'Budding Agnostic'
Has Vestigial Fears
Corey C.

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Corey C. Subject:
Re: from a budding agnostic/atheist
Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:06 PM

Methinks we're stuck with these ideas that have been implanted in the mind. We have a discussion of this in our Forum, and you might want to take a look at it.

If they're really bothering you, you might wish to consult a psychiatrist to see if this is some sort of depressive disorder or a panic disorder. The other theory that I know of, which is both illegal and untested (thanks to Senator Ted Kennedy's quick thinking in 1966) is the research that Timothy Leary did with mind-altering chemicals such as LSD. Leary hoped to be able to "undo" what he called "imprinting" which occurrs during crucial moments during one's early life.

Finally, which denomination dunks babies? Usually, those who dunk baptize only those who want to be baptized, those who baptise babies only sprinkle, and a few sprinklers baptize only those who want it -- there is a pattern, here -- but I've never heard of dunking babies!

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Corey C.
Subject: Re: baby dunking not meant literally
Date: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:41 AM

The baptism of infants is based upon the Patriarchal notion that the father of the family's salvation counts for all. This is based in part upon Hebrew Law and in part on an obscure passage in Acts where the father was baptized and his household was saved.

Psychotropic drugs are those that a psychiatrist gives you, and are not to be confused with psychedelics, which the hippies used to take in the 1960s (and which, I understand, are somewhat popular today -- although Senator Ted Kennedy made sure that we cannot obtain pharmaceutical-grade LSD and cannot study its effects, forcing those who desire this option to rely on stuff that, for all we know, could have been made in a Mr. Coffee™).

Psychedelics, I think, unless Leary was right (and we probably won't know in our lifetimes, Senator Kennedy), would probably aggravate the situation you describe. Even if I were recommending it (and I'm not -- I'm being facetious), I'd do it only in the presence of someone like Leary (now dead), someone who believes in the technique and who has lots of experience in practicing the technique. Do you know anybody who is still alive who has practiced Leary's techniques? I think Ram Das is still alive, but I don't know if he still practices; Robert Anton Wilson is a bit hard to take seriously, though if I were serious about experimenting (I'm not: I'm just making a point), he's probably the one I'd look up.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.