Support NeoGAF

[Anaxagoras]

Don't forget that Muslims were surrounded by Quraish who were ready to attack at any moment. Fighting back is not actually violence. It is just like accusing Palestinian people today of being violent while, in fact, the are trying to protect themselves. So, I fail to see why you consider Muhammad violent. I can see that nothing but a baseless personal opinion.

Justified violence is still violence and when it comes to religions you can justify anything, so no I won't accept that as an answer.
The Taliban are also surrounded by american bases who will attack them any time of the day, does this make the Taliban any less violent? No.

I find it funny that you choose Palestine as your example, I guess no one will ever choose Pakistan as an example in such situations.
The Muslims who have been around and co existed with Sikhs and Hindus in the Pakistani/Indian region for God knows how long, felt that they were underrepresented and their rights were neglected and thus decided to form a state in the northwestern India for Indian Muslims? Isn't that very similar to what has happened to the Jews in the middle East?

Prophet Muhammad was neither violent nor a slaughter. In Badr, the Muslims were 313, while Quraish were 1000. Out of 1000, 70 were killed (in battle) and about the same number were captured by Muslims. On the Muslims side, 14 were killed. The Muslims buried those 70 after the fight (after the rest of the 1000 ran away). If prophet Muhammad was violent as you claimed, he would have killed them all. However, after they (Quraish) saw their best men killed in duels, they lost the motivation to fight. Prophet Muhammad and his followers were able to kill them all, but they let them go as they stopped fighting and that was enough.

Another thing is, after the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammad asked Quraish people "What do you think I will do with you?". They said "Good, an honourable brother and an nephew". He said "Go, you are free".

This is what we are told through him and his followers so keep that in mind.

The thing that you don't seem to get is that there is no such thing as only two possible states of being violent: not violent at all, extremely violent with no limits. Its like happiness there are different degrees of it.
Also, just because his violent acts had limits doesn't make him non violent.

He was also called the faithful and trustworthy even by his enemies who always trusted him and knew he would never break a promise or a treaty. And his enemies actually took the advantage of that and the broke the Hudaibia peace treaty. Leaving this aside, nobody would've believed him if he were a violent person or a bad person. Especially that he was alone, nobody believed his message at first and they hurt him. However, knowing Muhammad was a great man who deserves respect, people started to follow him one after another.

He had a reputation that he was trying to build for a reason.
Also, trust worthy/nonviolent are not the same thing.

You are also very aware of the fact that Arabs were fighting all the time before Islam. They were living in tribes and every tribe held hostility towards the other. They were living like this and avoiding any contact with the Persians and the Romans who were united and had powerful countries. They lived in fear. Until prophet Muhammad came and put an end to this. Only a great man and a great leader can do this. Because of prophet Muhammad, their problems were gone and they became like brothers.

Hey, look at them, I am not the only elephant in the room. <- doesn't make your story any less violent.

My point? I know you don't believe prophet Muhammad and I am not trying to preach. However, even if you don't believe his message, I just want to point out that any fair person would respect prophet Muhammad as a person if they knew what he did. I am okay with the people who don't believe and I would never interfere with their personal beliefs.

He killed people to spread his false message and saved others to keep up his reputation.
I have no respect what so ever for that guy.

However, I suggest to avoid this behaviour. I am not saying that you shouldn't post your personal opinions and thought, but your opnions and thought should reflect the truth, not what you like.

Talk about the truth. :lol

 

[Anaxagoras]

You're seriously equating Muhammad with Saddam Hussein. :lol

You failed to get the point

 

[Anaxagoras]

Islam I think is around 1400 years old and global terrorism on this scale is what, around a decade old? People tend to draw parrells between violence done by Muslims and the origins of the Islamic faith. Yes it was violent, but then give me one Abrahamic faith that wasn't far away from violence whether it be preached, committed or enforced upon others.

Killing people in the name of Islam isn't a decade old and its not a new thing either.
And pointing fingers on other violent religions doesn't make Islam any less violent.

Another point that is rarely mentioned is that the vast majority of victims to such terrorism have been Muslims themselves, so yet again I question the persistence some have in identifying Muslims in general terms, or their faith, as inherently violent or anymore so than any other group of people on this green Earth.

According to the Jihadists, life is a test and if you died during a Jihadist attack you will go to heaven, if you are a non-muslim or a muslim who is supporting the other side, well then too bad for you.

There is a verse in the Quran that says oppression is worse than murder, so it isn't surprising to see the fanaticism that has evoked the terrorism that Al-Qaeda and their sympathisers subscribe to. If anyone has ever read one of those statements released by Bin Laden, it is filled with political rhetoric. No doubt religion is used for self-comfort and the ideals of Jihad are rang loudly into the ears of those involved, but I find it either ignorant or insincere to portray one religious text (incidentally the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths) less holy than another based least of all things - violence.

Alqaida is not spreading Islam, its protecting Muslims from US attacks.
They asked the US army to leave their holy land but they refused, and thats how it started.

If people want to question and criticise the Muslim prophet based on the violence he was involved with, some shocking I might add, then I'd like to hear their opinions on God himself.

Mohammed existed, God as far as we can tell doesn't.

 

[GT500]

People who defend themselves are violent? So, if someone attacks you and you try to defend you self you will be considered violent? Nice!.

You are insisting on calling it a "false message" and calling the prophet "violent". But your baseless claims and trolling won't change the truth.

Anyway, it is clear that your attitude is an attitude of someone who only sees with he wants to see against a religion he loathes. And You don't even seem to understand examples yourself. I suppose Any further discussion with you is useless.

 

[Shanadeus]

People who defend themselves are violent? So, if someone attacks you and you try to defend you self you will be considered violent? Nice!.

You are insisting on calling it a "false message" and calling the prophet "violent". But your baseless claims and trolling won't change the truth.

You cannot apply individual self-defense principles to defense of towns and country, that's the reasoning that lead the US to wrongly strike against Afghanistan and Iraq - in "self-defense". Anaxagoras isn't arguing whether it was "right" or "wrong", just that Muhammad was violent and spread a message that is inaccurate in several areas, thus false.

He might have negative experiences with the religion but that doesn't mean his arguing isn't founded on anything.

 

[Anaxagoras]

People who defend themselves are violent? So, if someone attacks you and you try to defend you self you will be considered violent? Nice!.

You are insisting on calling it a "false message" and calling the prophet "violent". But your baseless claims and trolling won't change the truth.

Anyway, it is clear that your attitude is an attitude of someone who only sees with he wants to see against a religion he loathes. And You don't even seem to understand examples yourself. I suppose Any further discussion with you is useless.

First, if you want to continue this discussion with me then attack my claims and arguments and not me.

Second, yes, if I resort to violence as an act of self defense then yes I have committed a violent act.
If this behavior is observed repeatedly whether justified or not, I will be considered a violent person no matter what side I stand on.

You say that it was committed to save themselves, I say to save the message.
Funny how far this self defense mechanism has reached them.

How about this: You do your best to prove that Islam is true and I will prove to you that it isn't, but hurry up, make your strongest points fast since I don't have all day.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Killing people in the name of Islam isn't a decade old and its not a new thing either.
And pointing fingers on other violent religions doesn't make Islam any less violent.



..............

You highlighted in the same post that the likes of Al-Qaeda are not trying to spread Islam and in fact their issues are more political than anything, so I don't understand the reference made in your first sentence in regards to the killing in the name of Islam.

I just want to make myself clear here. I'm not embedded in this discussion but I just wanted to point out certain inconsistencies, in my opinion, in the language you used. You're absolutely right that naming the violent episodes in other religions does not detract from that done in the name of Islam, but it does in a way negate the specific focus many have towards Islam itself. It is as if Christianity wasn't spread by the sword in some eras, or that morality was questionable, or that black and white were blurred. Everything criticism you can find in a particular religion, specifically the monotheistic ones of this context, you can find the same amount in the others. This is why I don't particularly focus on one article of faith because they are fundamentally the same, especially in regards to this questioning of the morals evoked either by them or in their name.

The Jihadist example is an interesting one. Again one of those things highlighted exclusively in a modern-day Crusader like conquest, their goals are not religious but political as we can see in their activies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Qaeda may have an eye for the "foreign enemies", but clearly there are many who are just as focused on the "domestic enemies". Groups that act along religious lines to achieve political goals without recourse to violence are, ofcourse, common around the world. These groups usually seek to resolve identifiable social problems. Groups that act along religious lines to achieve political goals through violent means, however, often aim to worsen the varied social and political problems they claim to be acting in opposition to. If there is violence on the ground, they want to accelerate it. If there is discrimination and racial strife, they want to increase it. Members of these groups have concluded, in most cases, that the perpetuation of chaos and injustice is the likeliest, and perhaps the only, way to defeat their opponents.

Now tell me how you can relate the spread of social chaos as a means to any religious text. Me personally? I think the most accurate form of "religiously themed terrorism" is those that bomb abortion clinics. Jihad isn't a concept adopted by Islam - in fact anyone can understand it once you describe the terminology behind it. In Christian doctrine, we call it Redemption. In politics, we call it Foreign Policy.

 

[GT500]

You cannot apply individual self-defense principles to defense of towns and country, that's the reasoning that lead the US to wrongly strike against Afghanistan and Iraq - in "self-defense". Anaxagoras isn't arguing whether it was "right" or "wrong", just that Muhammad was violent and spread a message that is inaccurate in several areas, thus false.

He might have negative experiences with the religion but that doesn't mean his arguing isn't founded on anything.

Their situation was different. They were going to be killed if they didn't defend themselves and they didn't start wars in the first place. Even in the wars they were involved in, they didn't kill many. Stopping the other fights from fighting was more than enough. Actually, Arab battles were usually carried by their best swordmen. They lose the motivation to fight when they lose their best men in duels and run away from the Muslims.

And he indeed criticized as "wrong" when he laughed when I said "truth". I am not pissed off just because of this, he behaviour wasn't nice and disrespectful.

How about this: You do your best to prove that Islam is true and I will prove to you that it isn't, but hurry up, make your strongest points fast since I don't have all day.

This would go forever unless someone is willing to be convinced and I am sure you know. It is useless. The wasn't the purpose of this well going thread in the first place and I already told you I don't even have the slightest interest in preaching. All I want you to do is to show some respect and avoid this behaviour because I am someone who isn't very fond of ":lol" and jokes.

 

[Prine]

K
According to the Jihadists, life is a test and if you died during a Jihadist attack you will go to heaven, if you are a non-muslim or a muslim who is supporting the other side, well then too bad for you.

Which has been proven false, in the case of taliban who go against one fundamental rule of Islamic warfare, the killing and women and children (not to mention the innocent, but this meaning is obscured by perspective so we'll leave that out). On that bases, their Jihad cannot be considered righteous or in accordance with Islamic faith.

And what if you're a devout muslim not siding with the opposing government that now declares Jihad on the Jihadists? Not in retaliation but in self defense.

They exist. See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8537127.stm

If this is a form of jihad that doesnt extend power or ideology over areas but to maintain survival of themselves i think most muslims will side with them as a legitimate struggle. Unfortunately people may lose their lives but it may be necessary.

 

[Anaxagoras]

You highlighted in the same post that the likes of Al-Qaeda are not trying to spread Islam and in fact their issues are more political than anything, so I don't understand the reference made in your first sentence in regards to the killing in the name of Islam.

I just want to make myself clear here. I'm not embedded in this discussion but I just wanted to point out certain inconsistencies, in my opinion, in the language you used. You're absolutely right that naming the violent episodes in other religions does not detract from that done in the name of Islam, but it does in a way negate the specific focus many have towards Islam itself. It is as if Christianity wasn't spread by the sword in some eras, or that morality was questionable, or that black and white were blurred. Everything criticism you can find in a particular religion, specifically the monotheistic ones of this context, you can find the same amount in the others. This is why I don't particularly focus on one article of faith because they are fundamentally the same, especially in regards to this questioning of the morals evoked either by them or in their name.

The Jihadist example is an interesting one. Again one of those things highlighted exclusively in a modern-day Crusader like conquest, their goals are not religious but political as we can see in their activies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Qaeda may have an eye for the "foreign enemies", but clearly there are many who are just as focused on the "domestic enemies". Groups that act along religious lines to achieve political goals without recourse to violence are, ofcourse, common around the world. These groups usually seek to resolve identifiable social problems. Groups that act along religious lines to achieve political goals through violent means, however, often aim to worsen the varied social and political problems they claim to be acting in opposition to. If there is violence on the ground, they want to accelerate it. If there is discrimination and racial strife, they want to increase it. Members of these groups have concluded, in most cases, that the perpetuation of chaos and injustice is the likeliest, and perhaps the only, way to defeat their opponents.

Now tell me how you can relate the spread of social chaos as a means to any religious text. Me personally? I think the most accurate form of "religiously themed terrorism" is those that bomb abortion clinics. Jihad isn't a concept adopted by Islam - in fact anyone can understand it once you describe the terminology behind it. In Christian doctrine, we call it Redemption. In politics, we call it Foreign Policy.

I am sorry my friend, I have lost you several times and I don't want to waste your effort by responding to something totally off of what you are trying to point out.
You are very skilled in using your language but I guess that was a bit too much for me to pick up what your main points are but I will give it a try, if I was biking around the topic too much just tell me.

I don't like to judge a religion by its followers, I do not claim that Islam is a violent religion because of the 11th sep attacks, since such arguments won't get you anywhere.
However, I will judge it by its founders and what it preaches on.
Many Muslims on the other will ask you to judge a mother by her children when it comes to the Golden Age of Islam.

So personally, I won't judge the mother by her children, whether some turned out to be good and others not as good, I will judge her by who she is and what she has contributed.

 

[Anaxagoras]

This would go forever unless someone is willing to be convinced and I am sure you know. It is useless. The wasn't the purpose of this well going thread in the first place and I already told you I don't even have the slightest interest in preaching. All I want you to do is to show some respect and avoid this behaviour because I am someone who isn't very fond of ":lol" and jokes.

Too bad, it would have been fun to see what you consider and rely on as evidence.

And please, why do you have to attack me instead of my arguments?
I am taking the discussion very seriously, I am being respectful to everybody in here whether they agree with me or not.
I haven't said that you are violent or anything negative about you at all.
If you feel offended that I criticize Islam and Mohammed then feel so, your problem not mine.

 

[GT500]

Too bad, it would have been fun to see what you consider and rely on as evidence.

And please, why do you have to attack me instead of my arguments?
I am taking the discussion very seriously, I am being respectful to everybody in here whether they agree with me or not.
I haven't said that you are violent or anything negative about you at all.
If you feel offended that I criticize Islam and Mohammed then feel so, your problem not mine.

Well, as I said, discussion like that go forever and would be useless unless one of the sides is willing to be convinced. The outcome would most likely be a ruined and useless thread. This isn't the purpose of it after all, so please understand.

I am not trying to attack you or anything, I was just curious about your intention. You know this is not the best place for jokes. I was just trying to say that you should be nice, however, you said you aren't taking the discussion very seriously although I am not sure who I am supposed to be able to tell if you are taking it seriously or not, so please don't take personally. Anyway, if that's the case, then it is all cool.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I am not trying to attack you or anything, I was just curious about your intention. You know this is not the best place for jokes. I was just trying to say that you should be nice, however, you said you aren't taking the discussion very seriously although I am not sure who I am supposed to be able to tell if you are taking it seriously or not, so please don't take personally. Anyway, if that's the case, then it is all cool.

Good!
Would you like to share some evidence with us now?

 

[GT500]

Good!
Would you like to share some evidence with us now?

I know the purpose of a discussions like this. It is a two sided "you are wrong" and "you are wrong" type of discussion which most likely doesn't go well. It is not like "I am interested" and "I want to know". What will be both gain be this if we are both happy be our current beliefs and know that it is the best for us to respect each other? Personally, I would rather not get involved in a pointless discussion.

I discussed many things with other atheists who were just asking questions and willing to know certain things instead of arguing. But that's not your case I suppose. You already know what I will say and I already know what you will say and I had pointless discussions with this type of atheist before. Believe me, it is pointless.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I know the purpose of a discussions like this. It is a two sided "you are wrong" and "you are wrong" type of discussion which most likely doesn't go well. It is not like "I am interested" and "I want to know". What will be both gain be this if we are both happy be our current beliefs and know that it is the best for us to respect each other? Personally, I would rather not get involved in a pointless discussion.

I discussed many things with other atheists who were just asking questions and willing to know certain things instead of arguing. But that's not your case I suppose. You already know what I will say and I already know what you will say and I had pointless discussions with this type of atheist before. Believe me, it is pointless.

Try me.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Which has been proven false, in the case of taliban who go against one fundamental rule of Islamic warfare, the killing and women and children (not to mention the innocent, but this meaning is obscured by perspective so we'll leave that out). On that bases, their Jihad cannot be considered righteous or in accordance with Islamic faith.

And if your devout muslim not siding with the opposing government that now declares Jihad on the Jihadists? Not in retaliation but in self defense.

They exist. See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8537127.stm

If this is a form of jihad that doesnt extend power or ideology over areas but to maintain survival of themselves i think most muslims will side with them as a legitimate struggle. Unfortunately people may lose their life but it may be necessary.

Again, you take the extremists of the extreme to prove a point.
I have explained their understanding and point of view and will explain it again if you want to.

What about those kinds of Jihadists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXK2HRffa24

They are not killing any innocents, is what they are doing un-Islamic too?

 

[Kraftwerk]

Question for muslin gaf:
So in the quran it basically states not to tinker around with Pigs and alcohol correct?so then what about alot of medicine that contain alcohol ? and what about a lot of surgeries where they have used things like tissues or valves from a pig to heal humans or even save lives?Quran doesn't say anything like 'pig/alcoholic is ok for this and this but not ok for this' or does it?
I don't wanna sound like I'm in an attack mode here towards Islam.I'm just honestly curious

 

[Mgoblue201]

I know the purpose of a discussions like this. It is a two sided "you are wrong" and "you are wrong" type of discussion which most likely doesn't go well. It is not like "I am interested" and "I want to know". What will be both gain be this if we are both happy be our current beliefs and know that it is the best for us to respect each other? Personally, I would rather not get involved in a pointless discussion.

I discussed many things with other atheists who were just asking questions and willing to know certain things instead of arguing. But that's not your case I suppose. You already know what I will say and I already know what you will say and I had pointless discussions with this type of atheist before. Believe me, it is pointless.

Beliefs should always be tested and challenged, for there might always be someone who can expose the inadequacy of those beliefs. If arguments are so predictable that you can spell them out beforehand, then you should find someone better to debate with. You keep saying that it could go on forever unless someone is willing to be convinced, but are you willing to be convinced? I know I am. In fact, the evidence once swayed me away from religion.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Question for muslin gaf:
So in the quran it basically states not to tinker around with Pigs and alcohol correct?so then what about alot of medicine that contain alcohol ? and what about a lot of surgeries where they have used things like tissues or valves from a pig to heal humans or even save lives?Quran doesn't say anything like 'pig/alcoholic is ok for this and this but not ok for this' or does it?
I don't wanna sound like I'm in an attack mode here towards Islam.I'm just honestly curious

If it is for medical purposes and there are no other option then it is ok according to most Muslims.

 

[Kraftwerk]

If it is for medical purposes and there are no other option then it is ok according to most Muslims.

Sorry for being strict but does it state that anywhere in the quran? i mean it says don't use alcoholic an pigs and that's it so how can people make exception.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Sorry for being strict but does it state that anywhere in the quran? i mean it says don't use alcoholic an pigs and that's it so how can people make exception.

When it comes to survival you can do such things, and when you don't have an option God forgives you.

“They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say, in both of them is major sin, and there is some benefit for men, but the sin of them is far greater than benefit ”
(Surah Baqarah)

According to the Qur'an and Sunnah, it is haram (forbidden) to drink alcohol or alcoholic beverages. Even a small amount of alcohol is haram and it must be avoided. As for medicine containing alcohol, the basic ruling in normal circumstances is that it should be avoided unless there is a necessity and there is no alternative and it is prescribed by a trustworthy Muslim doctor.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1141277508770#ixzz0hmYnpVCQ

 

[2San]

Sorry for being strict but does it state that anywhere in the quran? i mean it says don't use alcoholic an pigs and that's it so how can people make exception.

Yeah it's stated in the Quran itself literally I can't state the exact verse though. Something like if you are in dire need in food, you can eat pigs meat. Most of rules stated in the Quran are for those who can actually follow them. Likewise a poor person barely making ends meet doesn't have to give Zakaat(a certain percentage of income must be given to the poor),

 

[Kraftwerk]

When it comes to survival you can do such things, and when you don't have an option God forgives you.

“They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say, in both of them is major sin, and there is some benefit for men, but the sin of them is far greater than benefit ”
(Surah Baqarah)


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1141277508770#ixzz0hmYnpVCQ

Well then it does look like quran say it can be used for other things.Btw whats with the 'trustworthy Muslim doctor' ? i dont believe in sunnah or w/e just curious

 

[JGS]

... and let's stop right there. Atheism does not exclusively require active denial in a God, it also includes "passive" disbelief. Those ignorant of a god concept thus can be considered atheistic, such as isolated tribal islanders and infants. Describing a baby as atheistic does not in any imply that they are aware of God concepts either, and those ignorant of the concept are equally capable of being called atheists because they fall under the definition.

No one is saying anything about active denial. In fact I think most atheists don't think about it at all. However, ignorance is not the same as disbelief by a long shot. Atheism requires an acknowledgement of both options before the god one can be denied. Otherwise, a baby in theory denies everything that doesn't involve a nipple or diapers.

So instead of just using a dictionary definition (come on, it's lazy evidence), why don't we acknowledge that all a human being needs to be atheistic is a mere lack of god belief (Atheos; "a" denoting absence, "theos" denoting God, so more or less "without God"). People who actively deny the existence of God are atheists because they also lack a God belief, but don't make the mistake of thinking that denial is a requirement of being an atheist. Lack, absence, of a God belief is all that is required. From there you can be agnostic, "strong", ignorant of the God concept, but at the end of the day you will still be an atheist if you lack the belief.

The problem is people don't use the dictionary enough. The problem is that a guy says something as non-profound as babies are atheistic and I'm supposed to accept that over the literal definition and logic. You can't use the latin and use that as a definition (Talk about lazy). Everyone knows that a word is defined by it's usage.

Denial is a requirement. Otherwise, you can be atheist just by being ignorant which may be true in most cases, but the statement of non-belief still needs to be made. IMO, The same applies, by the way, to religious people who baptize their kids at birth. The baby did not make any stand whatsoever so what makes them think it's saved just by putting some water on it's forehead?

Further, saying that by default a human baby is atheistic is not suggesting that because this state is default that it is somehow superior (it would be equally foolish to suggest not knowing of music, language, and fun is good "because it's the default state"). It's merely an observation and can be helpful to rebut the view held by some that atheism is unnatural, weird, or bizarre. There are many untrue things said about atheism, so this observation may help to "naturalize" us in the eyes of such detractors (although nothing may help with those that look down on us as spiritually twisted or perverted).

Atheism from your view would be natural so I can't argue with that. However, from the connotation of others, it suggests that religious belief is unnatural, that you have to be taught into it, which is untrue. It's very natural- so much so that the vast majority of people who are living and who have ever lived were worshipping something. If all the major religions disappeared, people would start a religion of some kind.

TL;DR: Atheism does not require active comprehension of "God" as a concept. Nor does it require active denial of that concept. Absence of belief is sufficient to conform to the definition.

If that's what floats your boat. I am going to respectfully disagree.

 

[Anaxagoras]

No one is saying anything about active denial. In fact I think most atheists don't think about it at all. However, ignorance is not the same as disbelief by a long shot. Atheism requires an acknowledgement of both options before the god one can be denied. Otherwise, a baby in theory denies everything that doesn't involve a nipple or diapers.



The problem is people don't use the dictionary enough. The problem is that a guy says something as non-profound as babies are atheistic and I'm supposed to accept that over the literal definition and logic. You can't use the latin and use that as a definition (Talk about lazy). Everyone knows that a word is defined by it's usage.

Denial is a requirement. Otherwise, you can be atheist just by being ignorant which may be true in most cases, but the statement of non-belief still needs to be made. IMO, The same applies, by the way, to religious people who baptize their kids at birth. The baby did not make any stand whatsoever so what makes them think it's saved just by putting some water on it's forehead?



Atheism from your view would be natural so I can't argue with that. However, from the connotation of others, it suggests that religious belief is unnatural, that you have to be taught into it, which is untrue. It's very natural- so much so that the vast majority of people who are living and who have ever lived were worshipping something. If all the major religions disappeared, people would start a religion of some kind.



If that's what floats your boat. I am going to respectfully disagree.

Why do you have to make things so complecated?
Children who are not familiar with the idea of a God lack a belief in him and thus are atheist until they develop a belief in him.

 

[JGS]

Why do you have to make things so complecated?
Children who are not familiar with the idea of a God lack a belief in him and thus are atheist until they develop a belief in him.

I'm not the one making it complicated or continuing the conversation. In fact, I made it simple by showing the definition of atheist. In fact, I checked several other sources including word history and they back that term up.

You just repeated to me what you believe which I do not, but you have to have the last word on it.

I also am not going to argue about it if the definition for atheism is different than the legitimate ones. After all, what's the point?

My argument was and always will be that the idea that religious belief is an indoctrinated quality is untrue. If that was not the intent of your conversation or the conversations of others, then I apologize.

However, I'm not clear why the idea that a baby must be atheist matters at all if it could mean them simply not knowing. Why not just say that a baby doesn't know anything about religion? Then we would be in absolute agreement with each other!

I don't believe that was the intent though so therefore I say as soon as a child has concrete thought process and/or imagination, they will believe in what they create or are taught. Prior to that it is not a concern for them which it would need to be in order to have an opinion on it. Atheism is an an opinion. Non-belief does not necessarily have to be so. How is that complicated?

 

[JGS]

Why do you have to make things so complecated?
Children who are not familiar with the idea of a God lack a belief in him and thus are atheist until they develop a belief in him.

EDIT- I refreshed a dozen times and my previous post didn't show. This was a double post. Sorry.

 

[Veidt]

Well then it does look like quran say it can be used for other things.Btw whats with the 'trustworthy Muslim doctor' ? i dont believe in sunnah or w/e just curious

You can safely ignore that. It doesn't mean anything.
And Anaxagaros is right. The alcohol itself isn't forbidden, intoxication is.
And Pig meat is forbidden. However, in dire circumstances, it's permissible to consume or use otherwise.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I'm not the one making it complicated or continuing the conversation. In fact, I made it simple by showing the definition of atheist. In fact, I checked several other sources including word history and they back that term up.

You just repeated to me what you believe which I do not, but you have to have the last word on it.

I also am not going to argue about it if the definition for atheism is different than the legitimate ones. After all, what's the point?

My argument was and always will be that the idea that religious belief is an indoctrinated quality is untrue. If that was not the intent of your conversation or the conversations of others, then I apologize.

However, I'm not clear why the idea that a baby must be atheist matters at all if it could mean them simply not knowing. Why not just say that a baby doesn't know anything about religion? Then we would be in absolute agreement with each other!

I don't believe that was the intent though so therefore I say as soon as a child has concrete thought process and/or imagination, they will believe in what they create or are taught. Prior to that it is not a concern for them which it would need to be in order to have an opinion on it. Atheism is an an opinion. Non-belief does not necessarily have to be so. How is that complicated?

Children don't know anything about religions and god and don't have any beliefs when it comes to that = atheists.

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Get over it.

 

[Earthstrike]

Denial is a requirement. Otherwise, you can be atheist just by being ignorant which may be true in most cases, but the statement of non-belief still needs to be made. IMO, The same applies, by the way, to religious people who baptize their kids at birth. The baby did not make any stand whatsoever so what makes them think it's saved just by putting some water on it's forehead?.

No it doesn't.

I've never denied the idea that the core of the earth is made out of potato chips. It doesn't mean I'm not a ageocentropotatoist.

I've never even considered the idea until now, but it doesn't mean I've had belief in it.

If something is defined by lack of belief then consequently anything that doesn't believe in it has such a label be applicable to them.

Although to be honest, resistance to this idea doesn't surprise me. If i'm not mistaken, it is taught in Islam that everyone is born a muslim. Presumably this would be to resolve the dilemma of whether or not babies go to heaven or hell when they die. There would be a pretty large amount of moral dissonance that some muslims would have to deal with if it were the case that babies were born areligious. It seems pretty natural to me that there would be so much resistance to an idea that follows from definition.

 

[JGS]

Children don't know anything about religions and god and don't have any beliefs when it comes to that = atheists.

Since you need it so badly you have the last word on it. You win. :/

Get over it.

When was I under it?

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm not the one making it complicated or continuing the conversation. In fact, I made it simple by showing the definition of atheist. In fact, I checked several other sources including word history and they back that term up.

You just repeated to me what you believe which I do not, but you have to have the last word on it.

I also am not going to argue about it if the definition for atheism is different than the legitimate ones. After all, what's the point?

My argument was and always will be that the idea that religious belief is an indoctrinated quality is untrue...

Can I take this one?

Of course religious belief is an indoctrinated quality. If it were not, you wouldn't go to church, since you would already be a fully-formed religious person. You go to church to learn the doctrines of your deity of choice, as well as the doctrines of the traditions and history of the church. Indoctrination.

I think, JGS, that you're confusing atheism with anti-theism. Atheism is a lack of belief. Anti-theism is disbelief. They are not the same thing. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe he doesn't and cannot exist*. I am still an atheist, though.



*God as defined in Christian faith and tradition, which is what I'm most familiar with, I think can't exist, due to the whole omnibenevolence/omnipotence/omniscience paradox, but I do acknowledge that the idea of a creator is a possibility. I don't think it particularly likely, but it might have been the case.^

^Still atheist.

 

[RustyNails]

And please, why do you have to attack me instead of my arguments?
I am taking the discussion very seriously, I am being respectful to everybody in here whether they agree with me or not.
I haven't said that you are violent or anything negative about you at all.
If you feel offended that I criticize Islam and Mohammed then feel so, your problem not mine.

That's a weak defense. Its like I call your mom various slurs and you get worked up about it, and I'll just reply with "So what? I'm being respectful towards you whether you agree with me or not".

 

[Mumei]

That's a weak defense. Its like I call your mom various slurs and you get worked up about it, and I'll just reply with "So what? I'm being respectful towards you whether you agree with me or not".

Well, it'd be one thing if he were calling Islam various slurs and people were getting worked up about that. But as far as I can see, he's criticizing things that were said and done by Mohammed or in the Qur'an.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong about those things (I have next to no independent familiarity with Islam), but I don't think your comparison is very apt.

 

[RustyNails]

Well, it'd be one thing if he were calling Islam various slurs and people were getting worked up about that. But as far as I can see, he's criticizing things that were said and done by Mohammed or in the Qur'an.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong about those things (I have next to no independent familiarity with Islam), but I don't think your comparison is very apt.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter to me what anyone says as long as its enshrined in facts. The point is, you can tick off people by not directly attacking them. Hiding behind confusion when the reply comes back is being blissfully ignorant or grossly disingenuous.

 

[Anaxagoras]

That's a weak defense. Its like I call your mom various slurs and you get worked up about it, and I'll just reply with "So what? I'm being respectful towards you whether you agree with me or not".

Where have I been disrespectful to another gaffer?
If you got offended because I criticize Mohammeds behavior and Islam's history, then be so.

 

[Anaxagoras]

That's a weak defense. Its like I call your mom various slurs and you get worked up about it, and I'll just reply with "So what? I'm being respectful towards you whether you agree with me or not".

Slurs?
I am arguing that he is a violent man with a false message, I also said that I don't have any respect for him.
You can do better than this.

 

[JGS]

No it doesn't.

I've never denied the idea that the core of the earth is made out of potato chips. It doesn't mean I'm not a ageocentropotatoist.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument. Just because you know of an idea does not mean you have to have a definite opinion on it- expert or skeptic. I've never argued that concept. However, being ignorant of something does not mean the same thing as denial of it.

I've never even considered the idea until now, but it doesn't mean I've had belief in it.

If something is defined by lack of belief then consequently anything that doesn't believe in it has such a label be applicable to them.

I don't disagree with this. The disagreement is if lack of belief (In the case of a baby, the inability to believe) can = atheism (or devoutness/being saved for the infant baptisms). I say no.

Atheism is not defined only by a lack of belief. Denial is also a part of it.

Although to be honest, resistance to this idea doesn't surprise me. If i'm not mistaken, it is taught in Islam that everyone is born a muslim. Presumably this would be to resolve the dilemma of whether or not babies go to heaven or hell when they die. There would be a pretty large amount of moral dissonance that some muslims would have to deal with if it were the case that babies were born areligious. It seems pretty natural to me that there would be so much resistance to an idea that follows from definition.

I don't believe that babies are born religious so neither concept is tough for me to grasp. It just that I don't believe either scenario.

 

[JGS]

Can I take this one?

Of course religious belief is an indoctrinated quality. If it were not, you wouldn't go to church, since you would already be a fully-formed religious person. You go to church to learn the doctrines of your deity of choice, as well as the doctrines of the traditions and history of the church. Indoctrination.

It's true that the child of a religious person is indoctrinated with beliefs since that is what a parent's job is. I know I do. I'm saying that religious thought is a natural tendency. The indoctrination is simply in the parent's belief.

However, you are focusing on a particular religion of a particular child. I am not. If no religion was in force, people would still not be atheists. They never have been before, so why think that's the case now? I'll try to simplify some more.

Let's say there are a handful of people on earth. There are no other concepts at all. In short order, the few people that are on the earth at that time will gravitate toward a religious belief. It does not matter what that belief is for the sake of this argument. It has happened with nearly every civilization out there and it's not about to stop.

I think, JGS, that you're confusing atheism with anti-theism. Atheism is a lack of belief. Anti-theism is disbelief. They are not the same thing. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe he doesn't and cannot exist*. I am still an atheist, though.

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief until you can show me better proof than you saying so. I have dictionaries, encyclopedias, & other atheists (Oh my!) backing me up on this so I'm not sure why there is such a gung ho attitude to prove ME wrong. Just prove the references wrong and you'll be straight. Right now, you are just speaking of opinions which I freely acknowledge I am doing right now too.

*God as defined in Christian faith and tradition, which is what I'm most familiar with, I think can't exist, due to the whole omnibenevolence/omnipotence/omniscience paradox, but I do acknowledge that the idea of a creator is a possibility. I don't think it particularly likely, but it might have been the case.^

That's fine but that idea was not formed in you at birth. You grew into that concept. There was nothing going on in that little baby brain of yours at birth that even remotely describes what you're decribing now. I'm making a case that babies are not smart enough to believe or not believe in a deity or spiritual side.

 

[Earthstrike]

Atheism is not defined only by a lack of belief. Denial is also a part of it.

Well then I disagree here and I think I understand where the problem comes from.

Imagine you had a bag that contains one million yellow balls and one red ball, and you picked a ball out of the bag randomly and held it in your hand. I wouldn't deny that the ball is red, but I certainly wouldn't believe it.

I think you're making the assumption that lack of belief in something requires proof and certainty. That isn't true.

 

[Sibylus]

No one is saying anything about active denial. In fact I think most atheists don't think about it at all. However, ignorance is not the same as disbelief by a long shot. Atheism requires an acknowledgement of both options before the god one can be denied. Otherwise, a baby in theory denies everything that doesn't involve a nipple or diapers.

There's nothing in the definition, historical or practical, that excludes those ignorant of God. The definition allows it, thus many can be considered atheists. Atheism isn't exclusively a world-view or some grand philosophical position, it describes a simple state as well. A baby's opinions on anything would be non-existent compared to that of a secular humanist's, but they would both be atheistic because of their absence of a God belief.

The problem is people don't use the dictionary enough. The problem is that a guy says something as non-profound as babies are atheistic and I'm supposed to accept that over the literal definition and logic. You can't use the latin and use that as a definition (Talk about lazy). Everyone knows that a word is defined by it's usage.

A bigger problem is people who quote dictionary definitions verbatim and expect that to be all that needs to be said. I stuck in a historical definition as a note, so that you'd know I wasn't just pulling pseudo-Greek out of my ass. Big difference between sourcing and letting a dictionary do all your arguing, friend.

Even in practical usage, atheism still means "God-lessness", a lack of God-belief. Any human being without a god-belief, for whatever reason, conforms to that definition.

Denial is a requirement. Otherwise, you can be atheist just by being ignorant which may be true in most cases, but the statement of non-belief still needs to be made. IMO, The same applies, by the way, to religious people who baptize their kids at birth. The baby did not make any stand whatsoever so what makes them think it's saved just by putting some water on it's forehead?

No, a statement of non-belief does not need to be made to be considered an atheist. It isn't part of what the word has historically meant or what it means in practical usage. Rather, this is you introducing what you think the word should mean.

And, uh, I think you'll find few Christians who believe childhood baptism is equivalent to salvation. Many see it as a mere tradition. If it was viewed as a valid practice, it'd be very problematic with the Christian view of free will and salvation by grace (by repentance and acceptance of Christ).

Atheism from your view would be natural so I can't argue with that. However, from the connotation of others, it suggests that religious belief is unnatural, that you have to be taught into it, which is untrue. It's very natural- so much so that the vast majority of people who are living and who have ever lived were worshipping something. If all the major religions disappeared, people would start a religion of some kind.

If that's what floats your boat. I am going to respectfully disagree.

I don't possess a bird's-eye view of the history of religion or the minute parts of biology that enable us to pursue it, so I won't say anything definitive on just how natural the inclination to be religious is. I do see people inventing new religions in the event of the disappearance of all others.



I'll close this post by saying that the response to the "infants are atheists" point continue to baffle me. Classing infants as atheistic is so simple and unassuming a classification, yet people reject it because it conflicts with their private view of what atheism is. No, it doesn't mean infants are super-knowledgeable of theology or have developed opinions of their own. It doesn't mean they'll be atheists when they grow up, it doesn't mean they'll agree with adult atheists living right now. It's a mere classification. With many of the Christians I know, "atheist" is a pejorative, something to be said with sarcasm and unhidden scorn. Suggesting to them that infants are atheists would be like suggesting that babies are sinful God-haters. A private definition of what the word means backed up by one dictionary's interpretation of what the word means is no more accurate. Funnily enough, dictionaries are not authorities on language. They disagree with each other, vary in scope from one another, and most importantly, dictionaries do not determine definitions. People and culture does, dictionaries only record these changes some time after the fact (and they're typically late about it).

TL;DR: At its most basic level, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God. Ignorance of God, whether you approve or not, is also a lack of God and thus conforms to that definition. There is nothing that excludes it. Also, a dictionary definition is fine as a note, not as the body of your argument. Not only is the latter lazy evidence, it's a child-like approach to proof ("Nah-hah, well this text agrees with me!").

 

[JGS]

Each time there's a different person! :lol

There's nothing in the definition, historical or practical, that excludes those ignorant of God. The definition allows it, thus many can be considered atheists. Atheism isn't exclusively a world-view or some grand philosophical position, it describes a simple state as well. A baby's opinions on anything would be non-existent compared to that of a secular humanist's, but they would both be atheistic because of their absence of a God belief.

Geez, I quoted one definition, but there are several others. Further, anyone who has ever claimed to be atheist does so on the basis of a disbelief in God, not on the basis of absense of belief. Atheism is a view. There's no reason to add more to it than that.

However, the disproving of my statements should be easy yet everyone just keeps posting their opinion on the matter. That does not help things.

A bigger problem is people who quote dictionary definitions verbatim and expect that to be all that needs to be said. I stuck in a historical definition as a note, so that you'd know I wasn't just pulling pseudo-Greek out of my ass. Big difference between sourcing and letting a dictionary do all your arguing, friend.

Trust me, there is more than one definition at work. I figured anything I put would be dismissed. What exactly is with atheist and reference sources exactly (Outside of Wikipedia and skeptic blogs of course). Besides, it's exactly one impartial source more than what anyone else has offered on the matter.

Even in practical usage, atheism still means "God-lessness", a lack of God-belief. Any human being without a god-belief, for whatever reason, conforms to that definition.

Again a baby does not have an anything belief so why focus on the god belief?

Why?

Because there is a point to be made. If there's not then simply say babies don't know anything.

No, a statement of non-belief does not need to be made to be considered an atheist. It isn't part of what the word has historically meant or what it means in practical usage. Rather, this is you introducing what you think the word should mean.

And you are different how?

You will ave to forgive me, but the reality is this is the first time I have ever heard anyone twist the meaning of atheist to mean that you can be ignorant of religion. This has never been the historical use of the word. Further, it still does not define the state of a person at infancy.

And, uh, I think you'll find few Christians who believe childhood baptism is equivalent to salvation. Many see it as a mere tradition. If it was viewed as a valid practice, it'd be very problematic with the Christian view of free will and salvation by grace (by repentance and acceptance of Christ).

That's good to know. This proves my point moreso that infant baptism isn't necessary.

=Botolf]I'll close this post by saying that the response to the "infants are atheists" point continue to baffle me. Classing infants as atheistic is so simple and unassuming a classification, yet people reject it because it conflicts with their private view of what atheism is.

Good lord, this is not a private view. It is a very public view. Why on earth are you trying to twist it? I don't get that and it drives me bonkers because it means you are either:

a. Completely refusing to read what I post and are focusing on one term (Which should be valid anyway regardless of the number. Again disprove reference, not me)
b. Are completely ignorant yourself about the common perception, definition, & culture of what an atheist is.

Do you honestly think I sit around wondering whether a baby is an atheist or not because it hurts my feelings?:lol

I disagree with it because it is wrong headed thinking- even if atheism involved no form of opinion whatsoever, it does not apply to infants. The primary reason it is used at all is to prop up the notion that religious thought isn't natural imo. You've fofered up nothing else except it's a way to classify babies as if they actually need it:lol

No, it doesn't mean infants are super-knowledgeable of theology or have developed opinions of their own. It doesn't mean they'll be atheists when they grow up, it doesn't mean they'll agree with adult atheists living right now. It's a mere classification.

Who's talking super knowledgeable? There no reason to classify an infant to that low of a nomenclature in the first place, even if they were born geniuses. The same would apply to calling babies religious. What logical reason would there be considering it's not a fact in any scientific, sociological, or historical setting? There's only one reason.

With many of the Christians I know, "atheist" is a pejorative, something to be said with sarcasm and unhidden scorn. Suggesting to them that infants are atheists would be like suggesting that babies are sinful God-haters.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Besides am I showing you scorn now just because I disagree with you? Is that all it takes?

A private definition of what the word means backed up by one dictionary's interpretation of what the word means is no more accurate. Funnily enough, dictionaries are not authorities on language. They disagree with each other, vary in scope from one another, and most importantly, dictionaries do not determine definitions. People and culture does, dictionaries only record these changes some time after the fact (and they're typically late about it).

[groan][groan][groan]

This has nothing to do with one posting. I could have shown a million of cites and it would have reverted back to being my private definition which is why I didn't take the effort although it was still more than you did. It's just what atheists do. Not sure why.

TL;DR: At its most basic level, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God. Ignorance of God, whether you approve or not, is also a lack of God and thus conforms to that definition. There is nothing that excludes it. Also, a dictionary definition is fine as a note, not as the body of your argument. Not only is the latter lazy evidence, it's a child-like approach to proof ("Nah-hah, well this text agrees with me!").

At it's most basic level, atheist is simply a word which means it lacks value in discussing it regarding infants.

This has nothing to do with what I like. It has to do with what is. If you would like to formulate your own view in absence of term usage and even word history, be my guest. However, it's silly to think you could get others (non-atheists at least) to go along for the ride just because say it is so.

NEXT!!!:lol

 

[Sibylus]

I could post a handful of dictionary definitions that include absence of belief, but I won't because it remains a lazy way of arguing. But fine, if that's your golden standard of evidence, you're welcome to it. Start some arguments with school-children, you'll be sure to impress them with that kind of evidence.

--

To put what I'm saying in different terms, here is how I would classify and divide the world on the basis of God-belief. Let's call it Theist-Atheist Dualism, because I like naming things.

So as the name implies, we may carve the world into two categories:

Theism (Consisting of God-believers)

Theism is expressed, or requires active understanding of a God concept and acceptance of such a concept. If you believe in God, you end up here. Everyone else (that is, everyone who lacks a belief in God) ends up in the Atheism category.

Atheism (Consisting of atheists, agnostics, anti-theists, etc)

Atheism can be both innate and expressed. On the innate level, all that is required to fit this category is a lack of belief in God. Expressed atheism would be the kind every atheist/agnostic in this thread would possess, that is atheism reached because of understanding of the God concept and active thinking. Infants and ignorant tropical islanders would not possess understanding, so their atheism would be innate. However, it must be noted that even expressed Atheists are also atheistic on an innate level, because they lack the belief in God. The innate is the most basic and universal definition in this category, it is in essence the "base line". The man who shouts, "There is no God!" is an atheist, and the infant who doesn't understand what a God is is also an atheist (although solely innately).

That innateness is by no means permanent or significant, so I hope we can come to the understanding that no-one here is trying to "claim" children as an ideological weapon to use against the other side. As I said earlier, it's mainly a response to those who paint atheism as unnatural, weird, or perverted. But it is simply observable that because infants lack the means and comprehension to be theists, then they are innately atheistic as a result. Not expressed, mind you, but innate.​

 

[Sibylus]

However, the disproving of my statements should be easy yet everyone just keeps posting their opinion on the matter. That does not help things.

Come the fuck on, you're posting your opinion just as much as everyone else in this thread. Posting a dictionary definition does not impart upon you objectivity, pretending otherwise is the height of stupidity.

Re: Disproving statements: If I wanted to argue with a dictionary, I'd write the editor a letter. Dictionaries are particularly weak evidence. Seriously, do you understand this? They teach this in elementary school.

Re: Babies: Why? Why not? It's a valid topic of discussion.

Re: Am I different in my definition of the word? Sure I am, because it wasn't my definition of the word to begin with. I used to be one of those religious fundies who used "atheist" as a pejorative.

Re: private view: You would do well to recognize that some things I write are aimed at a wider audience. While I may think your definition is too narrow and exclusionary compared to what the word actually means, I do make asides that aren't totally related to you.

Re: reasons for classification: Does classification need any other reason than it can change how we see the world? New perspectives are good and all.

Re: showing me scorn: Again, not specifically talking to you.

Re: [groan][groan][groan]: Hold on, are you implying no amount of evidence would be enough to sway me and I'd just call it a private view? Well, that's mildly insulting. What I've always meant was that dictionaries are in no way suitable to be the backbone of an argument (and a mere single quotation isn't great either). If you've got other kinds of citations, then fine, present them and we'll go from there. One pre-selected definition lifted from a dictionary does not an argument make, and as I said before, other dictionaries will differ.

Re: It means what it means: I agree that the word means what it will, whether you or I like it, but I do again note that its not my definition of the word that I've presented. As a former religious fundie and a former misguided agnostic, I've gotten the definition wrong enough to finally learn what it actually means. Historically (what the root Greek word means) and practically (what it means today to people of today*).

Spoiler

*After all, it's common usage that defines practical meaning, and the numbers of atheists is only increasing.

 

[Nameless]

If babies/infants aren't considered atheist simply because their lack of belief has no context then you have to say that toddlers who aren't equipped to challenge a belief of god, who have no bases for denial, who had their belief forced upon them by adults who posses the ability to rationalize and think freely about such things, can't be considered theist. It can't just work one way.

It's just a poorly thought out argument. By that logic if I had grown up on some purely atheist compound on an island in the middle of the sea, where the notion of god didn't exist, even in my 20s I wouldn't actually be an atheist because the concept of god had never been presented for me to deny.

Lack of belief is lack of belief due to choice, ignorance or that little mind erasing thing from the Men in Black movies.

 

[jdogmoney]

NEXT!!!:lol

Okay. Dude. I think it's pretty safe to assume you're a theist. That is, you believe in a god of some sort. You actively believe, yes? Anyone who does not believe in a god, no matter which one, is not a theist. We have a word for someone who is not a theist. It's "atheist".

And if you want a dictionary definition so damn bad, here. Find one.

Look, this is silly. Arguing about semantics. It distracts from the point, which is that you're wrong about religious belief being a natural thing. Obeying the social hierarchy, that's natural. Listening to elders and other humans in positions of respect and power, that's natural.

Believing in the supernatural, that's not natural.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I'm no longer Christian but my church still has me down for membership. Should I cancel my membership or just let it rot? Have you guys ever done this? Are you still members at your old churches even though you no longer attend regularly? I question this because I don't have the heart to tell them WHY I'm cancelling my membership, although they should have at least gotten some warning signs already that I'm no longer Christian and haven't been for a few years already? Thoughts?

In Sweden almost everybody is registered at the church, many people suggest cancelling membership to decrease their power but I personally haven't.
They provide funerals and such for members but I don't know a lot about that. I guess I too would like to hear more opinions on this topic.

 

[Atramental]

I'm no longer Christian but my church still has me down for membership. Should I cancel my membership or just let it rot? Have you guys ever done this? Are you still members at your old churches even though you no longer attend regularly? I question this because I don't have the heart to tell them WHY I'm cancelling my membership, although they should have at least gotten some warning signs already that I'm no longer Christian and haven't been for a few years already? Thoughts?

I'm assuming that you were Catholic?
Here's a video on how you can renounce your membership:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HE7mWQOzU

 

[archnemesis]

In Sweden almost everybody is registered at the church, many people suggest cancelling membership to decrease their power but I personally haven't.
They provide funerals and such for members but I don't know a lot about that. I guess I too would like to hear more opinions on this topic.

Members of the Church of Sweden also pay an additional church tax. If you're not a believer you might as well spend that money on something else or give it to charity.

 

[KingGondo]

I'm no longer Christian but my church still has me down for membership. Should I cancel my membership or just let it rot? Have you guys ever done this? Are you still members at your old churches even though you no longer attend regularly? I question this because I don't have the heart to tell them WHY I'm cancelling my membership, although they should have at least gotten some warning signs already that I'm no longer Christian and haven't been for a few years already? Thoughts?

1) You shouldn't have to tell them why you're canceling your membership, just call and tell them you no longer wish to be a member of their church.

2) You shouldn't feel ashamed to tell them if they ask, either. What are you afraid is going to happen if you tell them you're not a Christian any more?

EDIT: I was a member of a Disciples Church as well when I was a teenager (atheist now), but I seem to remember them being pretty laid-back. If they're anything my church was, you probably don't have much to worry about.