Is Atheism Punishable by Law in Indonesia?

[SHISHKABOB]

Technically blasphemy is still illegal in some states in America. Denying that God (the Christian god of course; the only real one, duh) exists is still on the books as being illegal.
It's just a good thing we have that first amendment, which keeps us from moving back to the dark ages, which is apparently exactly where Indonesia wants to go.

well, technically Indonesia never existed in the "Dark Ages" since that's a European thing

 

[thorium1010]

The point is, had the citizens of Indonesia agreed on such laws, or they were imposed autocratically?

According to the article -

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.

 

[Dickfore]

What is a Muslim nation?

 

[thorium1010]

What is a Muslim nation?

Are you serious ?

 

[Pythagorean]

@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.

 

[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?