This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Slippy's Profile

Slippy's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Slippy

More Discussions by Slippy

Latest Comments by Slippy

Go to: When and where to argue faith?

Slippy's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Slippy

Fabrice Muamba, the Bolton footballer who had a heart attack in a match recently, spoke in an interview about how he 'knew god wouldn't let him down..

This stuck in my craw a little, I'm pleased the lad is on the mend, but in the interview he states that before the game he was praying with his father for god to look after him that day. He then goes onto say that it's more than a mirical that he's up and talking and able to hold his daughter again.

Double think like that is beyond me.

To be fair to the lad he did thank the actual people who kept him alive as well.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:49:34 UTC | #936912

Go to: Prime Minister’s dissembling, hypocritical and disingenuous speech to religious leaders

Slippy's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by Slippy

I still think he should be called out on this in the same way that Richard has proposed recently, I do think he has tried to divert attention from what he actually believes by this talk of struggling with resurrection , but if he does not believe this then what does he believe to make him christian? Does thinking the church is good for society make you a christian?

Can someone from the opposition ask him if he thinks jeebus is the son of god and his Ma was a virgin? I know it's political questions only but he's talking about easter, christ and resurrection in a political sense so surely this is open season and fair game in the house of commons?

Or is it only personal when it's not going to win a vote?

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:49:45 UTC | #932502

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Slippy's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by Slippy

To get back to the original post.

After thinking about this further, and for the points I raise above about blindly following tradition and allowing the church to over estimate it's importance, I have changed my position on whether your friends logic is flawed.

Given your opening statements about his vocal lack of faith and his position on the church I think he is wrong to do what he is doing.

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:21 UTC | #931073

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Slippy's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by Slippy

@Comment 48 by Layla

I think the issue of choice disappears when one doesn't believe the ritual does anything

You're still not getting it, if the child is not baptised it has a choice. If it is baptised it has no choice. Only the child should have the choice.

The choice disappears when the parent decides to take the choice away from the child, it's got bugger all to do with whether the ceremony is magic or not and whether you or I think it's meaningful.

It cannot be assumed however that all atheist parents will see the church as something they actively want to get rid of. It is quite possible that atheists could feel the church is harmless even if they disagree with it in the sense of their beliefs about the supernatural

Again, this has nothing to do with removing the choice from the child, I 100% agree that it can't be assumed that all atheist parents will see the church is something to get rid of and that some will consider the church harmless. But this has precisely feck all to do with the removal of choice to be baptized.

Parents generally have a christening because it's nice to have a ceremony where the family and close friends have a day to celebrate the baby and give it a name and welcome it into the world. I don't think it is quite as sinister as you portray it as with an evil priest condemning babies to hell and anxious parents quickly handing over their babies to be cleansed.

I don't think it's quite as sinister either, I agree, although I would suggest that there are some people (in the church and sitting in the ceremony) that will be thinking that this will save the babies eternal soul . But there are lots of options to have a ceremony, name the baby and welcome it into the world. The level of involvement required of the church for this is 0%.

It's only due to a lot of people blindly following the tradition without understanding what it's actually about. Same goes for Marriage, I know when I got married I was not religious but it was no big deal to me at the time to be getting married in a church. Had I understood the hypocrisy and harm that can be seen in organised religion then that I see now I would not have given the church money and assisted in continuing the tradition. I'd wager that a lot of people do not even think about the why of the situation, it's like following a check list. Getting married - need a church, having a baby - need a church. It's so entrenched in our family and friends lives that it's almost the default position. Sorry I have no actual evidence for this assumption as it's only based on my personal experiences, which I know amount to zero as an argument in the grand scheme of things.

That's why I say leave it to the child to make the choice. I myself am not baptised and I would not wish to be (not sure if you would have picked that up from my post) but I have a choice. My Brother is not baptised and he's not likely to be any time soon but he has a choice. His first 3 kids are not baptised but they have a choice.

If anyone from the mods or if the Proffesor is reading this, if there is anything left in the survey fund can I politely suggest a survey on persons who were not baptised as children and the % of those who then chose to be baptised in later life compared to the % of children baptised by their parents?

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:24:28 UTC | #931071

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Slippy's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by Slippy

@Comment 44 by Layla

You are missing a few major points here, firstly, I never said it didn't have meaning. It may not have meaning in a sense that it is absolving a completely innocent child of it inherent sin, of course not. But that does not mean that it has meaning on a number of other levels, as I mentioned, as long as people continue baptising children the Church can claim to be a far more important part of the community than it actually is.

Secondly, and more importantly in my opinion, whether you, I or anybody else thinks the ceremony has meaning or not is irrelevant, it's not our choice to make, it's the child's. Should they want to get baptised in later life then good luck to them, but they should always have the choice, baptising a baby removes that choice.

That's why I'd call for a legal age limit on batising, more importantly an age limit on circumcision.

You can't legally smoke, drink, drive, vote, marry, join the armed forces until a certain age, yet from day one of your life, before you recognise your own reflection, someone can cut off a part of you penis and sign you up to a worldwide cult? Really?

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:56:15 UTC | #930860

More Comments by Slippy