Is Atheism Punishable by Law in Indonesia?

[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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

I think the rub comes with the element of choice. Many would doubt that the majority of the population of Indonesia freely chose to live in such a system and consequently suffer it's inflictions.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I think the rub comes with the element of choice. Many would doubt that the majority of the population of Indonesia freely chose to live in such a system and consequently suffer it's inflictions.

right, of course. But then who's to say that the opinion of these people actually matters? Obviously a person will say that their opinion matters, but I would also say that the people in power in Indonesia would rather say that only *their* opinion matters.

I know it probably sounds ridiculous to say something like that, and I definitely *personally* agree that a few people shouldn't decide what happens to a bunch of other people without the permission of all those people, but that's just *my* opinion. If we compare my opinion and the opinion of someone else, how do we judge whose is right and whose is wrong. The only way we can do that is if we base the judgement off of something. And who really gets to decide what that base is?

It also makes sense, to me, to say that if a lot of people have one opinion, then that should probably be the way to go on a matter. But then, where does the idea that "majority rules" come from? It probably comes from the fact that a lot of people have more power than a few people, but is that absolute? Or is it made up by us people?

sorry, I think this is probably going off topic too much

 

[Dickfore]

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.

You are not expressing any certainty. You simply give a statement. As it stands, it does not have any truth value. If you said:

"The statement God does not exist is true."

then there would be no ambiguity about your assertion. One needs to be careful to distinguish between the two, otherwise one might fall into the paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

My claim remains valid.

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.

What exactly did you explain on page one? I went through your post several times, and was not able to deduce what your claim was.

As to "that's not how I hear it", I think that it is you, and Pythagoras that listen to it differently.

That's a false dichotomy.

Whoever made the claim that atheism and agnosticism are complementary terms?! Why do you use false dichotomy?

 

[leroyjenkens]

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.

A mass murderer may believe that killing everyone in the world but him is a good idea. Only one person in the world would believe that way. But is he wrong? How many people have to believe it before it becomes right?
If we want to do anything in a society, it's to maximize the happiness of the citizens. I can't imagine any other goal that's more important. A law that forbids you to express certain opinions doesn't maximize the happiness of a society, it detracts from it.

Whoever made the claim that atheism and agnosticism are complementary terms?! Why do you use false dichotomy?

I kind of explained it. I guess you were so completely gobsmacked by the first 4 words of my post that you forgot to continue reading.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If we want to do anything in a society, it's to maximize the happiness of the citizens. I can't imagine any other goal that's more important. A law that forbids you to express certain opinions doesn't maximize the happiness of a society, it detracts from it.

Unless the vast majority of society is happier that you aren't allowed to express certain opinions?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

A mass murderer may believe that killing everyone in the world but him is a good idea. Only one person in the world would believe that way. But is he wrong? How many people have to believe it before it becomes right?
If we want to do anything in a society, it's to maximize the happiness of the citizens. I can't imagine any other goal that's more important. A law that forbids you to express certain opinions doesn't maximize the happiness of a society, it detracts from it.

I don't mean to argue whether certain points of view are right or wrong. I would just like to say that whether they are seen as right or wrong depends on the point of view from which they are judged. And the point of view that judges them is chosen by a person, not by some kind of physical law that is agree upon by everyone *universally*.

Whether or not that mass murderer is right or wrong depends on the point of view from which he is observed. And whether or not that point of view is correct in saying that it is right or wrong, depends on some other point of view.

It all depends on someone's point of view.

 

[mathwonk]

every opinion is illegal somewhere. i live in a state where it is illegal in one city NOT to have a loaded gun in your home. Moreover I have been told, but surely this is too absurd to be true, that in many states in the US, churches and colleges, no matter how wealthy, do not pay taxes on their real estate holdings.

 

[TheMadMonk]

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.

And so because you believe that another culture is inferior you can dictate what culture they should follow? I'm not a fan of cultural relativism, we ignore the fact that a place like Indonesia is very different to the Western world then act all surprised when it has a different culture.

 

[redrum419_7]

I really hate this world we live in only because there are still people who believe in fairy tales. The main point is that ALL of the religions have been created by man. They were all created by men to tell other men how to think. If I had a say in it, all organized religions would be banned.

 

[Borg]

every opinion is illegal somewhere. i live in a state where it is illegal in one city NOT to have a loaded gun in your home. Moreover I have been told, but surely this is too absurd to be true, that in many states in the US, churches and colleges, no matter how wealthy, do not pay taxes on their real estate holdings.

Absurd or not, it's true and not just for their real estate holdings. From the cover sheet of "www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf" .

Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or
religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.