Is Atheism Punishable by Law in Indonesia?

[Dickfore]

Are you serious ?

Yes, I am. These two statements:

Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, ...

recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism.

seem contradictory to me.

Would you define what is a Muslim nation please?

 

[thorium1010]

Yes, I am. These two statements:

seem contradictory to me.
Would you define what is a Muslim nation please?

Definition is difficult. I think the governance and the constitution of the country has lot of elements from theology and law of the majority religion. But, they allow other religions to practice their faith.

 

[Dembadon]

@Dembadon

That is a non sequitor: it does not follow.

I.e., just because you didn't communicate anything about your belief, doesn't mean there exists a third state of mind besides having some belief and complete lack-of-belief.

Thank you for the reply. I deleted my post because it was off-topic.

 

[Dickfore]

Definition is difficult. I think the governance and the constitution of the country has lot of elements from theology and law of the majority religion. But, in practice they allow other religions to practice their faith.

So, you should have said an Islamic state, not a Muslim nation. Muslim is a practitioner of the religion of Islam, not a nationality.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jacob Smith

Joseph. I don't go for those definitions that combine the answers to two questions into one. What do you believe and what do you know? Feh. If the question is "Do you believe ..." and the answer is no, then there is an ambiguity. Do you believe the opposite or do you believe neither? I have always used the words atheist and agnostic to differentiate between these two. I have never heard anyone answer with those tongue twisters.

 

[thorium1010]

So, you should have said an Islamic state, not a Muslim nation. Muslim is a practitioner of the religion of Islam, not a nationality.

Remember i quoted it from the OP article.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/m...book-post/7796

 

[Dembadon]

... But, they allow other religions to practice their faith.

I don't understand this. If "another" religion practiced Islam, would they not cease to be "another" and become simply Islam?

 

[Dickfore]

Remember i quoted it from the OP article.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/m...book-post/7796

Sure, I shouldn't have said 'you'. But, my point remains. Muslim nation is an oxymoron.

 

[Jack21222]

If the people of Indonesia agree with such laws then why should they be forced to change them? I don't think the USA should be trying to foist their culture on countries that don't want it.

Who's talking about forcing them to change? This is a red herring.

I condemn the law and hope they change the law on their own, because religious freedom is a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population agrees with such a law. It violates the rights of the remaining 1%.

Furthermore, there is no real argument in favor of oppressing people based on their personal religious beliefs. What one thinks about religion is entirely internal, affecting the outside world in no way whatsoever. It is ridiculous to try to criminalize that.

 

[Whovian]

Because religious freedom is a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population agrees with such a law. It violates the rights of the remaining 1%.

Again, this is an aspect of our culture, not theirs. It appears that the people or the government, whichever would make more sense in this case, doesn't agree. Which is not to say that I agree with this law, I definitely don't.

Furthermore, there is no real argument in favor of oppressing people based on their personal religious beliefs. What one thinks about religion is entirely internal, affecting the outside world in no way whatsoever. It is ridiculous to try to criminalize that.

I agree.

 

[Dickfore]

From the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

As far as I know, Indonesia is a member of UN, so it must have accepted this declaration.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't go for those definitions that combine the answers to two questions into one. What do you believe and what do you know? Feh. If the question is "Do you believe ..." and the answer is no, then there is an ambiguity. Do you believe the opposite or do you believe neither? I have always used the words atheist and agnostic to differentiate between these two. I have never heard anyone answer with those tongue twisters.

Yes, that definition is the popular "laymen" definition. But once you discuss these concepts in detail, ambiguities arise. The whole point actually becomes to avoid "combining the answers to two questions into one"

That is why they are mapped on to a 2D plane with independent axes. You can answer one question or the other and they are independent of each other, just like authoritative-libertarian is independent from liberal-conservative.

I.e. saying your a conservative shouldn't imply that you're a libertarian.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But once you discuss these concepts in detail, ambiguities arise.

I believe a thing, I believe the opposite, I believe neither. Where is the ambiguity?

 

[Pythagorean]

I believe a thing, I believe the opposite, I believe neither. Where is the ambiguity?

Believing a thing and believing the opposite are not atheist positions. Believing neither is.
Now I've cleared up only that ambiguity.

The biggest ambiguity is that some people take agnosticism to be atheism (lack of belief, i.e. "believing neither") while others take agonisticism as it's properly defined (lack of knowledge).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Believing a thing and believing the opposite are not atheist positions. Believing neither is.
Now I've cleared up only that ambiguity.

The biggest ambiguity is that some people take agnosticism to be atheism (lack of belief, i.e. "believing neither") while others take agonisticism as it's properly defined (lack of knowledge).

Your argument seems to be that since agnostic used to mean one thing a thousand years ago, it must mean the same thing today. But I have never heard anyone use it that way. What's more, no one knows. What is the point of telling me what you believe you know instead of what you believe?

 

[Pythagorean]

Or maybe... 1979?

Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term agnostic does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."

 

[Pythagorean]

Or this straight-forward diagram from the agnosticism wiki?

 

[Dickfore]

The statement "God does not exist" implies atheism.

 

[Pythagorean]

The statement "God does not exist" implies atheism.

It implies gnostic atheism, specifically.

 

[Dickfore]

It implies gnostic atheism, specifically.

No, it implied the yellow circle on that diagram.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, it implied the yellow circle on that diagram.

The yellow circle would be a personal evaluation "I do not believe in God"

"God does not exist" asserts/presumes evidence when you make a factual statement. That would be a gnostic statement.

 

[Dickfore]

The yellow circle would be a personal evaluation "I do not believe in God"

"God does not exist" asserts/presumes evidence when you make a factual statement. That would be a gnostic statement.

No, it does not. It is not supported by any arguments for it, therefore, it is unfounded.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, it does not. It is not supported by any arguments for it, therefore, it is unfounded.

It doesn't need to be supported. Look at the circle again, notice the word 'claim'.

 

[Dickfore]

It doesn't need to be supported. Look at the circle again, notice the word 'claim'.

So, where is the claim that proof exists in this statement:

"God does not exist."

 

[Pythagorean]

Remember when you used the word "implies" before in post #53?

 

[Dickfore]

Remember when you used the word "implies" before in post #53?

I don't follow your logic, sorry. Where is the claim of the existence of proof that god didn't exist in the above statement, so that you concluded gnosticism?

For that matter, where is the claim that no proof exists?

On the other hand, there is a clear claim that God does not exist.

You decide where the statement belongs.

 

[Pythagorean]

Implication: The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

We should continue this in PM if you need any more clarifications.

 

[Dickfore]

Implication: The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

We should continue this in PM if you need any more clarifications.

I don't know where you come up with your definitions.

Do you stand by the assertion that:
"God does not exist."
assumes there is proof for the existence of God? If so, where?

 

[influx]

Wow.. Even Saudi Arabia allows atheism (in private) so that says a lot about Indonesia..

 

[zoobyshoe]

Wow.. Even Saudi Arabia allows atheism (in private) so that says a lot about Indonesia..

He might have been fine had he kept it to himself. Trouble started when he posted it on Facebook.

 

[Jack21222]

No, it implied the yellow circle on that diagram.

Let me see if I can clear this up.

If you state "God doesn't exist," I agree that you're implying that you don't believe in God. However, you're also expressing certainty in the existence or non-existence of God. You're specifically stating that you have knowledge that there isn't one.

Note that the converse doesn't hold. Stating "I don't believe in God" does NOT imply that you feel God doesn't exist. One can state that you don't believe in God yet maintain that a god might exist. That is agnostic atheism.

Put another way, there is a big difference between the following two statements:

"I don't believe X exists."
"I believe X doesn't exist."

That's the problem with threads on atheism... it always comes down to this argument on definitions, and I'm always perplexed by it. It seems like such a simple thing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Dickfore and others I have no idea how you still do not get this? Pythagorean has provided an excellent graph, my own explanation on page one details the difference and now we have Jack's good outlining of the difference between two similar sounding statements.

To those saying "that's not how I hear it" this is either because you don't engage in much atheist debate, blogs, TV etc and/or you live in an area/are exposed to media where the lie that atheism is a positive statement is perpetuated.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If the people of Indonesia agree with such laws then why should they be forced to change them? I don't think the USA should be trying to foist their culture on countries that don't want it.

Well, cultures aren't beyond criticism. We've been inculcated into believing that culture is beyond reproach, but in some respects, cultures aren't just different than other cultures; they're inferior as well.
This is one of those times.

An atheist is a person who believes god(s) do(es) not exist. An agnostic is a person who doubts the veracity of any statement concerning the existence of deities.

That's a false dichotomy.
You're saying either you assert that a god doesn't exist, or you doubt the veracity of claims made for a god's existence.
That completely ignores the people who haven't even been introduced to the idea to form an opinion.
Babies don't believe in god for obvious reasons, and when they're first born, they have not yet made the claim that a god doesn't exist, neither have they the brain power or the experience to have assessed the claim that god exists, and proclaimed it dubious.
So where does that leave them?

 

[Dembadon]

...
Babies don't believe in god for obvious reasons, and when they're first born, they have not yet made the claim that a god doesn't exist, neither have they the brain power or the experience to have assessed the claim that god exists, and proclaimed it dubious.
So where does that leave them?

We'd have to ask again when they're second born.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Well, cultures aren't beyond criticism. We've been inculcated into believing that culture is beyond reproach, but in some respects, cultures aren't just different than other cultures; they're inferior as well.
This is one of those times.

in your opinion, you mean. Also if we base our judgements on the Human Rights that are in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then yeah I'd agree that things are going poorly in Indonesia. But to someone who does not agree with that declaration, and instead agrees with things that happen in places such as Indonesia, the situation would possibly be considered as not inferior.

Calling something inferior sounds like you're saying that it is worse from all points of view, or perhaps that points of view that do not consider it inferior are wrong.

Please don't take this as a defense of the situation in Indonesia or in other places, but rather as food for thought. I don't think that criticizing cultures is a bad thing, I just think that it's not necessarily right to have an absolute position in regards to things like culture, which is a thing that depends on your point of view.