|
So I finally sent in the letter and left the Swedish church. As a Swedish citizen born before 1996 I was a member from birth, and even though I never really believed the Christian teachings I still had my confirmation when I was 13. Most of my friends did it so I didn't think about it as an important decision or anything at the time, but now I've become more interested in matters of religion and have read a lot of books, and decided that I didn't want to contribute to the organization.
Telling my parents was really easy luckily. I can imagine many people not being able to do this just for social reasons. Both my parents are members of the church, my father is an atheist but is still in because it would "bring so much attention" since they live in a small village where everybody knows eachother. My mother doesn't believe in God either but she thinks "theres SOMETHING" from time to time.
The conversation went:
Me: I left the church today...
Dad: Congratulations!
Mom: Yeah I guess it's good you show your opinion
Then just today I recieved a confirmation letter that I was out of the church, and also a hilarious letter from our local priest almost begging me to rethink and rejoin.
So what's new for me?
-Don't have to pay any tax to the church. That means ~1% lower tax.
-Can't be elected to positions in the church.
-No ceremony inside the church at my funeral.
-Can only be married in the church if my gf is a church member.
Nothing big really, but I'm still happy that I made the decision.
For other Swedes interested in leaving, this site is helpful:
http://www.uturkyrkan.se/
Please share your own experiences/opinions!
Poll: Pick one!
(Vote): I left the church too!
(Vote): I'm a member and I'm happy about it
(Vote): Thinking of leaving...
(Vote): Never been a member of any church
(Vote): Never thought about it / Don't care
 
|
Since the age of enlightment there is no excuse to be member of a church.
Congratulations!!
|
Imo, the "church" is a term that's been heavily diluted and distorted throughout history. Simply, the church is meant only as the embodiment of the people who believe in Christ, meaning the church is not a building, but the people. The methods carried out by the "church" are wrong as well, from trying to force others to believe when they clearly don't want to listen, all the way to spreading false information.
|
Hell, I saw this grimy old man who used demonination of Christianity to try and get a favor out of me...
EDIT: I'm just ranting while at work. What I say may not be making much sense, so excuse me if my posts come off unorganized and rambly-like - -;
|
Sweden33719 Posts
If you don't have your confirmation you automatically leave right? Cause I thought it sounded boring and never had mine 
|
On December 22 2007 01:37 ilovezil wrote:
Imo, the "church" is a term that's been heavily diluted and distorted throughout history. Simply, the church is meant only as the embodiment of the people who believe in Christ, meaning the church is not a building, but the people. The methods carried out by the "church" are wrong as well, from trying to force others to believe when they clearly don't want to listen, all the way to spreading false information.
True
Believing is something everyone can do for himself alone.
The simple fact that religion needs more than one person (and has a hierachy) means that the cause of the religion must be a different one, than to believe in god.
This is what seperates the use of the term 'believes' from the term 'religion'.
In the case i made above believes means belieivng in something for yourself, while religion means believing in something for yourself and doing such in a socialembedment.
Thus one can argue, that this socialembedment has to be of another use than believing in god.
This use had a tendency to being bad for humankind in the past. To prove that this is a structural problem of religion, would be to long in this post, but can be done.
Please note this is not geared towards 'believing in god is bad'. i am fine with all kinds of believes, but this is against religion. i do not want to start an atheist/religion diskussion.
i have to add i dont really know why i wrote this down, maybe it is because many people think leaving church means being atheist. Whereas in reality it mostly means being not d'acord with the various suplementar uses of religion, other than believing in god.
i am sorry for my bad english and hope it wanst to boring to read 
|
On December 22 2007 01:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:If you don't have your confirmation you automatically leave right? Cause I thought it sounded boring and never had mine
No since you are born before 96 you are still a member even though you "delayed" your confirmation. Check your tax-papers to see how much you pay in "kyrkoavgift"
|
you guys have a church tax? ><
|
On December 22 2007 01:54 Hawk wrote:
you guys have a church tax? ><
you guys are so lucky to have your constitution
|
On December 22 2007 01:54 Hawk wrote:
you guys have a church tax? ><
We have taxes on everything in Sweden...
|
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan?
|
On December 22 2007 02:05 grobo wrote:We have taxes on everything in Sweden...
Yea or we wouldn't be able to have the standard of living that we do in Sweden.
|
is the church tax from the government, or is it worked into being a member of the church? Cuz i was under the imrpession that you were a pretty secular country.
|
Like I said a post above you we are a very secularized country. Well, the swedish church and state used to belong together, but the year 2000 they separated but the people who were members of the church before are still automatically members for some reason.
It's worked into being a member of the church, but since so many people in Sweden are, regardless of their faith most people pay church tax.
|
ill be quitting church too soon, religion is bullshit, im not gonna pay for that shit :D
|
I'm lucky enough to have parents that let me form my own opinion about religion and faith without predisposing me to anything. I've been atheist from birth.
|
On December 22 2007 02:07 JensOfSweden wrote:
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan?
No I'm not a member of "humanisterna" but I would much rather be with them than with any church. Luckily you don't have to belong to any organization to have an opinion.
Also, I'm calling myself an atheist, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of creator. I just think it's very improbable. Techincally every atheist should be called an agnostic, I've never heard of anybody that claims to be 100% sure there is no God. And that makes the term "agnostic" pretty useless.
|
United States24785 Posts
On December 22 2007 01:35 sanftm00d wrote:
Since the age of enlightment there is no excuse to be member of a church.
I disagree with this statement. Note that I don't belong to any religious organizations, and harbor no belief in the divine. Perhaps you said a bit more than you meant to (judging from your later post I believe this to be true).
|
On December 22 2007 02:26 jtan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2007 02:07 JensOfSweden wrote:
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan? No I'm not a member of "humanisterna" but I would much rather be with them than with any church. Luckily you don't have to belong to any organization to have an opinion. Also, I'm calling myself an atheist, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of creator. I just think it's very improbable. Techincally every atheist should be called an agnostic, I've never heard of anybody that claims to be 100% sure there is no God. And that makes the term "agnostic" pretty useless.
Humanisterna is almost like a church of their own with fanatic followers.
Yea, I guess. Since you really can't prove nor disprove god scientifically, everyone is more or less the same thing regardless if you call yourself agnostic or atheist.
|
On December 22 2007 02:07 JensOfSweden wrote:
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan?
you have referenced Richard Dawkins and his fanbase in a lot of your posts..always with the same attitude.
I can totally understand you being annoyed by group mentality but either you aren't listening at all to the countless religion/atheist threads or you are just staying willfully ignorant so you can keep making atttacks.
No reasonable atheist would say they don't believe in God 100%, simply that it is much like any other idea without evidence. I am sure you have heard this many times by now, and will hear it many times again, yet all I hear you do is make comments like this without bringing in any sort of reasonable argument;( stop attacking a straw man
|
On December 22 2007 02:31 JensOfSweden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2007 02:26 jtan wrote:On December 22 2007 02:07 JensOfSweden wrote:
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan? No I'm not a member of "humanisterna" but I would much rather be with them than with any church. Luckily you don't have to belong to any organization to have an opinion. Also, I'm calling myself an atheist, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of creator. I just think it's very improbable. Techincally every atheist should be called an agnostic, I've never heard of anybody that claims to be 100% sure there is no God. And that makes the term "agnostic" pretty useless. Humanisterna is almost like a church of their own with fanatic followers. Yea, I guess. Since you really can't prove nor disprove god scientifically, everyone is more or less the same thing regardless if you call yourself agnostic or atheist.
you are right but claiming just agnosticism and nothing else generally means you are giving God a special kind of acknowledgment over santa claus, zues, extc. If you honestly would answer "I do not claim to know if zues is real or not" ( replace zues with any fairy tale creature ) then there is no problem calling yourself an agnostic:D
@ jtan: I had NO CLUE there was some kind of nationwide church tax in Sweden. It also surprises me that you are just now leaving after reading most of your threads. o well, congrats i guess.
|
I'm saying Richard Dawkins is one annoying human being.
He is convinced that science is right about everything and his arrogance concerning peoples different beliefs is not very nice.
And I know of course it's "impossible" to prove gods existance, so in fact every atheist is really an agnostic.
The thing that annoys me about Dawkins is how he thinks he is superior and knows everything and looks down on people with different beliefs, fucking clown.
|
hmm, I guess it is a matter of perspective then:O Not gonna lie....I see him as a pretty charming person...someone that would be hard to get mad at.
Probably just because he is British and they sound so polite by nature lol.
|
On December 22 2007 02:41 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2007 02:31 JensOfSweden wrote:On December 22 2007 02:26 jtan wrote:On December 22 2007 02:07 JensOfSweden wrote:
Sweden is so secularized compared to the rest of the world, it's quite astonishing really.
I don't care, I like churches and while that may not be a good argument to not leave the church I really don't give a fuck.
I didn't do my confirmation either, cuz I didn't believe in it 100% and it didn't feel right to do it for gifts only.
Also, I'm an agnostic and don't rule out either that god exists or that he doesn't. However this new generation of Richard Dawkins fans annoy me alot.
Are you also a member of those ridiculous Humanisterna, jtan? No I'm not a member of "humanisterna" but I would much rather be with them than with any church. Luckily you don't have to belong to any organization to have an opinion. Also, I'm calling myself an atheist, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of creator. I just think it's very improbable. Techincally every atheist should be called an agnostic, I've never heard of anybody that claims to be 100% sure there is no God. And that makes the term "agnostic" pretty useless. Humanisterna is almost like a church of their own with fanatic followers. Yea, I guess. Since you really can't prove nor disprove god scientifically, everyone is more or less the same thing regardless if you call yourself agnostic or atheist. you are right but claiming just agnosticism and nothing else generally means you are giving God a special kind of acknowledgment over santa claus, zues, extc. If you honestly would answer "I do not claim to know if zues is real or not" ( replace zues with any fairy tale creature ) then there is no problem calling yourself an agnostic:D @ jtan: I had NO CLUE there was some kind of nationwide church tax in Sweden. It also surprises me that you are just now leaving after reading most of your threads. o well, congrats i guess.
Yea I give god more acknowledgement than Santa claus, I won't even bother to elaborate on this.
Lol, I guess you did give god special acknowledgement too, since you wrote his name with a big first letter, "God". :p
Btw, it's "Zeus", if you're referring to the greek god.
Man I think you're getting too much into semantics now, I'm saying I can't prove or disprove gods existence and really don't know what to believe so until anything else comes up I will let the question be open for me personally.
|
On December 22 2007 02:47 OverTheUnder wrote:
hmm, I guess it is a matter of perspective then:O Not gonna lie....I see him as a pretty charming person...someone that would be hard to get mad at.
Probably just because he is British and they sound so polite by nature lol.
Lol, it's partly his "britishness" which annoys me because he sounds so intelligent and RATHER nice like all english people :p
|
Weird how there's a church tax and you're a member by default. I'll leave it at that. :>
|
On December 22 2007 02:46 JensOfSweden wrote:
I'm saying Richard Dawkins is one annoying human being.
He is convinced that science is right about everything and his arrogance concerning peoples different beliefs is not very nice.
And I know of course it's "impossible" to prove gods existance, so in fact every atheist is really an agnostic.
The thing that annoys me about Dawkins is how he thinks he is superior and knows everything and looks down on people with different beliefs, fucking clown.
I don't like Dawkins much either but are you suggesting he shouldn't look down on people with different beliefs in some cases? You seem to be suggesting this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
-Don't have to pay any tax to the church. That means ~1% lower tax.
LOL WUT
why is your dad still in then. does the church do charity work or whatnot
|
sweden also gives 1.12% of everyones income to charity if i remember correctly
|
On December 22 2007 04:16 oneofthem wrote:
-Don't have to pay any tax to the church. That means ~1% lower tax.
LOL WUT
why is your dad still in then. does the church do charity work or whatnot
He doesn't care too much, but he told me he also would have left had they not lived so close to the church, had our neighboors not been so hardcore christians etc etc etc
|
Richard Dawings IS an annoying human being. He's just as bad as the theocrats he opposes. Subscribing to the beliefs of Dawkins only intensifies the polarization of the Religion/Atheism divide.
I agree with a lot of things he says, especially his belief that children shouldn't be labeled by their parents beliefs, and I despise any form of religious fundamentalism as much as he does. However, he fails to see that his Atheistic fundamentalism in the end is just as harmful as the Christian/Muslim/etc fundamentalism he opposes. Make no mistake, Dawkins believes %100 that there is no God.
I'm also bothered by Dawkins insistence of logical equivalence between science and religion. He's perfectly right to insist that scientific claims made by religion need be verifible and logical (namely Creationism is a shallow farce). However, his attempt to focus the metaphysical aspect of religion into a matter of logic is really missing the point. While it's possible that human religion is the result of genetic makeup (a hypothesis Dawkins himself proposed), it is the same that Music Art Language and the very root of Human ingenuity are rooted in the same set of evolutions as Religion. It is not a rational act, and to attempt to impose logic on religious claims is as absurd as attempting to impose a logical/objective rigor to art.
So basically, he's a fundamentalist bigot who I only happen to agree that where science meets relgion, science wins.
|
church can be boring, many times
|
|
|
On December 22 2007 08:48 Rev0lution wrote:
Your in Sweden FFS!
Even though 86% Swedes doesn't believe in a personal god according to one poll, 75% are still members of the church. Sneaky church makes us members from birth and then you have to activly leave it, and few cares enough.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it seems cute, until you see the amount of hours wasted on these silly activities. religion will pass away fairly quickly as long as the religious communities do not mold aggressive fundamentalist children. it is like a pimple. dont agitate it
|
LOL@ people who call Dawkins a bigot or an arrogant person.
Grow up.
|
On December 22 2007 03:44 lugggy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2007 02:46 JensOfSweden wrote:
I'm saying Richard Dawkins is one annoying human being.
He is convinced that science is right about everything and his arrogance concerning peoples different beliefs is not very nice.
And I know of course it's "impossible" to prove gods existance, so in fact every atheist is really an agnostic.
The thing that annoys me about Dawkins is how he thinks he is superior and knows everything and looks down on people with different beliefs, fucking clown. I don't like Dawkins much either but are you suggesting he shouldn't look down on people with different beliefs in some cases? You seem to be suggesting this.
That sir, is exactly what I am suggesting.
|
On December 22 2007 06:11 GeneralStan wrote:
Richard Dawings IS an annoying human being. He's just as bad as the theocrats he opposes. Subscribing to the beliefs of Dawkins only intensifies the polarization of the Religion/Atheism divide.
I agree with a lot of things he says, especially his belief that children shouldn't be labeled by their parents beliefs, and I despise any form of religious fundamentalism as much as he does. However, he fails to see that his Atheistic fundamentalism in the end is just as harmful as the Christian/Muslim/etc fundamentalism he opposes. Make no mistake, Dawkins believes %100 that there is no God.
I'm also bothered by Dawkins insistence of logical equivalence between science and religion. He's perfectly right to insist that scientific claims made by religion need be verifible and logical (namely Creationism is a shallow farce). However, his attempt to focus the metaphysical aspect of religion into a matter of logic is really missing the point. While it's possible that human religion is the result of genetic makeup (a hypothesis Dawkins himself proposed), it is the same that Music Art Language and the very root of Human ingenuity are rooted in the same set of evolutions as Religion. It is not a rational act, and to attempt to impose logic on religious claims is as absurd as attempting to impose a logical/objective rigor to art.
So basically, he's a fundamentalist bigot who I only happen to agree that where science meets relgion, science wins.
Many good points right there, couldn't agree more
Dawkins is the real fundamentalist here but in a non-religious way lol
|
On December 22 2007 19:13 JensOfSweden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2007 03:44 lugggy wrote:On December 22 2007 02:46 JensOfSweden wrote:
I'm saying Richard Dawkins is one annoying human being.
He is convinced that science is right about everything and his arrogance concerning peoples different beliefs is not very nice.
And I know of course it's "impossible" to prove gods existance, so in fact every atheist is really an agnostic.
The thing that annoys me about Dawkins is how he thinks he is superior and knows everything and looks down on people with different beliefs, fucking clown. I don't like Dawkins much either but are you suggesting he shouldn't look down on people with different beliefs in some cases? You seem to be suggesting this. That sir, is exactly what I am suggesting.
Well I think that sounds incredibly stupid to me, moreso than anything Dawkins has ever said.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
i wish i could leave my church
|
I'm a catholic and I like it. Our priest is so chill lol
And I like going to church since I have met so many new friends there
|
I'm pretty 99% sure that you only became member at birth if your parents were members.
Also it's pretty interesting that you have to get signature from two people stating that you are mentaly sane or something like that, but you dont have to be sane to join.
|
On December 24 2007 00:45 Eatme wrote:
I'm pretty 99% sure that you only became member at birth if your parents were members.
Also it's pretty interesting that you have to get signature from two people stating that you are mentaly sane or something like that, but you dont have to be sane to join.
Nope, before 96 you're in no matter what your parents think in sweden. After 96 they changed it so that you are not a member unless your parents baptizes you.
And you obviously doesn't need any signatures except your own to leave.
|
Im posting the mail tomorrow^^
|
ok parkin
I'll stay for now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.comtech-budinger.de/steindorf/metadata/assets/images/no_church.gif)
