So, the union has been pretty dead now for a while...

I still check this union for new comments all the time. It would be good to have something to debate here. 

There has been a similar decline of use in the CU too, so don't think its atheism that's on the decline.

Android did make 2 posts here recently, then deleted them. But he then posted something quite worrying in the CU and left it up.

Michael, please be our guest in posting new content here. I for one will certainly read it.

There was a union posting glitch, but that's now been sorted out. Even then, before the glitch occurred, AU was still pretty inactive. By all means if I think of something, I will post it. I remember us replying to posts in fox's thread, but after that, everything just stopped. :?michaelP4

I don't think any of this has to do with any posting glitches. 

I think there are some reasons why things have declined here:

There were only a relatively small selection of people posting here in the past few years. Even then, the union was at its best when debating atheist and religious views with religious people. Without that, you're left with atheists either furiously agreeing with each other, or discussing debatable issues arising from atheism, which this union has done.

I've often found interesting snippets of religiously-coloured news that I thought would be appropriate for posting and commentary in this union, but I'm afraid that the AU will end up like the one-man ghost-towns that the BBU and the CWU became during in their death-rattles.  

The corresponding decline in the CU shows that several of it's key contributors have taken a sabbatical, or moved their preachery elsewhere for good. Personally I'd prefer a state of "no religiousness at all" to "furious venom countered by rational debate", but that's because I see myself as more of a "responder for reason" than as a "fisher of men".

That said, I've been debating elsewhere too, although I do still keep tabs on OT, CU and of course the AU for any religious intolerance I might see or feel like espousing. I perceive my own style of debate and questioning is unwelcome by most I aim it at, so I also should take some credit for the decline of open communication here by contributing as I have.

We should at least all get together for a decent funeral... 

I keep lurking. 

I personally am not the greatest fan of starting topics so I mostly just check in every now and then to see if there is anything new.  Also, between school and work I have not had as much free time lately.

What did I post that was worrying in the Christian Union? I looked back at what I posted and it was just me commenting that I somewhat enjoyed listening to a song someone posted. And yeah, I did feel like I should make an attempt to post something on here, but I deleted both of my posts after feeling like I shouldn't bother (only because it seemed slightly more inactive than the Christian Union, but surprisingly now there seems to be a few more new threads in both unions, so I'll try to be active in both, at least before the summer when I leave for my mission). Obviously I was wrong about not bothering, as there seems to be people talking now.

Android339

That's it - you said some Youtube clip was not pretentious and that you found it enjoyable. After watching the clip myself, I thought what you said was worrying, in terms of how your own views seemed to have evolved.

I can't quite understand the connection between finding the union unused and deleting your posts. Would you care to explain?

Where are you going on your mission? 

In what direction do you see my own views evolving? The song was about how Christianity isn't about megachurches and beautiful sounding choirs, but about Christ. I don't know why that's a worrying belief. Churches and pastors that are in it for the material gain and fame (certain televangelists, for instance) are a worse influence on society than the local "First Presbyterian Church" and whatnot, especially considering how many of them have been convicted of fraud.

I just felt silly trying to participate in a union that seemed to me long dead. In retrospect, I should have kept the posts up as other people would have seen that at least someone was trying to be active, but I didn't want to be stuck with checking for responses every day if nobody was going to reply.

And I'm not sure yet. I hope I go somewhere foreign, but it's not really up to me. I'll let you guys know when I find out, though. Hopefully everyone is still active by then.

Android339

I can only make vague assumptions to myself, based on your posts, lack thereof, profile status, changes to your sig - and perhaps my own supernatural psychic abilities... I remember a time recently when you described yourself as an existentialist.

I do understand your view about selfless evangelism, but think it somewhat naive myself. The organised religions that abuse the trust of such faithful people are all complicit in creating vast wealth for their supposedly charitable institutions. (Over 50 Billion USD in assets, in some cases...)

I would hardly call a couple of months long dead, especially in view of some ecumenical councils I could mention. I would have thought you'd know I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation of replying to your posts - given the chance!

That thing about your trip not being up to you sounds rather fishy. I hope you do get what you want from it.

I started making changes to my profile (that is, I started deleting stuff from it) because I thought I wouldn't be coming to this website anymore, and thus tried to "neutralize" my presence. Obviously, I was wrong as I am here again. I am still a Mormon, though, and I also still consider myself an existentialist at least in regard to my philosophical leanings.

I don't think that people who have such a view of Christianity (that it's about Christ and not financial wealth) necessarily end up trusting a televangelist that runs a megachurch asking for their money. Sometimes they do, but I don't think that it is a result of their having such a view of Christianity.

It was long dead in my perspective. And I realize that the union I started is dead as well, but I don't exactly post there anymore as I've given up on it. And I thought that if anyone would reply, it'd be you, but you hadn't posted in a long time, either, so I didn't think you were actively watching the forum.

Android339

It does sound a shame that you chose to "neutralize" yourself here. I can't see any need for you to be ashamed or embarrassed by your previous presence - as if to deny your own past. I guess I'm reading too much into this though! A debate on the fit between existentialism and Mormonism would be a truly fascinating one to have - if there was a fit between them.

People reach their beliefs for all sorts of reasons. They may retain those ideas, despite bent evangelists giving them the ideas in the first place. I don't need any religious officer to tell me that helping others is personally rewarding, so I do this without and coercion, hope of reward (be it natural or supernatural), or regard. Is there an organised church that isn't sitting on huge wealth? It would be a neat idea to explain the financials behind "tithing" at this point...

Do you feel free to re-do those posts that you deleted, seeing as the union does still have some life left?

Probably because I stopped posting here. :PMetalGear_Ninty

Well, there was that unexpected post on 7 Jan this year...

How is Cambridge? 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Probably because I stopped posting here. :PRationalAtheist

Well, there was that unexpected post on 7 Jan this year...

How is Cambridge? 

Teaching varies, at the moment, in my first year, math is terrible, biology of cells is ok, physiology is pretty good and the teaching for chemistry is awesome. Also, compared to other UK universities we get really short term times, and long breaks but the problem is is that you need to work hard over the breaks.

How are you anyway?

[QUOTE="michaelP4"]There was a union posting glitch, but that's now been sorted out. Even then, before the glitch occurred, AU was still pretty inactive. By all means if I think of something, I will post it. I remember us replying to posts in fox's thread, but after that, everything just stopped. :?RationalAtheist

We should at least all get together for a decent funeral... 

Instead of lighting the pyres, maybe we could host some more formal debates.  Something like a once weekly/monthly topic where GS bigshots and/or nobodies square off in a moderated forum debate. I'm sure that would be interesting to watch and would help stir this place up.   

@MetalGear_Ninty: I'm fine - thanks for asking! It is good to see you back here - giving this union some learned credibility from the best educational establishment in the world (after Oxford).

It's not so much that I'm embarrassed by my previous presence, or that I wish to deny my own past, but moreso that I was uncomfortable with leaving such a profile to the internet without some form of closure. It made me anxious. And I don't think it's very hard to find a match between existentialism and Mormonism, or really existentialism and anything else, considering that the existentialists that made up the historical philosophical movement really only had one thing in common: a reaction to Hegel. They are a pretty diverse group among themselves.

Android339

What about the closure for the people that read your profile, then saw your deletions? I took this to mean that you'd been considering ideas that you then abandoned, or didn't want to continue considering.

I don't think existentialism is a reaction to Hegel, or like "anything else" - I think it survives on it's own account in considering the meaning of the self and opposes deliberate analysis of objective knowledge. I can't see any fit between Mormonism and even theistic existentialism. What areas of coincidence do you think they share?

 

I don't know why you felt the need to say that you don't need a religious officer telling you how you should be moral. I was simply saying that I don't think it logically follows that those who see Christianity as a focus on Christ rather than a celebration of megachurches, material wealth, and fame are necessarily led to give huge sums of their money to the megachurches and televangelists they view as not recognizing the true point of Christianity.

There are several local churches in my area that aren't as wealthy as the Vatican or the LDS Church. In fact, I think that the majority of churches, being small, are not in a position of huge wealth at all.

Android339

I could say that I didn't know why you'd say that Christianity is a celebration of material wealth and mega-churches. I think you have your own views on the "true point" of Christianity that would differ with other Christians. The majority of churches are not independent - they work as part of a diocese and in denominations that direct the finacial flows upwards. There is still the biblical problem of being rich and Christian, that Christianity deals with to various extents today. What churches do you know of that are "poor"?

I didn't really have much to say when I wrote what I had written, so it wouldn't have very much furthered the conversations on those respective threads, anyway. I'm more than willing to hop onto the new ones that are appearing, though.

Android339

Splendid!  

I guess I didn't think about them. I can see why you would take it that way, but no, it isn't the case.

Android339

Good! 

 

Existentialism as a philosophical movement was in reaction to Hegel as popularly understand (whether or not they were actually writing in response to the person of Hegel, the opposition was in response to the type of philosophy popularly thought to have been espoused by Hegel), who represented the extreme end of the rationalist camp started by Descartes. It's certainly possible that it could stand on its own were it to randomly appear in someone's head, and one can study existentialism as a philosophy without referring to its influences (whether complementary or reactionary), but considering that the class I'm taking on existentialism is also a historical class, the professor traced back the development of this particular philosophical movement to its forerunners (Kierkegaard, commonly called the "father of existentialism", and Nietzsche, the other philosopher generally referenced as a forerunner of existentialism) and beyond them to show the state of philosophy in the world that they reacted against, deciding to instead focus on the human individual and treat him as a subject (not as an object) - and that is pretty much the main thing that commonly unites all the existentialists - that their philosophical concerns are directed towards the condition of human existence - which makes them a pretty diverse camp.

And I wouldn't say that existentialists oppose deliberate analysis of objective knowledge, either. True, they analyze the human being and therefore they focus on the subjective, but I don't think that it necessarily means that they are therefore opposed to the study and analysis of objective knowledge.

Android339

I wouldn't say existentialists oppose deliberate analysis of objective knowledge (although I did) - I meant "objective" in the sense of referring to objects - so thanks for clarifying. I do see the origins of existentialism as coming from other areas aside from Hegel though. I can see his place in the history of philosophy, although it is worth nothing that the actual term "existentialist" was not derived until the mid 1940's - a long time after Hegel. The term was only resrospectively applied to earlier philosiphers with subjective themes. Existentialist philosophy has origins far earlier than Hegel too. It is good to see people like you studying this interesting topic within an educational context.

 

I don't see how Mormonism and existentialism necessarily conflict, either. There's no special similarity that I've noticed that made me decide that existentialism is the perfect philosophy for Mormonism, or anything like that. My philosophical ponderings are simply directed towards human existence and deal with the same questions commonly dealt with by existentialists. I haven't tried to combine the two into "existentialist Mormonism", or anything like that, but I hardly see a conflict, especially considering the level of diversity present in existentialism and among the existentialist philosophers.

Android339

I see where you are coming from there, but I wonder if existential philosophy is not the antithesis of an organised religion like Mormonism. If existentialism ponders the condition of human existence, doesn't Mormonism focus on "answering" those issues by supplying the meaning of a Mormon's life? I'm not picking on Mormonism here, I could have substituted any "popular" faith.

 

I do have my own views on the true point of Christianity that differ with other Christians, but I agree with the song that it isn't about megachurches and beautiful sounding choirs. And perhaps some churches are part of a bigger organization, but I can tell you that the majority of small churches in my hometown (there are quite a few, as is typical of a town like it in the state in which I live) are independently run by local pastors, one of which was run by my great-grandfather and his partner. And that would have been a church that I would have labeled poor, as their church was not part of a larger church organization.

Android339

That does sound interesting and quite unlike the regimented spread of churches, mosques and synagogues here in the UK. If your great-grandfather's church had become popular, what would he have done with the money donated to his church (after fixing it up and buying a louder organ!)? Is it necessarily a good thing for a church to remain poor?

I think the questions that existentialism ponder are a little different than what organized religion supplies. Organized religion, for instance, answers questions like "where we come from" and "who God is" (as far as we are able to know), but an existentialist may not by necessity ponder these questions, but instead focus on issues that, with or without God, are common throughout humankind. For instance, are we simply the culmination of our past experiences (of what we have done, and Sarte would say yes), and what does it mean to act as one's self (existentialists being in general unkind to the concept of determinism), and what is it to be in despair (whether it be because one has immersed oneself in an aesthetic lifestyle or whether it be because one has not stayed true to one's self). So, there are certain questions pondered upon by existentialists that aren't necessarily concretely established by the doctrine of any organized religion.

Android339

I think existentialists ponder why we are here and about the point of existence - questions that most religions seem only too eager to answer for us. An existentialist might ponder if God is there, or why God would exist, more than who God is. That seems more of a guided question.

What does it mean to act as onself? I'm still trying (ever more confused and beguiled) to digest Heidegger's "Being and Time". I think he was on to something. He was another philosopher "influenced" by Hegel in some way - in "confronting" Hegel's ideas in his book. I wouldn't be able to admit to understanding much of it though!

Steady on about atheism leading to despair. That does not really follow at all. Religions do try to answer these questions (how not to despair, how to be "true" to oneself and necessarily their religion) and do purport to add meaning to life. 

 

I am not sure what he would have done. He probably would have added on to his church to accommodate more space, and to be able to appeal to his wider audience he probably would have felt the need to invest in better equipment, but after dealing with the issues that naturally accompany an increase in popularity... he probably would have bought books and tea. He was born and raised in England, after all. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for a church to remain poor (although, were it to remain poor, I do not think that it is necessarily reflective of the strength of its message), and if the church becomes wealthy, that's alright with me, but if wealth is their goal (if they started the church in order to get rich), as it sometimes is, then I feel like the theology they would teach would be distorted by this.

Android339

Wider audience... more money... exponential growth... more money... Then what? There's only so much tea in China!

I can't see any valid excuse for religious institutions to retain the vast amounts of wealth they've accumulated through tithing policies and "voluntary" evangelism expectations from their flock, because it seems to go against the very word being preached. The UK used part of its "overseas aid budget" to finance the Pope's visit to the UK last year, which I find quite sickening.

We should probably change the name of this topic, seeing as how something entirely different is being discussed now. :P Nice to see the union has revived a little. I don't want this place dying anytime soon. :DmichaelP4

Sorry about that.

What are your proposals? I can understand your disappointment with the lack of goings-on here. But I wouldn't know how to fix it - outside of trying to write some "interesting" posts here myself hopefully, or amalgamating us with another similar union (are there any philosophy unions? - should we merge with the science Union or Christian Unions?). We could convince other members (and officers) to advertise the AU in their sigs somehow, or some other unmentionable ways... How do you think a change of leadership would improve things?

I'm not sure I understand Fratricide's concept - but I think I like it. I don't mind if we wear suits and ties while debating here. Can I be ref?

I'm not sure I understand Fratricide's concept - but I think I like it. I don't mind if we wear suits and ties while debating here. Can I be ref?

 RationalAtheist

I could even get the ball rolling in terms of hammering out format, and building a question and participant pool if you guys are OK with that.  

They may do so, but there is no reason that they must do so by necessity in order to be existentialists. While focusing on the condition of human existence, this focus does not by necessity lead them to questions of why we are here and the point of existence (one must not need to ponder this questions in order to be an existentialist), and instead the focus of their existential thought may be placed in the analysis of emotions and other subjective states that aren't explicitly written about in detail in any doctrine of any organized religion I can think of. Gabriel Marcel, for instance, was a Catholic, but also regarded as an existentialist (though he eschewed this label in favor of the label "Philosophy of Existence"). He wrote about the concept of "the Other" and the idea of "communion" (a state where people could perceive each other's subjectivity), but not about why we exist and our purpose for existing, but conditions of existence regardless of why and for what purpose. Thus, while some existentialists have beliefs that are counter to religious beliefs, that is not a necessary characteristic of existentialism, the study of the condition of human existence being very diverse.

In the case where an organized religion does say something to the nature of a response to an existential question, one can take that response and still expound upon it existentially, which is something Kierkegaard did extensively when quoting the Bible concerning the nature of faith and purity of heart ("be ye not double-minded"). However, I still don't believe that any organized religion has heavily reflected upon and answered all questions that existentialists may ponder. At least, I would find it a frustrating task to find a doctrine of an organized religion that has written authoritatively on "the dizziness of freedom".

Android339

I'll gladly concede that existentialism does not explicitly deny theism. Superimposing an organised religion on to an existential framework would make some areas of the self no-go areas, with ready supplied (if hard to believe) answers. Evading the central existentialist questions is certainly possible, but is it justifiable? Isn't that like buying an ice-cream and eating only the cone? Kierkegaard became violently opposed to the organised and dominating church of his day ( - it may have killed him). Remember also the climate of the times for philosophy and the ground-breaking nature of Kirkegaard's writings outside of the religious context. 

 

And I have not read anything by Heidegger yet, but I have some of his works on my iPod touch that I plan on reading at some point. I'm going to try to finish Being and Nothingness by Sarte first, considering that is one of the works we are focusing on in my ****

I didn't say that atheism led to despair - I said that an aesthetic life****led to despair, a life****served only in the pursuit of one's own pleasure, and even then I was referring to the topic of despair as described by Kierkegaard.

Android339

I must have misread that bit. Sorry - automated defenses! Although I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with aesthetic despair consequences either.

 

I can see what you mean, but I don't think my great-grandfather would have kept all the money for himself. My grandmother, his wife, regularly donates to charities and from that I can only guess that my great-grandfather would have done likewise, but I do not know his mind. I think that when the money gained in tithes is used to help people, the taking of tithes is justified.

Android339

I do hope you don't think I'm trying to besmirch the good name of your fore-bearers! Generally speaking, tithes automatically direct money where the church wants it, rather than on the good causes church-goers might want to see it spent on. Giving your vast wealth away is not based on piety, or even difficult, as Bill Gates would tell you if he wasn't so busy ridding the world of disease!

I'd like to see some reoccurring formal debates. They would be between two users over a specific question (Most likely religious in nature) and moderated.

I could even get the ball rolling in terms of hammering out format, and building a question and participant pool if you guys are OK with that.  

Frattracide

That'd be great. This house suggests a formal debate would be a jolly good idea.

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

dracula_16

Well done on your conversion. 

How's your ego now?

How can you spread the message of Islam without beating people over the head with scripture? 

Hey guys, it's nice to see all these familiar faces back in the union. I think I owe you all my comments on several topics.

Since August 2010 I've had a job teaching English in South Korea. I've got an apartment, a live-in Korean girlfriend, a regular working schedule and a never ending supply of distractions to be had with the ex-patriates and natives of the wonderful area in which I now live. This has all left me less time to indulge in gamespottery like I used to and is a small reason for my absence

More importantly though I've had less inclination to post here. The reason is simply that we don't have as many visiting theists as we used to. There aren't any Lansdownes, Danwallacefans or 123625s to come and roil us up into activity with some bizarre or interesting topic related to their religions. Without input from an opposing point of view I haven't really had anything interesting to post or respond to...... so I haven't. That is the essential cause of the decline of this union.

For me though that's not such a bad thing. If atheism is ever going to die the best way is surely to starve it of any theistic counterpart which distinguishes it from the norm. I certainly enjoyed discussing the various topics we've entertained in this union (that's an understatement) but there doesn't seem to be a need for them at the moment.

I don't know what everyone elses experience has been but for me I've noticed a general decrease in the amount of religious nonsense on the internet. I mean we used to be positively awash in it and it used to be very blunt and outrageous. Gamespot had the likes of the CWU (stealing from Ray Comfort and the ICR) and youtube had the likes of VenomFangX (stealing from Kent Hovind). Looking at both of these forums now I have to really dig to find the absurd stuff. It surely still exists but it has moved away to the fringe now and is less of a concern for me than it was.

There are also a few personal reasons I can give for my lack of activity here. On top of the aforementioned new life in Korea there is also the point that I am now out of university. From 2007-2009 I would come on to the internet absolutely brimming with new and exciting ideas pertaining to religion that I picked up in philosophy class. I still pursue philosophy actively and I'm going through the old Socratic works of Plato at the moment but it's not as new and fresh as it once was.

More immediately my hometown in New Zealand was rocked by an earthquake this February (while I was there on vacation no less) and so I've been diverted by that as well as everything else. It made for an interesting bible study at least.

Finally on to my leadership. I'm not greatly attached to it and I would happily pass it onto someone else if they wanted to take control of the union. Debates sound like a good time, the only hard part will be finding an opponent. Perhaps if the CU were interested the two unions could take turns hosting a guest from the other side and belting out a one on one argument on an agreed topic. How would the winner be decided though?

Anyway that's enough for now. I'll check back here from time to time (which is what I've been doing) and see how things go.

안녕히가세요

안녕히가세요

domatron23

Hi Dom,

Glad to hear from you and that you're getting in there.

I agree that the evangelicals are not as vociferous as they once were here, but I think its important to maintain a watch over other sorts of religiously-sourced intolerence that are taking its place instead. Having said that, there is quite a bit of Christian religious chat in OT recently.

I hope you do still keep your hand in here. Your posts have been both brilliant and enlightening. I for one would not like to see you resign your AU leadership, unless it was something that you specifically wanted to do.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

RationalAtheist

Well done on your conversion.

How's your ego now?

How can you spread the message of Islam without beating people over the head with scripture?

Thank you very much. :)

I'm not entirely humble, but I always try to be because the Qur'an repeatedly says that it's important to thank God for the good things in life as opposed to believing that I am responsible for the good things that I have in life.

Inviting someone to Islam is known as "dawah"; in the same way that inviting someone to Christianity is known as "evangelism". A lot of the time, I encounter misconceptions about Islam, so dawah can be as easy as clearing up misconceptions and commenting on what Islam is really about. Pride can be an issue with dawah, so it's important for me to remember that I am not here to win souls.

It's mentioned in Volume 1 of the Hadith of Sahih Muslim that "none of you really believe until you wish for your brother/neighbor what you would also wish for yourself". I hated getting threatened will hellfire when I was an atheist, so I use that as motivation to be patient and peaceful when doing dawah. You cannot scare someone into coming to Islam or believing in God.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

dracula_16

Well done on your conversion.

How's your ego now?

How can you spread the message of Islam without beating people over the head with scripture?

Thank you very much. :)

I'm not entirely humble, but I always try to be because the Qur'an repeatedly says that it's important to thank God for the good things in life as opposed to believing that I am responsible for the good things that I have in life.

Inviting someone to Islam is known as "dawah"; in the same way that inviting someone to Christianity is known as "evangelism". A lot of the time, I encounter misconceptions about Islam, so dawah can be as easy as clearing up misconceptions and commenting on what Islam is really about. Pride can be an issue with dawah, so it's important for me to remember that I am not here to win souls.

It's mentioned in Volume 1 of the Hadith of Sahih Muslim that "none of you really believe until you wish for your brother/neighbor what you would also wish for yourself". I hated getting threatened will hellfire when I was an atheist, so I use that as motivation to be patient and peaceful when doing dawah. You cannot scare someone into coming to Islam or believing in God.

[Oh so this is actually for real that you are a muslim?:?Gambler_3

Yes, I'm being serious. Don't worry-- I don't believe that you're in infidel. :P

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

dracula_16

Well done on your conversion.

How's your ego now?

How can you spread the message of Islam without beating people over the head with scripture?

Thank you very much. :)

I'm not entirely humble, but I always try to be because the Qur'an repeatedly says that it's important to thank God for the good things in life as opposed to believing that I am responsible for the good things that I have in life.

Inviting someone to Islam is known as "dawah"; in the same way that inviting someone to Christianity is known as "evangelism". A lot of the time, I encounter misconceptions about Islam, so dawah can be as easy as clearing up misconceptions and commenting on what Islam is really about. Pride can be an issue with dawah, so it's important for me to remember that I am not here to win souls.

It's mentioned in Volume 1 of the Hadith of Sahih Muslim that "none of you really believe until you wish for your brother/neighbor what you would also wish for yourself". I hated getting threatened will hellfire when I was an atheist, so I use that as motivation to be patient and peaceful when doing dawah. You cannot scare someone into coming to Islam or believing in God.

Would you be prepared to clear up some of these misconceptions about Islam here?

What was the trigger for your view to change? 

You can scare people into becomming Islamic and in believing in God. Aren't the promises and threats made for eternity similar to Christianty? The Quran says some nasty things about Infidels and othere faiths and the history Islam is all about conquest, you yes you can definately scare people into Islamism, so I wouldn't puff out my ego to say one can't.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

I don't have as much to discuss [in this union] as I once did. When I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time finding fault with different religions and doing other things to try to give my ego a boost, but now that I have become a muslim, I'm no longer interested in that. I am called to share the message of Islam, but not in a way that has me beating people over the head with scripture.

Gambler_3

Well done on your conversion.

How's your ego now?

How can you spread the message of Islam without beating people over the head with scripture?

Thank you very much. :)

I'm not entirely humble, but I always try to be because the Qur'an repeatedly says that it's important to thank God for the good things in life as opposed to believing that I am responsible for the good things that I have in life.

Inviting someone to Islam is known as "dawah"; in the same way that inviting someone to Christianity is known as "evangelism". A lot of the time, I encounter misconceptions about Islam, so dawah can be as easy as clearing up misconceptions and commenting on what Islam is really about. Pride can be an issue with dawah, so it's important for me to remember that I am not here to win souls.

It's mentioned in Volume 1 of the Hadith of Sahih Muslim that "none of you really believe until you wish for your brother/neighbor what you would also wish for yourself". I hated getting threatened will hellfire when I was an atheist, so I use that as motivation to be patient and peaceful when doing dawah. You cannot scare someone into coming to Islam or believing in God.

Have you changed your name?

Would you be prepared to clear up some of these misconceptions about Islam here?

What was the trigger for your view to change?

You can scare people into becomming Islamic and in believing in God. Aren't the promises and threats made for eternity similar to Christianty? The Quran says some nasty things about Infidels and othere faiths and the history Islam is all about conquest, you yes you can definately scare people into Islamism, so I wouldn't puff out my ego to say one can't.RationalAtheist

1. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll answer as much as I can. I read the Biblical Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in succession and felt that some of it seemed genuine and some of it made no sense. I read the Qur'an and discovered that it cleared up the things that I found suspicious in the Gospels (original sin, the resurrection, the notion that God can die, pray to himself and forsake himself, etc.).

2. I read a book called 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science' by Maurice Bukaille and it solidified my belief that the statements in the Qur'an probably couldn't have been known 1400 years ago. What did it for me was the preservation of Pharoah's body, embryology and the lack of conflict between evolution and the Qur'an's story of creation.

3A. Surah 17:15 says "Whoever is guided, is guided for his own good, and whoever goes astray does so to his own detriment. No sinner will bear the sins of anyone else. We never punish without first sending a messenger". Christianity and Islam have different ideas of what sends someone to Hell, so the "threats" are not the same. We muslims believe that a person is only accountable for his/her own sin(s)-- so we reject the teaching that people have inherited a sinful nature because of the sin of Adam and Eve [p.b.u.t]. If someone is sent to Hell, it's not because they had no idea what Islam was, it will be because they have recieved the message, but have chosen to live a life of idolatry [or other sins] while knowing full well that those things are wrong.

You cannot fully punish a child unless the child knew ahead of time that what he/did was wrong, so I believe that it's not fair to send someone to Hell unless they choose to live wickedly in spite of any amount of reasoning.

3B. When you come across a verse that speaks about fighting infidels, it's important to read the context. Muhammad [p.b.u.h] and his people lived in a time where it was sometimes necessary to fight because of heavy persecution. The "infidels" were those who persecuted the muslims to the point that the muslims had no choice but to fight back in self-defense. One of the verses that's taken out of context the most is "kill them wherever ye find them"; what's being left out is the verse before and after that one, which says to fight against persecution itself and that if the people who persecute you have surrendered, you should stop fighting.

What about your views on social issues, dracula? Such as on abortion, gay rights etc have any of them changed? Also, how has your family and friends reacted to your recent conversion? Sorry if we're asking too many questions. We're just curious. ;)michaelP4

No need to apologzie, mate; I consider it a privelige to discuss Islam.

I used to be pro-choice, but after reading the Qur'an I am leaning towards pro-life. I believe that a child is a gift from God. In a case where a woman is raped, I would say "two wrongs don't make a right". I believe that a human life should be respected because it's a way of honoring God's creation.

I'm not as passionate about pushing for same-sex marriage as I once was. I think that gays should have the option to get married, and since the Qur'an doesn't mention same-sex marriage, I have yet to see a reason to oppose it (that may change, though). I do oppose sex outside of marriage, though; regardless of whether it's heterosexuals or homosexuals who are participating in it.

When I came to Islam, my friends were shocked and so were my family members. They occasionally ask me questions about things like halal meat and prayer; I enjoy that because it shows that they are going to someone who has experience with Islam as opposed to going to anti-islamic websites to look for answers.

[QUOTE="michaelP4"]What about your views on social issues, dracula? Such as on abortion, gay rights etc have any of them changed? Also, how has your family and friends reacted to your recent conversion? Sorry if we're asking too many questions. We're just curious. ;)dracula_16

No need to apologzie, mate; I consider it a privelige to discuss Islam.

I used to be pro-choice, but after reading the Qur'an I am leaning towards pro-life. I believe that a child is a gift from God. In a case where a woman is raped, I would say "two wrongs don't make a right". I believe that a human life should be respected because it's a way of honoring God's creation.

I'm not as passionate about pushing for same-sex marriage as I once was. I think that gays should have the option to get married, and since the Qur'an doesn't mention same-sex marriage, I have yet to see a reason to oppose it (that may change, though). I do oppose sex outside of marriage, though; regardless of whether it's heterosexuals or homosexuals who are participating in it.

When I came to Islam, my friends were shocked and so were my family members. They occasionally ask me questions about things like halal meat and prayer; I enjoy that because it shows that they are going to someone who has experience with Islam as opposed to going to anti-islamic websites to look for answers.

Also, your opinion regarding the abortion of a child concieved through rape is not at all supported by traditional Islamic doctrine. Islam treasures the mother as the keeper of the family and consequently it is seen as wrong to jepordise the health of the mother and the family in any way. Whilst aborting in itself is seen as 'bad', one is urged to follow the doctrine of a 'lesser of two evils' in such predicaments.

You also haven't answered my question.

So in short, you are now a lot more conservative? Hardly surprising.

Also, your opinion regarding the abortion of a child concieved through rape is not at all supported by traditional Islamic doctrine. Islam treasures the mother as the keeper of the family and consequently it is seen as wrong to jepordise the health of the mother and the family in any way. Whilst aborting in itself is seen as 'bad', one is urged to follow the doctrine of a 'lesser of two evils' in such predicaments.

You also haven't answered my question.

MetalGear_Ninty

In no way was I insinuating that the mother's health is unimportant. I think that a baby should be able to live unless the mother's health is at a serious risk. Perhaps she should put it up for adoption. Anyways, I thought that your previous question was directed at Gambler-- my bad. I haven't changed my name and I have no intention to do so.

1. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll answer as much as I can. I read the Biblical Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in succession and felt that some of it seemed genuine and some of it made no sense. I read the Qur'an and discovered that it cleared up the things that I found suspicious in the Gospels (original sin, the resurrection, the notion that God can die, pray to himself and forsake himself, etc.).

2. I read a book called 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science' by Maurice Bukaille and it solidified my belief that the statements in the Qur'an probably couldn't have been known 1400 years ago. What did it for me was the preservation of Pharoah's body, embryology and the lack of conflict between evolution and the Qur'an's story of creation.

3A. Surah 17:15 says "Whoever is guided, is guided for his own good, and whoever goes astray does so to his own detriment. No sinner will bear the sins of anyone else. We never punish without first sending a messenger". Christianity and Islam have different ideas of what sends someone to Hell, so the "threats" are not the same. We muslims believe that a person is only accountable for his/her own sin(s)-- so we reject the teaching that people have inherited a sinful nature because of the sin of Adam and Eve [p.b.u.t]. If someone is sent to Hell, it's not because they had no idea what Islam was, it will be because they have recieved the message, but have chosen to live a life of idolatry [or other sins] while knowing full well that those things are wrong.

You cannot fully punish a child unless the child knew ahead of time that what he/did was wrong, so I believe that it's not fair to send someone to Hell unless they choose to live wickedly in spite of any amount of reasoning.

3B. When you come across a verse that speaks about fighting infidels, it's important to read the context. Muhammad [p.b.u.h] and his people lived in a time where it was sometimes necessary to fight because of heavy persecution. The "infidels" were those who persecuted the muslims to the point that the muslims had no choice but to fight back in self-defense. One of the verses that's taken out of context the most is "kill them wherever ye find them"; what's being left out is the verse before and after that one, which says to fight against persecution itself and that if the people who persecute you have surrendered, you should stop fighting.

dracula_16

1. I'm glad you want to speak about your transformation. The synoptic Gospels do make more sense if you consider the "Q document". I never knew the choice was either/or though.  

2. I've read that book too, and researched some if its claims and debated them here (I think) with other Muslims. The wild assertions, leaps and twists of logic and inference on top of inference being dressed as absolute fact in that book seems rather ridiculous to me, especially knowing about the rise of Greek culture and knowledge - as transcribed early gnostic Christians (that could translate Greek) for eastern civilisations of the early times.

Please do elaborate on the Pharaoh's body, embryology and the Quranic creation story chiming with evolution theory...

3A. That verse has been identified as inspiring suicide bombers - they think of themselves as the "messengers". It all sounds rather threatening to me.  Surah 17:97-98 says "Allah will send disbelievers astray. Then he'll burn them in hell, increasing the flames from time to time." I could show you many, many more verses like that. This hostility and intolerance is exactly like Christian scorn - don't kid yourself that it isn't.

3B. I guess if you look at Islamic history, the religion has been a conquering faith, which makes claims that they were "only defending themselves" seem quite odd. Perhaps you do need to read the Quran a bit more to catchup on all the tales of conquest. Here are over 500 examples of cruelty in the Quran that no amount of excusing can reasonably dismiss.