scrotum of a Civil war soldier.

> > Brock- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

All of humankind, except Christ, have had a sinful nature. But God
offers mercy and pardon through Christ to each and every sinner who
will submit to Him. He is worthy of praise and adoration! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Dead Kennedy]

your confusing it with the episode of quantum leap, Sam became Mary
and Al had to do something distasteful for the sake of the world.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
>
> It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
>
> Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
>
> That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),

WTF?
You got some 'splaining to do!

> has a
> Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> whatsoever.

Of course not!
_______________________________________________
I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and
appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both.
-- Linus Torvalds

[Drafterman]

Oh, boy!

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Nov 3, 4:08 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
>
> > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
>
> > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
>
> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
>
> WTF?
> You got some  'splaining to do!

Ha, I knew I'd get this response from you. Like I said, if
Christianity can hijack other religious events for their purposes,
then I can hijack theirs for mine.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 3, 12:23 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp), has a
> > Noah's Arc toy and a children's bible stories book. Despite getting
> > splashed with water and exposed to these religious tools, there is no
> > evidence of any belief in any god or being infused with any spirit
> > whatsoever.
>
> It's worth considering:
>
> All of humankind born through natural generation have a sinful nature.

The simple believeth every word.
Pr. 14:15

[Alan Wostenberg]

Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
good things come from mommy.

> >Drafterbabydecide for himself if he’ll brush his teeth.

[Saint Onan]

On Nov 4, 11:56 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.

That drafterBelief is consistent with the empirical drafterEvidence.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
good things come from mommy.

Mommy is real and all good things probably do come from her.

Draftertoddler still passes the atheist test :-)
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[Drafterman]

On Nov 3, 7:56 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if atheism is the sort of thing that has to do with “lack of
> belief in gods” then it is clear by drafterbaby’s behavior he is no
> atheist. You may have noticed he acts consistent with the belief all
> good things come from mommy.

First, he doesn't. Let's not make a god out of baseless assumptions.
Second, that's not the same thing as believing in god, which he
doesn't. Let's not make a god out of not knowing what we're talking
about.

[rappoccio]

Interesting point here, here, Alan... as children, we are continually
trained to "accept authority" from a magic giver of good things in the
world (Mom and Dad). This is clearly an evolutionary adaptation,
numerous other species act in much the same way (especially other
primates).

When we grow up, those nascent neural passageways that are formed in
our childhood as an evolutionary adaptation are also SPECTACULARLY
well-suited to CONTINUE to "accept authority" from a magic giver of
good things in the world, despite the likely fact that whatever we
conceive of is merely a "simulation" that is an extension of exactly
what we saw in our parents, as children. Christians even actively
cultivate this imagery and mentality!

Ironically, though, Drafterbaby has actual, repeatable,
distinguishable hard evidence to support his "mommy and daddy
worship", whereas as adults with the other "daddy" you call "God", we
don't. So far, Drafterbaby is acting exactly in accordance to his
appeals to "physical evidence and reasoned logic". He is starting to
model the world around him, and to try to make predictions. If
Drafterbaby is anything like RappoccioToddler1 or RappoccioToddler2,
Drafterbaby gets very upset when his "predictions" are not met with
his expectations (this is commonly referred to in the academic
literature as "throwing a shit fit" ;)). Sounds like he's making good
progress to me!

[rappoccio]

On Nov 3, 4:12 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:08 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 10:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > About a year ago, me and my wife had our first child.
>
> > > It's been a year and so far, there has been no expressed belief in god
> > > (or anything supernatural). So it would seem that Drafterbaby (now
> > > Draftertoddler) is an atheist.
>
> > > Perhaps the theists would say that, as an atheist, I am deliberately
> > > shielding him from any exposure to religion and am doing my best to
> > > exercise any theistic thoughts in his tiny little head?
>
> > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
>
> > WTF?
> > You got some  'splaining to do!
>
> Ha, I knew I'd get this response from you. Like I said, if
> Christianity can hijack other religious events for their purposes,
> then I can hijack theirs for mine.

I was faced with a similar dilemma. I chose to baptize both my kids.
The first was before I was really an "out-and-out" atheist, but pretty
well on the way. The second was after, and I decided to "keep the
peace" with my parents. This was ultimately a terrible idea because
they were more upset at the fact that I hid my deconversion from them,
than the fact that I deconverted. I should have given them much more
credit, and I deeply regret that.

[LL]

On Nov 3, 11:16 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > "natural generation" as opposed to what?
>
> Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.

LL: Then why was he baptized?

******************************************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 4, 12:06 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:16 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > "natural generation" as opposed to what?
>
> > Jesus Christ was conceived and born supernaturally, and without sin.
>
> LL: Then why was he baptized?

John the Baptist baptized people to help them repent their sins.

[Kippers]

On 3 Nov, 17:23, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:32 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Nov, 16:22, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Nov, 16:08, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know people who simply do this as a compromise to family.
>
> > > > > To atheists splashing water on a baby is a rather meaningless gesture so
> > > > if
> > > > > it makes the family happy why fight over it.
>
> > > > That’s fine and I agree that placating family members can sometimes be
> > > > more important than making a principled stance over something like
> > > > this. But this is actually similar behaviour to that of religious
> > > > liberals who don’t really believe but still lend credence to those
> > > > that do by acting as if they do.
>
> > > Meaningless gestures don't amount to principles IMO.
>
> > > So I don't really see it as a question of principle.
>
> > I doubt the bishop or priest or whoever does the baptism will see it
> > as a meaningless gesture, nor will most of the congregation.  It’s
> > also clear that the catholic school who will only accept pupils if
> > they have been baptised see it as a meaningless gesture.
>
> > It is pandering to the catholic institutions; there may actually be no
> > one left on the planet who is truly a catholic yet it maintains its
> > position due to people simply conforming to its rules whilst actually
> > considering them as nothing more than meaningless gestures.
>
> > However, if the best schools in your area are catholic schools and all
> > your family would be upset if the baby was not baptised then that
> > might be enough to overcome the above objections.
>
> > I don’t mean to judge Dmans actions on this, just trying to explain
> > the way I feel on the subject.  I may have a baby myself in the not
> > too distant future and these are all issues I will have to deal with
> > as well.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> I understand where you're coming from: that this ceremony is implicit
> reinforcement of their religious beliefs and, in some way, is making
> the "problem" worse.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that it is the case. For the Father, it's
> just one in a long line of ceremonies. I imagine he does hundreds of
> baptisms a year, one less or one more is unlikely to affect the
> strength of his belief in a non-neglible way, especially compared with
> the years of indoctrination he went through to become a Father to
> begin with.
>

This is the same kind of argument people use to excuse their excessive
greenhouse gas emissions when accused of making global warming worse.
It’s the same kind of reasoning a thief uses when stealing money from
a large corporation.

We as individuals should take responsibility for our actions. If all
atheists thought like you on this one then the catholic church (or at
least its baptisms and number of schools) would almost double in size.

Its true that as an individual your actions are pretty much irrelevant
to the world at large, but I doubt you apply this kind of reasoning to
other areas of your life.

> That leaves the the people that were there. It was a family-only
> ceremony. Now, I don't know the exact nature of and magnitude of the
> religious proclivaties of my various family, friends and inlaws, but
> if I had to divide them into groups it would be:
>
> The non-religious.
> The religious yet not practicing (those whose religion is assumed and
> taken for granted, even by them, and they've never really thought
> about the alternative).
> The consciously religious.
>
> The non-religious would see it the same as I do, so their beliefs
> remain unaffected.
> The consciously religious would be in the same category as the Father,
> so their beliefs remain unaffected. Their belief is already as strong
> as it is going to get.
>
> That leaves the middle group (which I feel comprises the majority of
> the population).
>
> Perhaps, during the process of the the cermony certain religious
> feelings and emotions are brought to the surface. Will it have a
> lasting effect? Will they be, "Well, I was going to vote for Obama to
> have a second term, but my Nephew got baptized, so I'll vote for
> Palin." (exageration, I know). I can't say.
>
> Like I said, I see this as nothing different than Christmas,
> Thanksgiving and Easter. These holidays exist and are celebrated, I
> don't think that participating in them with family exacerbates the
> situation.
>
> If the Christians can hijack formerly pagan holidays and rituals and
> twist them to meet their goals and desires, why can't I, as an
> atheist, hijack their holidays and rituals and twist them to meet my
> goals and desires?

I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
world day”. You could get together with family and friends, make some
speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
to look after him of anything were to happen to you. All this could
be done without the superstition and appeal to God and Jesus to watch
over him. For me this kind of superstitious nonsense devalues what
actually should be a hugely important day designed to welcome your
baby to planet earth.

However you have not hijacked the idea of baptism you have simply
conformed to it and taken it on with all its supernatural dogmatic
baggage.

When you celebrate Christmas, do you go to church and praise Jesus
Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins? Or do you get together
with family, give presents and generally celebrate it in a purely
secular way?

I have to admit that as you are an atheist who I respect on this group
I feel a similar emotion regarding this as I would if I had just
caught Peter Singer eating some sausages.

[Drafterman]

The difference here is between perceivable and actual effects. The
arguments you mention here are about actual effects that the offenders
here fail to perceive. Regardless of whether or not they think the
effect has any significance, contribution to global warming and theft
have actual, tangible effects.

My argument is that this baptism had no effects whatsoever.

>
> We as individuals should take responsibility for our actions. If all
> atheists thought like you on this one then the catholic church (or at
> least its baptisms and number of schools) would almost double in size.

I'm not sure I agree with this. This suggests that there are atheists
out there that want to get their kids baptized, but are refusing
because they don't want to support the Catholic church. I doubt that
there are. If there are, I seriously doubt that their numbers would
result in the doubling of the population of the catholic church.

I can't control the superstitions other people have.

>
> However you have not hijacked the idea of baptism you have simply
> conformed to it and taken it on with all its supernatural dogmatic
> baggage.
>
> When you celebrate Christmas, do you go to church and praise Jesus
> Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins?  Or do you get together
> with family, give presents and generally celebrate it in a purely
> secular way?

No. I don't go to Church and praise Jesus. I do, however, get a tree,
decorate it, hang stockings, exchange presents. All of these things
have their roots in superstitious, supernatural baggage. All of it
started out as religious symbolism (mix of Christian and pagan). I do
not feel that doing these things is an endorsement of the
superstitions that led to their creation. And I apply that to the
baptism as well.

>
> I have to admit that as you are an atheist who I respect on this group
> I feel a similar emotion regarding this as I would if I had just
> caught Peter Singer eating some sausages.

I just don't see it in the same light as you. This was most certainly
not appeasement. We could have not had the baptism at all, and there
would have been no backlash. We volunteered to do it because we
thought it would be a nice thing to do. Did I fully process the event,
considering whether or not it fit in rationally with my atheism or
wordview? No, I didn't. I simply did not place that much importance on
the event.

- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kippers]

Its been interesting speaking to you on this topic d-man as it is
something which I will likely have to deal with myself in the not too
distant future. It is something that has been bothering me lately, in
particular the issue with the best schools in our area being catholic
schools which will only admit children that have been baptised.

I feel strongly that I should not conform to such bullying tactics but
at what point do strongly held principles become more important than
your own child’s education?

Hopefully there will have been a change in the law in the UK (which
myself and many other are campaigning for) so that children are not
segregated based on their parents religion (or professed religion in
your case) but I don’t feel entirely confident this will happen any
time soon.

[the_tattie_howker]

On Nov 4, 2:09 pm, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> I feel strongly that I should not conform to such bullying tactics but
> at what point do strongly held principles become more important than
> your own child’s education?
>
> Hopefully there will have been a change in the law in the UK (which
> myself and many other are campaigning for) so that children are not
> segregated based on their parents religion (or professed religion in
> your case) but I don’t feel entirely confident this will happen any
> time soon.

Would it not be better to work out why catholic schools are better and
replicate that. I suspect that if you broke up those schools then you
might lose the element of the formula that makes them work better.

TTH

[Sebastian]

I am not saying that any decision should be postponed until they grow
up. But this is a religious ceremony, which as you say they certainly
cannot remember. But it can still have a symbolic meaning for them.

I am not so much worried about the direct religious impact of the
decision in the sense that I very much doubt that this particular
decision would be responsible for him becoming either an atheist or a
theist. The point I am trying to make is that this is a religious
decision that symbolically makes someone a part of that religion. And
when they grow up, they might not want that while there is nothing
they can do about it.

On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd have to agree. Having a baby baptised before they can decide
> > whether they want to be or not does not sound like a good idea to me.
> > Maybe when they grow up they will not see it as meaningless. Maybe
> > they will be happy about it, maybe they will think it's a bad thing
> > and they'd wish they hadn't been baptised or maybe they will think
> > nothing of it. But whatever they think, it should be their decision
> > whether to do it or not.
>
> This argument could be used for any decision.
> We've decided to go with a dinosaur theme with him. Room decorations,
> clothes, toys. The primary theme is dinosaurs. Maybe he'll become a
> paleontologist because of it. Maybe he'll hate dinosaurs because of
> it. Maybe it won't affect him one way or the other. But because it
> *may* affect his decisions later in life then we shouldn't have a
> theme?
> Same with day care.
> Same with school.
>
> Sorry, but as his parent it's my responsibility to make decisions for
> him. He was splashed with water, a physically innocuous event. He is
> physiologically incapable of remembering anything that happened. I
> think it's safe to say that this will have no affect on him what-so-
> ever.
>
> The significance he places on it it will be a result of all of his
> upbringing.
>
> I wasn't baptised. When I found this out, I was surprised. I simply
> took it for granted that children were baptized. This implicit
> assumption certainly didn't have an adverse affect to me becoming an
> atheist.
>
> Chances are, if my child is going to place religious significance on
> an event he only knows about because I had to recall it for him then
> he's going to find a reason to become religious regardless.

[Drafterman]

I admit that that's a sucky situation and I don't envy your position.
We're still several years from having to deal with htat but it's
something me and my wife think about on a fairly regular basis. I
don't think we've considered Catholic school, but would probably move
to a place that had a better public school first.

I'm not sure if that's a feasible option for you.

[Bob T.]

On Nov 4, 4:02 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

>
> I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
> turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
> world day”.  You could get together with family and friends, make some
> speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
> to look after him of anything were to happen to you.  

Hey, maybe he could have a similar celebration every year! We could
call it "The anniversary of your birth day" until we come up with
something pithier.

- Bob T.

[Kippers]

Bloody hell you're all at it!

What next?

Is Observer going to reveal that undertakes the pilgrimage to Mecca
every year?

Is Dev going to get a job working for the Tony Blair faith foundation
and do his bit for promoting interfaith cohesion?

[Drafterman]

On Nov 4, 9:18 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not saying that any decision should be postponed until they grow
> up. But this is a religious ceremony, which as you say they certainly
> cannot remember. But it can still have a symbolic meaning for them.
>
> I am not so much worried about the direct religious impact of the
> decision in the sense that I very much doubt that this particular
> decision would be responsible for him becoming either an atheist or a
> theist. The point I am trying to make is that this is a religious
> decision that symbolically makes someone a part of that religion. And
> when they grow up, they might not want that while there is nothing
> they can do about it.

You're right. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, they're a
Catholic. Now, unless he moves to a place that cares about this status
(I think there is a big brouhaha over in Italy about this) then it
will have no practical affect on him. Though, as you note, it may have
an emotional impact.

If it comes to that, then I will do my best to explain to him that it
doesn't matter what some religious organization says. The vatican,
tomorrow, could come out and say that everyone is a Catholic and there
is nothing I could do about it. It would only affect me if I choose
to, and I will explain to my son that it can only affect him if he
allows it to.

The event will only contain the importance and significance that he
decides to infuse it with. I will leave that choice to him.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kippers]

Ha ha.

My “welcome to the world day” idea is to replace baptisms rather than
birthdays.

A birthday celebrates the anniversary of your birth, it does not mark
your initial arrival on planet earth, which as I suggest should be
accompanied by designating guardians (in the same role as god parents)
and a few speeches.

However your amusing post has made me realize that I may need to think
of a different name as it does currently sounds very similar to
birthdays.

[Bob T.]

On Nov 3, 7:43 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting point here, here, Alan... as children, we are continually
> trained to "accept authority" from a magic giver of good things in the
> world (Mom and Dad). This is clearly an evolutionary adaptation,
> numerous other species act in much the same way (especially other
> primates).
>
> When we grow up, those nascent neural passageways that are formed in
> our childhood as an evolutionary adaptation are also SPECTACULARLY
> well-suited to CONTINUE to "accept authority" from a magic giver of
> good things in the world, despite the likely fact that whatever we
> conceive of is merely a "simulation" that is an extension of exactly
> what we saw in our parents, as children. Christians even actively
> cultivate this imagery and mentality!

Yes, yes yes! You are spot on here. I think you have described one
of the fundamental reason why "Sky Daddy" religions are so appealing
to human beings.

- Bob T.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Obs was educated at a Christian University ....
 

Is Dev going to get a job working for the Tony Blair faith foundation
and do his bit for promoting interfaith cohesion?

And at one point Dev was close to being hired by a large and well known Christian Company....

The owner of the Company I worked for was Catholic and did a lot for the Catholic community here.

When I have stayed with relatives in the past or attended weddings, I go along with the religious ceremonies which involve all sorts of superstitions. It's just easier than making a big deal about it.

Where do you want to draw the line Kippers?

We live in a theist world.
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

I admit that that's a sucky situation and I don't envy your position.
We're still several years from having to deal with htat but it's
something me and my wife think about on a fairly regular basis. I
don't think we've considered Catholic school, but would probably move
to a place that had a better public school first.

Generally speaking in Canada the following applies.

The higher the parental involvement in secular public schools, the higher the quality of education offered.

The community also makes a difference (higher income -> better quality).

The only Catholic Schools in Canada where the quality of education is higher than the Public Schools generally speaking are the one's run by the Jesuits.

I would assume the US wouldn't be much different.
 

I'm not sure if that's a feasible option for you.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 4, 9:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >  I admit that that's a sucky situation and I don't envy your position.
> > We're still several years from having to deal with htat but it's
> > something me and my wife think about on a fairly regular basis. I
> > don't think we've considered Catholic school, but would probably move
> > to a place that had a better public school first.
>
> Generally speaking in Canada the following applies.
>
> The higher the parental involvement in secular public schools, the higher
> the quality of education offered.
>
> The community also makes a difference (higher income -> better quality).
>
> The only Catholic Schools in Canada where the quality of education is higher
> than the Public Schools generally speaking are the one's run by the Jesuits.
>
> I would assume the US wouldn't be much different.

That depends. How many creation museums are in Canada?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure if that's a feasible option for you.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >  I admit that that's a sucky situation and I don't envy your position.
> > We're still several years from having to deal with htat but it's
> > something me and my wife think about on a fairly regular basis. I
> > don't think we've considered Catholic school, but would probably move
> > to a place that had a better public school first.
>
> Generally speaking in Canada the following applies.
>
> The higher the parental involvement in secular public schools, the higher
> the quality of education offered.
>
> The community also makes a difference (higher income -> better quality).
>
> The only Catholic Schools in Canada where the quality of education is higher
> than the Public Schools generally speaking are the one's run by the Jesuits.
>
> I would assume the US wouldn't be much different.

That depends. How many creation museums are in Canada?

Well if we have one. It'll be in or around Calgary, Alberta.

Calgary has a famous Dinosaur museum because they've discovered a lot of dinosaur fossils in the region and it also happens to be Canada's "Bible" belt.

A very soppy imitation of your Bible belt but sort of an equivalent.

Note my above remark. Haha.

I just googled it and guess what I found (in Alberta, near Calgary :-)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/05/4237312-cp.html
http://www.bvcsm.com/

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure if that's a feasible option for you.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Kippers]

On 4 Nov, 14:55, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
.

>
> > Bloody hell you're all at it!
>
> > What next?
>
> > Is Observer going to reveal that undertakes the pilgrimage to Mecca
> > every year?
>
> Obs was educated at a Christian University ....
>

When Obs was at that age I don’t know what his position was on
religion, it might shock me to know he enrolled in one recently but
only if a Christian University was an institution which only allowed
Christians to study there and also it was expected that the students
partake in the Christian ceremonies such as prayer sessions in the
morning.

If however a Christian university simply professes to be so but does
not actually prevent non-Christians from enrolling or expect adherence
to certain Christian ceremonies then it is Christian only by name, it
imposes no religious doctrine on its students so there is no reason
for an atheist not to join at all. It would however be reasonable to
question why it calls itself Christian when in fact it functions as
secular.

>
>
> > Is Dev going to get a job working for the Tony Blair faith foundation
> > and do his bit for promoting interfaith cohesion?
>
> And at one point Dev was close to being hired by a large and well known
> Christian Company....

Again, a company calling itself Christian is not something I would
take issue with if it actually functioned as a secular company (which
I suspect is the case here). However a company which only employed
Christians, performed Christian ceremonies and declared to do its work
in the name of Christianity is exactly the kind of place that (as well
as being illegal) would greatly shock me to find out that atheists
were joining.

>
> The owner of the Company I worked for was Catholic and did a lot for the
> Catholic community here.
>
> When I have stayed with relatives in the past or attended weddings, I go
> along with the religious ceremonies which involve all sorts of
> superstitions. It's just easier than making a big deal about it.
>
> Where do you want to draw the line Kippers?
>
> We live in a theist world.
>

And we can choose to conform to the theist world or do our own little
bit to change it.

>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

[Kippers]

On 4 Nov, 14:55, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

When Obs was that age I don’t know what his position was on religion,

it might shock me to know he enrolled in one recently but only if a
Christian University was an institution which only allowed Christians
to study there and also it was expected that the students partake in
the Christian ceremonies such as prayer sessions in the morning.

If however a Christian university simply professes to be so but does
not actually prevent non-Christians from enrolling or expect adherence
to certain Christian ceremonies then it is Christian only by name, it
imposes no religious doctrine on its students so there is no reason
for an atheist not to join at all. It would however be reasonable to
question why it calls itself Christian when in fact it functions as
secular.

>

> > Is Dev going to get a job working for the Tony Blair faith foundation
> > and do his bit for promoting interfaith cohesion?
>
> And at one point Dev was close to being hired by a large and well known
> Christian Company....
>

Again, a company calling itself Christian is not something I would
take issue with if it actually functioned as a secular company (which
I suspect is the case here). However a company which only employed

Christians, performed Christian ceremonies and declated to do its work

in the name of Christianity is exactly the kind of place that (as well
as being illegal) would greatly shock me to find out that atheists
were joining.

> The owner of the Company I worked for was Catholic and did a lot for the
> Catholic community here.
>
> When I have stayed with relatives in the past or attended weddings, I go
> along with the religious ceremonies which involve all sorts of
> superstitions. It's just easier than making a big deal about it.
>
> Where do you want to draw the line Kippers?
>
> We live in a theist world.
>

And we can choose to conform to a theist world or try to do our little
bit to change it.


>
>

> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

[Trance Gemini]

True. But change comes slowly and it's important to pick and choose our battles.

Personal issues are not the place to do it IMO.

It needs to be done in the general political and social arena first.

Then we can start to fine-tune into our personal lives because we'll be in a position to do it.

That's my approach anyway.
 

>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[LL]

On Nov 3, 9:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

LL: I thought Jesus was sinless.

**************************************

[rappoccio]

On Nov 4, 10:30 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 14:55, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where do you want to draw the line Kippers?
>
> > We live in a theist world.
>
> And we can choose to conform to the theist world or do our own little
> bit to change it.

In my particular case, I baptized my first child when I was actually
Catholic. I subsequently left, but felt that an appeasement would be
necessary in the case of my second. I've already mentioned that this
was a terrible mistake, one I regret deeply. Primarily this is because
I was simply too... I don't know... afraid of my parents' reaction to
my recent deconversion. I should have given them more credit. I
actually used several members of the group here as my "support group"
during the time, it was kind of difficult for me.

I think you do forget that for a *GREAT* many people, telling their
families that you are atheist is approximately as well-received as
telling them that you ate a kitten. I think a lot of people simply "go
with the flow" because they actually LIKE their families and want to
continue with relations with them. It's easy to "armchair" these
decisions and take moral high-grounds, but it's not a particularly
useful one for someone who is dealing with a complex social situation.

Now, in the case of D-Man, he says there was no appeasement going on.
In my case, there certainly was, and this was my mistake. But it's not
quite as easy as "conform, or change it". Some of us have the luxury
where we can do that, and have no adverse affects in their lives. But
consider some other situation where a person is given the choice
between "coming out" as an atheist and never speaking to their family
again, or just going through the motions of a religion without making
a big deal about it. This is a tough choice for people, I don't
marginalize it.

[Kent]

On Nov 4, 6:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >  I admit that that's a sucky situation and I don't envy your position.
> > We're still several years from having to deal with htat but it's
> > something me and my wife think about on a fairly regular basis. I
> > don't think we've considered Catholic school, but would probably move
> > to a place that had a better public school first.
>
> Generally speaking in Canada the following applies.
>
> The higher the parental involvement in secular public schools, the higher
> the quality of education offered.
>
> The community also makes a difference (higher income -> better quality).
>
> The only Catholic Schools in Canada where the quality of education is higher
> than the Public Schools generally speaking are the one's run by the Jesuits.
>
> I would assume the US wouldn't be much different.
>

The US is quite different with schools tending to be locally funded
and there is much more variance amoung schools.

[Kent]

On Nov 4, 6:33 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 14:22, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 4:02 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
> > > I would see no harm in “hijacking” the idea of baptism and instead
> > > turning it into a secular event, perhaps call it a “Welcome to the
> > > world day”.  You could get together with family and friends, make some
> > > speeches welcoming baby d-man to the world and assign some guardians
> > > to look after him of anything were to happen to you.  
>
> > Hey, maybe he could have a similar celebration every year!  We could
> > call it "The anniversary of your birth day" until we come up with
> > something pithier.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Ha ha.
>
> My “welcome to the world day” idea is to replace baptisms rather than
> birthdays.
>

My Bengali friends celebrate "first rice day".

[Dead Kennedy]

would you refuse to attend a family funeral if it was held in a
church?

I dont mean that as an attack, but i was in that position a couple of
years ago and didnt think twice and im guessing you wouldnt either.

I didnt join in the religious bit but that was mainly because of
ignorance and i wasnt alone, there was a great deal of mumbling and
embarrased looking at shoes.

my overriding memory was how uncomfortable most people were during the
"religious bits" and the palpable sense of relief everybody seemed to
feel on leaving the church.

The problem that we share is that faith schools, at least those with
established tradition, are just run better that local government
administered schools. Because of this they attract the best teachers
(an ex was one). Lets be honest, as a teacher if you have the choice
between earning the same but working in an environment where there is
good discipline, the students are motivated and their parents are
positively involved or a local comp, as a dedicated teacher which
would you choose?

IMO this sets up a feed-back loop.

> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hide quoted text -

[the_tattie_howker]

On Nov 5, 9:28 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> would you refuse to attend a family funeral if it was held in a
> church?

No. If I liked and respected someone enough to attend the funeral at
all, I would go to the whole thing. I am not just showing respect to
the dead but to the living, whatever their beliefs. I would not sing
nor would I pray but I would listen to the non-religious parts.

This year an uncle of mine died, my mother's sister's husband. He was
very old and had lived a full life. I actually got a lot out of what
was said about him in the church. I would not have like to have missed
that.

> I dont mean that as an attack, but i was in that position a couple of
> years ago and didnt think twice and im guessing you wouldnt either.
>
> I didnt join in the religious bit but that was mainly because of
> ignorance and i wasnt alone, there was a great deal of mumbling and
> embarrased looking at shoes.

I think most folk here would go through the motions but probably not
feel troubled by that.

> my overriding memory was how uncomfortable most people were during the
> "religious bits" and the palpable sense of relief everybody seemed to
> feel on leaving the church.
>
> The problem that we share is that faith schools, at least those with
> established tradition, are just run better that local government
> administered schools. Because of this they attract the best teachers
> (an ex was one). Lets be honest, as a teacher if you have the choice
> between earning the same but working in an environment where there is
> good discipline, the students are motivated and their parents are
> positively involved or a local comp, as a dedicated teacher which
> would you choose?
>
> IMO this sets up a feed-back loop.

Yes, I see that. But what is it about this tradition that works?

I was watching a programme the other night called "The Worlds
Strictest Parents" on BBC3. Two near-school-leaving-age teenagers were
sent from England to a family and school in the US with very religious
traditions. The two teenagers used to be nice children but now they
are extremely badly behaved (I missed the start but both had gone off
the rails when they'd lost a close family member). The show ended with
the two returning home seeing the error of their ways. The programme
did not focus on the religious aspects of the family or the school
(though there was the odd shot of church hymns) but on their level of
care for the children. It was a moving story and I wish they'd shown
more of how the children were treated more of the time but hey, with a
one hour programme stuff has to be missed out.

I suspect that good communication, mutual respect and a good community
were at the heart of it all. Something the state schools don't always
have.

It was interesting watching the adoptive 'parent' dealing with the
boy's sexuality - she eventually accepted that he was gay.

TTH

[Kippers]

On 5 Nov, 04:16, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 10:30 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 4 Nov, 14:55, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Where do you want to draw the line Kippers?
>
> > > We live in a theist world.
>
> > And we can choose to conform to the theist world or do our own little
> > bit to change it.
>
> In my particular case, I baptized my first child when I was actually
> Catholic. I subsequently left, but felt that an appeasement would be
> necessary in the case of my second. I've already mentioned that this
> was a terrible mistake, one I regret deeply. Primarily this is because
> I was simply too... I don't know... afraid of my parents' reaction to
> my recent deconversion. I should have given them more credit.
> I
> actually used several members of the group here as my "support group"
> during the time, it was kind of difficult for me.
>

This is all perfectly understandable, my initial reaction to your
children being baptised was one of surprise as I know you as an
atheist from this group but clearly you have not always been so.

> I think you do forget that for a *GREAT* many people, telling their
> families that you are atheist is approximately as well-received as
> telling them that you ate a kitten. I think a lot of people simply "go
> with the flow" because they actually LIKE their families and want to
> continue with relations with them. It's easy to "armchair" these
> decisions and take moral high-grounds, but it's not a particularly
> useful one for someone who is dealing with a complex social situation.
>

I am sorry if what I say is coming across as armchair moralising and
me attempting to take the moral high ground. My questions should not
be taken that way as I have stated that there are practical
considerations which can often overrule ones principles. The example
I gave is that in my case the best schools in the area are catholic
schools who only admit children who have been baptised. My natural
reaction to such a situation is to do everything I can to fight
against what I consider to be a fundamental problem in the UK (faith
based schools) but at what point do moral principles become more
important that your own child’s education?

The only reason I question the actions of d-man and yourself on this
issue is because they have been posted on a debate forum.

> Now, in the case of D-Man, he says there was no appeasement going on.
> In my case, there certainly was, and this was my mistake. But it's not
> quite as easy as "conform, or change it". Some of us have the luxury
> where we can do that, and have no adverse affects in their lives. But
> consider some other situation where a person is given the choice
> between "coming out" as an atheist and never speaking to their family
> again, or just going through the motions of a religion without making
> a big deal about it. This is a tough choice for people, I don't
> marginalize it.

Of course real life is necessarily more complicated that the posts we
contribute to this forum but I do believe I make a valid point. I do
not say “conform it or change it” I said conform or do our own little
bits to help change happen. By that I mean, for example, that people
who don’t believe the claims of Catholicism should stop professing
belief in Catholicism and stop supporting it as an institution by
conforming to its rituals. If such an action means being ostracised
by ones family and friends then of course most people would be too
afraid to do so. However in dmans situation this was not the case, it
was his decision and it appears no one was putting him under pressure
to make it.

It might be worth me mentioning here that I am a godfather to two
children but when asked to be their godfather I made it clear to the
parents that I am an atheist and could not fulfil the role of leading
their children on the true path to Jesus. Instead I said I was
honoured to be asked and that if I was to accept it would be merely as
a guardian who would be there to look out for them. Amazingly they
were delighted with this and we went ahead with the ceremony and I
became their godparent. Perhaps you see this as hypocrisy in some way
but for me I think this is the way to appease religious relatives
without actually pretending to believe in their religion.

Atheism doesn’t prevent us from engaging with religions in a friendly
manner and we don’t need to separate ourselves from religious
believers. We just need to stop pretending we believe what they do
when we don’t.

[Kippers]

On 5 Nov, 09:28, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> would you refuse to attend a family funeral if it was held in a
> church?
>

Not at all, I have been to many Christian funerals and even attended
mosques on occasion. As an atheist I enjoy mixing and engaging with
people of various religions, I just don’t pretend to believe what they
do. When I die there will be an entirely secular funeral to which I
expect my Christian and Muslim friends to attend.

> I dont mean that as an attack, but i was in that position a couple of
> years ago and didnt think twice and im guessing you wouldnt either.
>
> I didnt join in the religious bit but that was mainly because of
> ignorance and i wasnt alone, there was a great deal of mumbling and
> embarrased looking at shoes.
>
> my overriding memory was how uncomfortable most people were during the
> "religious bits" and the palpable sense of relief everybody seemed to
> feel on leaving the church.
>

Yea sounds like most of the Christian funerals I have been to. They
do seem to be devalued somewhat by invoking supernatural figures for
which a large portion of the congregation don’t seem to actually
believe in.

> The problem that we share is that faith schools, at least those with
> established tradition, are just run better that local government
> administered schools. Because of this they attract the best teachers
> (an ex was one). Lets be honest, as a teacher if you have the choice
> between earning the same but working in an environment where there is
> good discipline, the students are motivated and their parents are
> positively involved or a local comp, as a dedicated teacher which
> would you choose?
>
> IMO this sets up a feed-back loop.
>

I believe you have summed up the situation perfectly. It beggars
belief that a school in the UK can turn down teachers and reject
children based on their religious belief.

> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kippers]

Sure there are some issues which need to be tackled in the political
arena but even these are heavily influenced by public opinion and
public opinion is nothing more than the beliefs professed by
individuals.

There are also many problems regarding religious belief which cannot
be dealt with in the political arena. You don’t want it to become
illegal for people to belong to particular religions do you? Surely
the aim is for people to just realize its based on the myths of
primitive people rather than a message from the creator of the
universe. The preferable way for this to be achieved is through open
and honest conversation with people not being afraid to speak out
about what they really believe.

There are certain practical reasons why this may not be possible,
Muslims are the prime example as apostasy can still still be
punishable by death but in more benign cases I like to see atheists
not pretending to believe the religious tenets that they do not
actually believe in, even if being honest about our atheism comes at a
cost.

The decision about whether the costs of professing ones true beliefs
or lack of beliefs is too great is ultimately a personal decision and
I don’t mean to lecture anyone on what they should do. I merely state
the general desire to see less people feeling they have to pretend to
believe in religious tenets which they in fact totally reject.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

On 4 Nov, 16:03, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

> True. But change comes slowly and it's important to pick and choose our
> battles.
>
> Personal issues are not the place to do it IMO.
>
> It needs to be done in the general political and social arena first.
>
> Then we can start to fine-tune into our personal lives because we'll be in a
> position to do it.
>
> That's my approach anyway.
>

Sure there are some issues which need to be tackled in the political
arena but even these are heavily influenced by public opinion and
public opinion is nothing more than the beliefs professed by
individuals.

True but I think we need to pick and choose our battles.

That's all I'm saying.
 

There are also many problems regarding religious belief which cannot
be dealt with in the political arena.  You don’t want it to become
illegal for people to belong to particular religions do you?  

Actually I don't because that is a violation of their civil rights.

People have as much right to believe as we do to not believe.

I would prefer to educate them and have them make their own choices.
 

Surely
the aim is for people to just realize its based on the myths of
primitive people rather than a message from the creator of the
universe.  The preferable way for this to be achieved is through open
and honest conversation with people not being afraid to speak out
about what they really believe.

Agreed. However, there's a difference between social education and our personal day to day relationships. No?

For me there is and I think that's where you and I have a difference of opinion.
 

There are certain practical reasons why this may not be possible,
Muslims are the prime example as apostasy can still still be
punishable by death but in more benign cases I like to see atheists
not pretending to believe the religious tenets that they do not
actually believe in, even if being honest about our atheism comes at a
cost.

I agree but again, I'm differentiating between when I go to personal family events and participate in rituals and what I would advocate socially.

And even socially, there can be repercussions that one is not willing to accept.

For example, I never identify myself as an atheist in the work place.

The one time I did I had to leave the job after one month because my boss was a fundy and was harassing me.

One may call that cowardice and not willing to take a stand but I'm single, and I need to work so I'm just not willing to risk it.

And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals, ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.

So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
 

The decision about whether the costs of professing ones true beliefs
or lack of beliefs is too great is ultimately a personal decision and
I don’t mean to lecture anyone on what they should do.  I merely state
the general desire to see less people feeling they have to pretend to
believe in religious tenets which they in fact totally reject.

That will happen eventually and organizations like CFI and Secular Humanists of various countries are doing that.

The most effective thing we can do IMO is support them.

And I don't think you're lecturing us.

This is an important exchange for us to have as atheists.
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 3, 10:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...

> > > > That is certainly not the case. He's been baptized (gasp),
>
> > > WTF?
> > > You got some  'splaining to do!
>
> > Ha, I knew I'd get this response from you. Like I said, if
> > Christianity can hijack other religious events for their purposes,
> > then I can hijack theirs for mine.

And what would be your purpose?
Is appeasement a purpose strong enough to participate in Neolithic
magic events?

On the other hand, knowing how tough family relationship can be, you
may have a point.
I am glad that in my family I can be myself and act according to my
own views without any problems.

> I was faced with a similar dilemma. I chose to baptize both my kids.
> The first was before I was really an "out-and-out" atheist, but pretty
> well on the way. The second was after, and I decided to "keep the
> peace" with my parents.

What about the message you are sending to the people around you...?
Neolithic magic is OK with me?

If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
yours.
If they do not know you are a non-believer, then you are not actually
being honest with them, are you?

If you did it just for the godparent part, you can have godparents
without baptism.

I did not baptize my kids. I left it up to them. If one day they come
to the conclusion that they need to be baptized (or circumcised!), I
will be much chagrined, but ultimately I won't stop them.

> This was ultimately a terrible idea because
> they were more upset at the fact that I hid my deconversion from them,
> than the fact that I deconverted. I should have given them much more
> credit, and I deeply regret that.

Let's hope other will learn from your honesty here.
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov

[Simon Ewins]

[Answer_42]

> If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating

> is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not

> yours.

Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.

They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.

I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).

Granted this is different than me instigating such an event (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.

How many do so?

Just my two cents. 

-- 

"However many holy words you read, however many you speak,

 what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"

[Buddha]

Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.

I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
be made here.

Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.

However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
religious event... no?

I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
certainly will not baptize my own kids.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Nov 5, 6:39 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Answer_42]
>
> > If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
> > is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
> > yours.
>
> Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.
>
> They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.
>
> I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).
>
> Granted this is different than me instigating such an event (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.
>
> How many do so?

Me! I think being social outweighs everything - my loved ones are more
important than their beliefs, or lack of them. To borrow from
Christopher Hitchens, we are all fine mammals (except the sociopaths -
grrrrr - but I try to steer clear of them anyway). And I love parties,
if it's a wedding.

My problem with funerals is that every time I'm at one, I can't stop
thinking about that classic Mary Tyler Moore Show episode in which
there is a funeral for Krusty the Clown (am I confusing my TV
clowns?). The attendees spend their time stifling laughter because the
clown had died from being say upon by an elephant. So I usually spend
my time at funerals stifling laughter. I can't help it.

Of course if I were in charge everyone would want to have non-
religious ceremonies. My daughters weren't baptized either.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 9:39 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Answer_42]
>
> > If they know you are a non-believer, you appear as one participating
> > is some sort of Pascal's wager, thus reinforcing their beliefs, not
> > yours.
>
> Small disagreement here. I regularly have and will attend friend's weddings, funerals, christenings and occasionally just attend church for one-off reasons with a friend or a relative.

So do I.

> They all know that I don't accept any of it as anything but virtual and accept that friendship and relationships are simply more important to me than virtual gods.
>
> I thinks this sort of thing reflects on the observer (them) than the participator (me).
>
> Granted this is different than me instigating such an event

Which was what I was referring to...

> (all of my marriages were civil ceremonies and my daughter was not christened or baptized and I will not have a funeral) but it raises an interesting question about atheists attending weddings and funerals.
>
> How many do so?
>
> Just my two cents.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...

I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
"high-ground" than I intended it to be.
Sorry about that.

The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
go back and change anytjhng...
I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
wrote about...

I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
for that.

[Kippers]

On 5 Nov, 14:55, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:



> On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> be made here.
>
> Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> religious event... no?
>
> I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> certainly will not baptize my own kids.

Spot on. That summarises my objection much more succinctly.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> be made here.
>
> Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> religious event... no?

What makes something a "religious" event?

[Kippers]

On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
>
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
>
> What makes something a "religious" event?
>

It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
definitions. It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
give an example of life – Lemurs. Similarly it can be difficult to
define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
Baptism.

>
>
>
>
> > I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
> > certainly will not baptize my own kids.
> > _________________________________________________
> > Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.

> > -- Peter Ustinov- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.

I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
be made here.

Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.

However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
religious event... no?

Not necessarily.

This isn't a great example, but I suppose it's sort of along the same lines.

I've always had a feminist orientation and in the 1970s when I got married for the first time, I didn't change my last name on any legal documents.

My mother-in-law found out and had a major fit that I was insulting my husbands entire family by not taking my husbands name.

I conceded and changed my name to keep the peace.

Had I known she would react like that I would have initiated it.

In addition, even though my family doesn't follow ancient rituals like dowries, my mother provided one for the same reasons.

I just see personal family relationships as separate from social issues I guess.

 

I will certainly go to my cousin/nephew/etc.'s baptism, but I
certainly will not baptize my own kids.

_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 5, 10:07 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
>
> I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> Sorry about that.
>
> The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> go back and change anytjhng...
> I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> wrote about...
>
> I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> for that.

Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
punches with each other? Theists take offense at the scrutiny of their
beliefs because they form the foundation of a flimsy belief system
that grants them emotional support. We can't exactly pick apart a
theist belief system and then turn a blind eye to our own.

After the first post I made when my son was born, you can be rest
assured that I know what I'm getting into when I reveal that I do
things like this. (Not that I want to rehash the heated discussion
from them).

I know it may disappoint some people, but I don't have a completely
rational reason for doing things like this and, yes, it may sound (and
even be) directly contradictory with views I express here and with the
direction I hope humanity is going.

The only answer I have for that (and I know that it may seem like a
cop-out), is that this is the difference between idealism and
pragmatism. On this site, I get to address the ideals of things. I can
sit back and mentally go over an issue and tear it appear without
really worrying about how people feel about it. In real life, I don't
have that luxury. The effort I spend scrutinizing a given action
directly depends on how important the consequences of that action are.
For the baptism, I judged the consequences to be nil, thus I really
didn't spend much time considering how participating in a baptism fits
in with my world view. Human beings are contradictory. Yes, this is
something we should work to reduce, but there is also a prioritization
issue.

The other thing is that the preception of us on this site is
backwards. We see each other as we are here, not in real life. This
builds the expectation that our real life personalities are components
of our online personalities, when the opposite is true.

It's not that my real life personality doesn't mesh with my online
personality, it's that my real life personality includes so much more
than how I appear to be here. Here, I get to strip away many of the
things that make me a complicated, complex, contradictory person.

In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet. Yes, it is
completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.

Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.

[Trance Gemini]

Well put and I agree completely.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 5, 10:34 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 15:26, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 9:55 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 8:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> > > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > > be made here.
>
> > > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> > > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > > religious event... no?
>
> > What makes something a "religious" event?
>
> It is often easier to provide examples than it is to provide
> definitions.  It is very difficult to define “life” but it is easy to
> give an example of life – Lemurs.  Similarly it can be difficult to
> define what a religious event is but it is easy to give an example –
> Baptism.

What about the following:
Wedding presided over by a minister.
Christmas party.
Easter party.
Wake/Funeral with readings by a clergymember.

Because, if we are going to hold the strict stance that, as an
atheist, we shouldn't initiate religious ceremonies, then that pretty
much excludes doing any of the above.

Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?

[Kippers]

If we were to make a strict policy about atheists initiating religious
ceremonies then it is true we would have to deal with these difficult
issues of definition but I am not proposing we do that. We can deal
with cases on an individual basis and in this case I think it is
reasonable to expect an atheist not to get their child baptised unless
there are mitigating circumstances.

> Now, maybe - to be logically consistent - that's true, but the point
> is that initiating a baptism is the same as initiating any of the
> above, would you hold an atheist to the same level of fault?
>

As I have previously stated; hijacking a religious event and using it
in a secular manner (such as many of us do with Christmas) is not the
same as instigating a religious event including all the supernatural
dogmatic baggage that accompanies it.

So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
deal. However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
to your atheism.

[Drafterman]

You mean like decorating a Christmas tree and exchanging presents?

>
> So far your best defence seems to be “well so what, its just like
> eating a cookie on a diet” and this is fair enough as it is not a huge
> deal.  However I am struggling to see how this could even constitute
> indulging in a guilty pleasure unless you have this unexplainable urge
> to partake in superstitious ceremonies which you try to suppress due
> to your atheism.

Like I said, my motivation was I thought other members of my family,
who are religious, would take joy from it.
Mainly the elder parts of the family that live further away.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 10:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > <snip>
>
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
>
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
>
> What makes something a "religious" event?

It is part of a religious dogma.
It was created within a religious group to answer to religious needs.
Baptism is a good example.
So is confirmation.
So is mass.

Marriage is a more problematic one.
Marriages as such are not a religious event.
However, they can be held according to religious tenets and doctrines,
then they become a religious event.

So, I guess I should have written "religious events and events held
according to religious guidelines"

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 10:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > <snip>
>
> > > And in terms of family events, if I don't participate in the rituals,
> > > ridiculous as I think they are, I will be considered "insulting" those
> > > family members, which is unforgivable in the culture that is practiced by
> > > those family members. No explanation will be accepted or understood.
>
> > > So, it's not always easy nor IMO of prime importance.
>
> > I agree with you, but I believe there si an important distinction to
> > be made here.
>
> > Refusing to participate in a family event because it is religiously
> > based would indeed be problematic and antagonistic.
>
> > However, this is completely different from one self-initiating a
> > religious event... no?
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> This isn't a great example, but I suppose it's sort of along the same lines.

Well, it is not religious at all.
So, no, it does not match my statement in any shape or form.

> I've always had a feminist orientation and in the 1970s when I got married
> for the first time, I didn't change my last name on any legal documents.
>
> My mother-in-law found out and had a major fit that I was insulting my
> husbands entire family by not taking my husbands name.
>
> I conceded and changed my name to keep the peace.
>
> Had I known she would react like that I would have initiated it.
>
> In addition, even though my family doesn't follow ancient rituals like
> dowries, my mother provided one for the same reasons.

Is your mother an atheist
Are dowries a religious tradition?

[Dead Kennedy]

i absolutely empathise with you motives. Can I ask whether you felt an
invitation to a secular "welcome to the world" ceremony would possibly
antagonise your older and more religious kin?

with the cold stare of intellect i cant agree that an athiest has any
reason to baptise a child. However, to keep the peace and have a party
celebrating a new addition to your extended family; meh, call it what
you want.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 5, 10:38 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Replying to both Drafterman and rappoccio in the same post...
>
> > I just re-read my post after it ws posted and it is way harsher and
> > "high-ground" than I intended it to be.
> > Sorry about that.
>
> > The events you were both referring to already took place, so we cannot
> > go back and change anytjhng...
> > I was just trying to raise general points stemming from the events you
> > wrote about...
>
> > I should not have written using the second person so much, I apologize
> > for that.
>
> Bullshit. We lob the hard balls at theists, so why should we pull
> punches with each other?

Indeed, except that my point was that the tone went beyond my actual
feelings/thoughts...

Very true.

> In the grand scheme of things, initiating a baptism as an atheist is
> at the same level as eating a cookie while on a diet.

To you it is.

However, I was thinking about the religious people around you who now
that you are an atheist. They might think that you wanted the ceremony
out of some irrational fear similar to Pascal's wager, thus
reinforcing their own superstitious beliefs.

In other words, what you, and I, consider to be a meaningless ceremony
actually helps to propagate the very thing you think should disappear.

[Drafterman]

I don't entirely buy your distinction between baptism and marriage.
Yes, the concept of a civil union between two people is not a
religious invention. Nor is taking a bath.

So, both are simple events for which much pomp and ceremony is built
around. As far as the state is concerned, you're married as soon as
you get a marriage license and get it signed by someone with the
authority to do so. Anything above and beyond that has nothing to do
with the actual marriage.

The same is true of the symbolism and superstition tied to baptism.

Not seeing the bride before the wedding, the bride wearing white,
throwing rice, breaking glass, having a toast, tossing the boquet/
garter, first dance, etc. etc. These are all superstious rituals. Do
you regards these things the same as a baptism? I don't see the
difference.

If I had to make a guess, I would guess that if I made a post about
getting married, and mentioned that I willingly and voluntarily
participated in any of the above, I doubt I would be ellicting the
same reaction.

> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> i absolutely empathise with you motives. Can I ask whether you felt an
> invitation to a secular "welcome to the world" ceremony would possibly
> antagonise your older and more religious kin?

No, and I hadn't thought of doing that. While I doubt there would have
been any problems, I think that some of the older people that made a
long trip would not have come. It's also just more than pleasing
*them*. Some of these relatives are my in-laws and it meant a lot to
my wife that they came to celebrate since they aren't too keen on
travelling anyway.

[Drafterman]

No more so than celebrating any other occasion with religious
overtones (weddings, many holidays, etc.). One thing I think is
lending to the emphasis on Baptism is that it is not as umbiquitous
than, say, Christmas.

The entire western world Celebrates Christmas. It is heavily
integrated in marketing and commercialism and burned into our pysches.
The grounds for the condemnation of baptism that have been presented
here are just as easily applied to Christmas. In fact, I would say
more so. If I'm against baptism, that really doesn't say anything
about religion as a whole. But if I'm against Christimas, then that
sends a pretty clear message of atheism.

>
> > Yes, it is
> > completely contradictory to the intended goal. But hey, I was hungry.
>
> > Don't apologize for tackling an issue that some people feel
> > passionately about. If anything I think we should be more brutal with
> > ourselves than we are with theists. It removes any legitimacy from
> > claims of double standards or living in metaphorical houses of glass.
>
> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.

[Diana Wilson]

Baptism is like getting your ticket punched, or buying heaven insurance....and the entire idea of baptism etc as adopted by the early church was to make "belief" and particular both cheap and simple...so that everyone would stop fighting among themselves and spending so much money on various religious festivals and prayers...that there would be peace among King Constantine's army so he could fight the enemies of the empire...and also there would be more money to tax. Constantine stayed a PAGAN all of his life...even if he promoted xianity.....Xianity as a new religion had less fiestas, less expensive prayer offerings, didn't need to slaughter a bunch of cattle, took less time, and was simpler...and included "forgiveness"...so that everyone could get back to fighting Constantine's enemies.

 

Constantine was baptised when he was in a coma on his death bed. And Queen Helena his mother....now that is a really funny story. She became entranced with xianity and made a trip into the "holy land"...and "paid" the village locals to tell her "where jesus was born, or where he died...and so on. So, the locals taking her money...showed her...hahahaha....

 

Places like Nazareth did not exist until 300 years later...and there were two Bethlehems, but she didn't know that...so its a real toss up if any of the place names where the imaginary jesus lived. The biggest problem was that none of these locals ever met any of jesus' family...and didn't know any of the stuff that is now quoted in the bible as "real" ...its all a major 2000 year old hoax...and all the real, and honest scholars in bible history...know it.

 

Anyone who does honest research of any of the books in the bible know that 95% of it is just made up myths. Now you know why Atheism is growing....to be an Atheist is a moral and ethical state of mind...where one does not lie to themselves or other people. Its called being truthful.

 

It is so sad, that all these xians make such claims about how morally superior they are...but when you confront them with facts and proof...they make up lie after lie after lie...and its actually called Apologetics.

 

If something is actually true and can be proven...then there is no need for Apologetics and make stuff up.

[Diana Wilson]

WE are all ATheists....except Atheists just believe in one less god than the xians....

 

Babies are born Atheists....

 

AND if you really, really believe in your bible...then YOUR IMAGINARY GOD ALSO CREATED "EVIL"....ISAIAH 45:7....So, all the evil you do, is not your fault then. Don't you xians pray every day...for god to take over your life...and you turn it all over to jesus? Now that's scary, when your god created evil. 

 

And...You xians have so much faith and trust that god created it all....that even if you are EVIL...then it was your evil god who made you do evil....Right? Wait....you state you have "free will"...but then your god created you, and created evil, and also created cancer, retarded children, hurricanes, disease, and flies. Wow...your god has really been buzy putting a lot of evil and disgusting stuff into the world....and you worship this god thingy? Amazing....

 

And if god created evil, satan, and the devil, and you are evil BORN SINNERS...then, why its not your fault if you are evil either. After all..its god's swill isn't it...whatever you do, evil or not...How irresponsible and what an amazing, idiotic bible you people believe and have faith and trust in (see bible verses below)

 

But....god was and is soooo evil, that even he realized it...so he "begot" (meaning he made Mary pregnant with his penis and semen) to "save" the world...but first god's son has to commit suicide and go to hell for three days...I am so impressed....

 

Let me go over this bible story again....First god creates evil, including a "talking snake" to fool Adam and Eve...and when they do what they are programmed to do by god...god then kicks them out of the garden and they are shamed. Then...god is so pissed off at the human race...god then creates a flood to kill all those evil, bad people including their innocent babies and children.... who won't do what he says...and when that doesn't work, god creates his "son"...who he kills too. Amazing story. I think I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing.

 

God created evil:

Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6

• (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
• (Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
  
  How really wonderful that you xians all believe, and have faith and trust in an imaginary god who created evil....You knuckle dragging xians disgust me.

I just know we are going to have a battle of the bible verses...or someone is going to come back and say..."Oh, that's a bad translation, when in fact, they are not PhD bible scholars, they do not speak Greek, Aramaic, or Latin vulgate...and have not a clue who even wrote the books of the bible in the first place. So, unless you are bible scholar, don't bother me with your "faith" in your relgious imagination. And don't bother "cherry picking" out the bible verses that you seek to prove your point...because the bible is written in such a way that anyone can find an answer or a justification for anything they do. What a philosophical MESS! And this is the "word of god?" Hahahaha, oh puleeeze.

And I will bet that not a xian in here...knows that the Pentateuch or the Old Testament was first written in GREEK...and not Hebrew, by two old Rabbis who made it all up to create a history for the Jews...to compete with the glorious Greek and Roman history. And...the Old Testament books were written 800 years later than the Jews claim...Worse, the Old Testament books were stories stolen and plagiarized from many other religions, including Pagan gods and Zoroastrianism...there is not one single story in the bible, including jesus the messy, bloody messiah that is original...not one. But, then that's the problem with religious training...is that they lie to you xians alot.

And guess what...because religious teachers are such genetic  and historical liars...its all catching up to them, and millions are now concluding rightly, that they have been lied to and there is no god. And we Atheists thank you...all you preachers, just keep lying, and keep it up...

• ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does the existence of "Jews for Jesus" then disprove that prophecy?

On Nov 5, 12:52 am, "rampant.sam" <rampant....@gmail.com> wrote:
> ComandanteBanana,
>
> I'm not sure if someone has already posted this or not, I haven't
> cared to read ahead, but, just to answer your "How can Jesus claim he
> was the Messiah when he was a Jew and even the Jews deny him?"
> question: He can do so without any trouble at all, the messianic
> prophecy that is Isaiah 53:3 "He was despised and rejected by men,  a
> man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men
> hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." They "we,"
> here, is referring to the Jews. It was prophesied that the Messiah
> would be rejected by his own people.
>
> -Sam

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

You're relatively new here and you've created quite the flurry of
posts.

Allow me to give you a recommendation:

Stop.

Read some of the threads, build an understanding of the topics
discussed here and the people that post here.

Talk *to* us, not *at* us. You come off as using this board as simply
a target for shot-gun practice, shooting out post after post. You
don't come off as a person people can have a conversation with.

Firstly, I'm not a Christian. If you even bothered to read the post(s)
you are responding to, you'd know that.

People like you make me wish there was a captcha required to post,
because it's like you're a bot or something.

Be a human, please.

>    - (Isaiah 45:7, KJV <http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/Isaiah%2045.7>) -

>    "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
>    LORD do all these things."

>    - (Amos 3:6 <http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Amos%203.6>) - "Shall a

>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does the existence of "Jews for Jesus" then disprove that prophecy?
>
> > On Nov 5, 12:52 am, "rampant.sam" <rampant....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ComandanteBanana,
>
> > > I'm not sure if someone has already posted this or not, I haven't
> > > cared to read ahead, but, just to answer your "How can Jesus claim he
> > > was the Messiah when he was a Jew and even the Jews deny him?"
> > > question: He can do so without any trouble at all, the messianic
> > > prophecy that is Isaiah 53:3 "He was despised and rejected by men,  a
> > > man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men
> > > hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." They "we,"
> > > here, is referring to the Jews. It was prophesied that the Messiah
> > > would be rejected by his own people.
>
> > > -Sam
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[Diana Wilson]

> WE are all ATheists....except Atheists just believe in one less god than the xians....

That should be:

"We are all non-believers... except atheists ..."

It doesn't make sense to say "We are all atheists... except
atheists ..."

Also, atheists is a common noun not a proper noun. Ditch the capital
A.