Nooooo!

 

Loved this. Cute baby and raises some interesting questions

Thanks to Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc via (5) Wall Photos.

 

46 responses to “Nooooo!

  1. Both my kids (10 and 12 yo) are self-declared atheists. My eldest was baptized in our sink by his then-Catholic grandmother who was disgusted that we wouldn’t baptize him. See deconverted to apatheist and didn’t baptized my daughter. My daughter feels neglected. Sibling rivalry is hilarious.

    Like

  2. Without the magic water, the baby will burn in hell for ever and ever and it’s eyes will be gouged out and it will be ripped limb from limb in a magical, terrible place called “Hell” if the baby should suddenly die tomorrow. Of course, it’s important to remember that the actual corpse of the baby will be rotting underground in a box somewhere. The rending and ripping and gouging and burning forever and ever and ever will be spirit-like magical thingy or something technical like that.

    Why? Because there’s a magical, invisible sky daddy way up in the sky and he loves you. He loves you and he needs your money.

    Like

  3. Ever been to a baptism Cedric?

    Like

  4. No no no Cedric,

    The innocents get sent to purgatory for half of one unit of an eternity, while sky daddy figures out how to deal with them.

    When he first figured out his grand game plan of temptation, worship and eternal punishment I don’t think he factored them into the plan (i.e. the “innocents” or any other premature arrivals at the pearly gates).

    Big blunders take a long time to sort out. So best if bubs is spared the wait.

    Like

  5. Is that a plastic scoop/paddle in the pic?

    Can’t they stretch to silver or something? so much for the special occasion.

    Like

  6. Wait, didn’t they drop purgatory? Or was that limbo or something?

    Like

  7. Which religions dunk their baby naked into the font? In the Anglican church, they do a simple cross of water on the baby’s head. It seems a bit cruel dunking a baby into a tub of cold water

    Like

  8. I doubt the water is cold. It is most likely warmed to a pleasant temperature.

    Like

  9. And for most people it is a ceremony to celebrate community and welcoming a new member to the community. Quite a moving and loving occasion for the family. Can a baby choose to be baptised? No. Can they choose to be part of a family or community? Also no. Can the family celebrate the new life and new family member despite this?

    Like

  10. Max, I have always celebrated when new arrivals arrived in my community. But I have never felt the need to declare or impose an ideology on them – except a fervent hope that whatever ideology they eventually choose, or not, that they grow up questioning and with an open mind.

    Like

  11. Nor have I. Is there a strawman lurking?

    Like

  12. No, just a statement of my approach. And a hint that some religious christening ceremonies do impose a ideological membership. I have also noticed that with funerals – although usually, but not always, that membership is warranted. It never is in the case of children.

    Like

  13. Yep. Some parents also try to impose their own family name on the child, and even give them a first name without the child consenting. They try to force the child to eat certain sorts of food, make them wear clothing and sleep in a certain house – all without asking the child’s consent. It is basically child abuse. The child should be allowed to grow up first and then be able to make their own decisions about whether they want to be raised in this manner.

    Like

  14. There are parents who actually believe that Max

    Like

  15. No Walsh. It was irony again!

    Like

  16. Still, the irony of that irony is that this argument is often used – to equate an often extreme imposition of an ideology with its prejudices, hatreds, etc., on an innocent child with the loving care involved in feeding, protecting, etc., the child. The later assists the child to survive and develop. The former can often leave them with a hurdle they need to face in later life.

    Like

  17. If you see welcoming people to a comminity as inherntly hateful and full of prejudice I guess so. But rather a pessimistic worldview to hold, and not what I have experienced at any baptism I have been involved in.

    In actual fact a lot of the liturgy involved in a baptism is specifically about caring for, loing, and valueing, and welcoming the child.

    The idea that baptisms are all about hate and fear is an odd one. I am actually curious where this misconception comes from.

    Like

  18. Ken sees all religion as hateful
    Beheading people for going to a party is pretty hateful I must admit
    Not sure that the Church of England would go this far.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/taliban-behead-17-afghan-partygoers

    Like

  19. Yes. A common mistake to make. Looking at the most evil members of a group and extrapolating from this that (i) all members of the group are like this and (ii) members of the group are like this because they are members of this group.

    Like

  20. I don’t, actually. But re the beheading. Didn’t the Church of England go in for that in the old days with royalty? And they all seemed to burn a few heretics.

    Like

  21. The difference between the “good old days” is that we have moved on, but the Muslims are still doing it

    Like

  22. Hey, hey. Not “the Muslims”. Some Muslims.

    Still, in Early medieval times the Christians lagged behind the Muslims.

    And some Christians still haven’t caught up on many things. Marriage equality is only a current example.

    Like

  23. No Walsh – the Taliban are doing it.

    Like

  24. I notice that the new marriage bill being proposed still has the restriction on marriage lifted from the Book od Common Prayer😉

    Like

  25. No, no, no, Max. It’s not the Taliban. It’s only some members of the Taliban.

    Like

  26. It is the Taliban in this case, but in Saudi they have public beheadings

    In Iran, they stone homosexuals to death. You won’t see any marriage equality over there.

    The fact is that these are primitive, brutal intolerant societies.

    Like

  27. Probably. I don’t know enough about the Taliban to comment. For all I know they have a liberal wing.

    Like

  28. The Taliban also have been throwing acid into girls faces for going to school

    Like

  29. Yes that would be the liberals. The conservatives execute them.

    Like

  30. Acid attacks:

    and

    Like

  31. Richard Christie

    some Muslims, some Taleban

    I’m deafened by the cries of outrage from the rest of them over these practices.

    Like

  32. YesRichard. Just like I feel deafened by the cries of outrage from “liberal” Christians objecting to the behavior if their fundamentalist comrades.

    Whoops. What’s upsetting them is Richard Dawkins nit the fondues.

    Like

  33. We probably shouldn’t conflate the Taliban with Muslims

    There are plenty of moderate Muslims who probably condemn these atrocities

    I don’t know that there is such a thing as a liberal wing of the Taliban

    Like

  34. I hear liberal Christians objecting to conservative Christians all the time. And vice versa. I guess what you mean is the mainstream media does not report it most of the time because its not a big story? As an example there is massive debate between the two factions in the Anglican church at the moment over the marriage bill, and in the wider world over ordination issues. Very little is said about Dawkins. Many would not know who he is.

    Like

  35. Yes, I am aware of issues like differences over discrimination. And of course it’s wrong to say that there aren’t differences and conflicts within Islam. That’s obvious from the way they keep blowing up each others mosques. That’s quite public, isn’t it?

    My concern really is over philosophical and scientific issues. I don’t see a very vocal response from liberals to conservative evangelical attacks on evolutionary science. Even Collin’s Biologos deteriorated into discussion on the reality of Adam and eve! Bugger the science!

    And take the Christian response to Nagel’s book being released in the next few days. Almost unanimously there appears to be Christian support for his attacks on scientific materialism – code for scientific method. I have yet to see any liberal Christian expressing concern over his position.

    Like

  36. Muslim couple being stoned to death

    Like

  37. What do you see as “the Christian response”? Where do you look to see what the “Christian response” is. Serious question.

    Like

  38. Indonesian maid publicly beheaded in Saudi

    Like

  39. Max – usually RSS feeds for key words like evolution, intelligent design, creationism, scientific materialism.

    Nagel’s book, for example, is being actively promoted by ID and creationist sites. And also by Christian news sites (not yet in NZ). They are all take up by their need to attack “materialism” – without understanding what it means – or even how Nagel has used it. Mind you, none of them have actually read the book yet.

    I suspect, from what I know of Nagel’s recent ideas, when the reviews come in that scientists will be quite critical. We will have a real science-religion conflict right there. And I suspect what motivates Chrsitian recommendations for the book is that they are enthused by the concept of a scientist who says nice things about ID people and bad things about science.

    hardly intelligent assessment.

    Like

  40. Ah – so you search out a small segmen of Christians then. I suspect you are getting the opinions of Evangelicals and seeing them as “the Christian opinion” …. “the Evangelical opinion” might be more escriptive.

    The Anglicans, Catholics. Orthodox, Presbyterians (especially in NZ) would have a diverse range of views which would differ significantly from each othe and the minority you rely upon.

    Like

  41. Max, you wanted to day this didn’t you: ” Ah – so you search out a small segmen of Christians then” Even though I said the exact opposite.

    I search out keywords. And selection surely occurs at the other end – which Christians are actually commenting on issues like “scientific materialism or new books.

    I agree that there are diverse views amongst different sects (even amongst evangelicals) and between them. The impression I get through is that many so-called liberal Christian’s either don’t participate in these discussion (on-line) or their thinking is so woolly that they can’t participate. (Bafflegab is endemic amongst liberal Christians).

    If you insist that it is me that makes the selection here’s a way to show it. Hunt down the alternative Christian comments on Nagel’s book. Find for me Christian commenters who are critical of his presentation of science.

    I look forward to your response – seriously – I am particularly interested in Nagel’s ideas and the way Christian militants are lapping them up at the moment.

    Like

  42. “on-line” being the operative word. You may be right that the internet is full of creationists and evangelicals. They seem to be more into making blogs and webpages. Other Christians get on with living their lives. Evangelicals are very intellectual (not to be confused with intellignent) – their faith is often tied up in apologetics and trying to prove their viewpoint rather than just living it. This may or may not be admirable, but it results in an over representation in the online world – a world where anyone can now publish even if they have no knowledge of an area….

    So, if you search for “words like evolution, intelligent design, creationism, scientific materialism” then obviously you are going to come up with people who are creationsits, intelligent design advocates or opponents/supporters of “sceintific materialism” which as you point out yourself is an evangelical catch-word. You are searching out a particular group by using these words. It is not a neutral search as you seem to think.

    Probably most Christians don’t have a strong opinion on these issues in much the way they don’t have an opinion on blumbing or accountancy (unless they are plumbers or on vestry).

    This does not mean that “the Christian opinion” is what you say, but that only Christians who oppose evolution write blogs about evolution….why would anyone else bother? Also most Christians (like most plumbers) don’t have blogs.

    Like

  43. Max your claim: “that only Christians who oppose evolution write blogs about evolution….why would anyone else bother?” is just not true. A follow a few that do write supportively on evolution. You should be aware that a large minority of scientists in the US, and to a lesser extent NZ, are actually Christians – and most don’t let that get in the way of their science. Ken Miller, for example, is an excellent source of information on evolution and the falseness of creationism. He is a Roman Catholic.

    But it’s interesting that you think that only Christians who oppose evolution would write about it. You seem to think that there are only 2 positions for a Christian – oppose evolution or not give a stuff. I assure you it is far from that simple. Nor should you think so lowly of the intellectual ability and interests of Christians in general.

    As for materialism – you yourself have talked about the subject. Are you evangelical?

    I agree that in some ways evangelicals can provide an intelligent appearance on these subjects. Partly because they go in for apologetics and swot up on the approved arguments. That is why they tend to say the same things. Also their message is pretty naïve – and hence comes across clearly.

    But it is also true that many liberal Christians do not give a simple message because they try to hide a silly story, one that subconsciously realise is silly, with bafflegab. Karen Armstrong comes to mind as a prime example.

    In some ways evangelical intellectuals, theologians, philosophers of religion do talk a lot about these issues. What worries me is that their minority viewpoint does get accepted as representative. (partly because they are the vocal intellectuals with academic positions). Many non-evangelical Christians tend to follow their leadership.

    Think for example of the Bible in schools programme in NZ. Evangelicals are basically driving it even if it is quite well supported by non-evangelical Christians (who also pay a large share of the costs).

    Like

  44. “You should be aware that a large minority of scientists in the US, and to a lesser extent NZ, are actually Christians – and most don’t let that get in the way of their science.”

    Yes exactly my point. We agree good.

    “Ken Miller, for example, is an excellent source of information on evolution and the falseness of creationism. He is a Roman Catholic.”

    Precisely my point.

    “As for materialism – you yourself have talked about the subject. Are you evangelical?”

    Have I – can you give me a link? I did not know I had a blog! Cool – jhave I written any good stuff? …. um….

    “I agree that in some ways evangelicals can provide an intelligent appearance on these subjects. Partly because they go in for apologetics and swot up on the approved arguments. That is why they tend to say the same things. Also their message is pretty naïve – and hence comes across clearly.”

    Hence my distinction between intelligent and intellectual.

    “But it is also true that many liberal Christians do not give a simple message because they try to hide a silly story, one that subconsciously realise is silly, with bafflegab. Karen Armstrong comes to mind as a prime example.”

    Agreed. Karen Armstrong is a mishmash of bad literary analysis and bad archeology wrapped up in bad philosophy. I am not sure I would classify her as a liberal though.

    “In some ways evangelical intellectuals, theologians, philosophers of religion do talk a lot about these issues. What worries me is that their minority viewpoint does get accepted as representative. (partly because they are the vocal intellectuals with academic positions). Many non-evangelical Christians tend to follow their leadership.”

    I am not sure I agree with the last part of this. Would need convincing.

    “Think for example of the Bible in schools programme in NZ. Evangelicals are basically driving it even if it is quite well supported by non-evangelical Christians (who also pay a large share of the costs).”

    I am not sure that Bibles in Schools presents an evangelical angle. I would need evidence of this too.

    Like

  45. I think you have missed my point if you claim it as your own. My point was that Christians are other things as well – some are scientists and these have the same objective interest I have in defending science. Some if them express it.

    The fact that you are unconvinced about evangelicals driving the CEC and simia bible in schools group suggests to me that you are unwittingly being ld by the NSW on that sssue – the point I was making about many liberal Christians bring billions to such leadership. The I formation has been in the media and here – you are obviously ignoring it.

    You have raised the issue of materialism in discussions here.

    Glad you agree in Armstrong. Her bafflegab is typical of a class of theologians and pastors. It really makes people cynical and tells me that peope like her recognize the god story is childish rubbish so want to confuse the issue.

    Like

  46. “I think you have missed my point if you claim it as your own. My point was that Christians are other things as well – some are scientists and these have the same objective interest I have in defending science. Some if them express it.”

    Obviously. They are humans. Not sure what you are driving at.

    You initially said: “And take the Christian response to Nagel’s book being released in the next few days. Almost unanimously there appears to be Christian support for his attacks on scientific materialism – code for scientific method. I have yet to see any liberal Christian expressing concern over his position.”

    And I was trying to come up with reasons why this might be the case. Of course there are exceptions. Goes without saying. But you seem to agree that there is a pattern of some sort. That: “Almost unanimously there APPEARS to be Christian support for his attacks on scientific materialism”

    But when I agree with you that this does seem to be the case, and propose a reason why you flip-flop and attack me for thinking no Christians support evolution!

    Are you just looking to disagree with me for the sake of it?

    “you are unwittingly being ld by the NSW on that sssue ”

    Huh??? iPhones need to improve their keyboard I think!

    “Glad you agree in Armstrong. Her bafflegab is typical of a class of theologians and pastors. It really makes people cynical and tells me that peope like her recognize the god story is childish rubbish so want to confuse the issue.”

    From my understanding – and it is a long time since I read Armstrong – she openly admits that there is no god, and no miracles. Her explanations for the NT stories are even more convoluted and less likely than the most fundamentalist baptist though – but in another direction. Not really a liberal…

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s