Slashdot Mirror
Indonesian Man Faces Five Years For Atheist Facebook Post
An anonymous reader writes "31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting 'God does not exist' on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault."
This is what you get for using Facebook. I hope it's not too late for all the other Facebook users to learn.
Where is your god now?
It's one thing persecuting people for their religion but persecuting atheists is going too far.
But after all this SOPA, NDAA nonsense, seeing that guys who want to ban man forms of birth control intentionally (Santorum) and may not realize they are going to (everyone else through Pesonhood movement support), the U.S.'s declining science standards, etc. I have stopped being glad I don't live in countries that this happens in. I now wonder how long before this happens here.
31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting âoeGod does not existâ on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault.
The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.
I wonder if they were trying to make a believer out of him or just needed to re-assure themselves that they are right and he is wrong. Theirs must be a merciful god, a god of great compassion.
Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the worldâ(TM)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.
- further proving that governments are inherently evil.
You can't handle the truth.
That man was clearly guilty of hate crime and islamophobia.
"The devil made me do it!"
Yet another 3rd world reaction to the eternal pornographic issue - my deity is larger than yours.
It's America that's REALLY evil! Bring on the moral relavists!
The future is already here, its just unevenly distributed. This will be coming to the USA soon, although with christian PR, its just not here yet. Give it time.
Also the guy is an idiot. Don't just make a statement, issue a challenge, like "If god existed he would strike me with lightning". That makes for a much more entertaining court trial.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
...are on the "non-believers".
Religion is the most dangerous thing facing our population, not overpopulation. They all claim to be peaceful, but criticize them - and you'll see their true nature.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Christopher Hitchens title for his polemic piece on religion hardly have been phrased even better, although I'll give it a shot here.
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Including Facebook).
brandelf -t FreeBSD
when the religious people kill you because you say it.
Be seeing you...
I wish more Christian bashing atheists would move to islamic Countries.
Anontheists will be arrested and forced to lick goatse in jail.
He needs to be looked after.
...is Islam. That religion has been a blight on humanity ever since it's founding. As with other religions, it began as a tool to get it's founder easy access to money, power, and women, but like religion always does, it spiraled out of control and this is what we end up with. For all the atrocities and violence Islam advocates I'm absolutely shocked that no one has the balls to stand up and condemn it for what it is: a repressive political ideology that seeks to propagate itself to the ends of the earth and utterly dominate the lives of all who are forced to live under it. Islam is nothing more than a brutal 6th century tribal religion infused with the culture of its day that has no place in the modern world. Christianity used to be like this in the dark ages, and that trend was only halted with the rise of secular government.
I'm posting AC because people feel some need to justify Islam for some reason and blame the poster for calling a spade a spade. I have no use for any religion at all.
The state cannot enforce faith.
All the guy did was tell the truth. One day maybe the world will get over believing in something created by folks attempting to explain the world around them. Doubtful in a few hundred lifetimes, but we can dream.
...are on the "non-believers".
Religion is the most dangerous thing facing our population, not overpopulation. They all claim to be peaceful, but criticize them - and you'll see their true nature.
Do you realize that you're the first step on a dangerous road? Your generalizations will lead to believers being the next group hunted. I'm an atheist myself, but stating that religion is the most dangerous problem faced by society is both ridiculously naive and dangerous. There are believers who are a problem, but that does not mean that all religious types are nut cases.
I reply "no, it's the devil who wants you to do that. And you fell for it."
Note to self: don't travel there.
... not believing in Gravity?
The less proof someone has of a strongly held belief, the more vigorously they defend it.
>> If God wanted everyone to believe in him with merely faith, he wouldn't have put Religion in the hands of people who club to death a person who doesn't believe -- he'd put Religion in the hands of people who were so good and inspiring, that everyone would be drawn to them.
Either there is no God, or He just doesn't care to interfere with the messengers -- which means these religious vigilantes are screwed either way.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Reverse psychology - you're right, it's equally dangerous to be pointing fingers at a minority, but religion is far from minority, in fact - it's directly responsible for wars all over the planet.
I'm all okay with religion as long as people don't take it to extremes, but history has proven over and over again that if you chose belief over facts - aka religion vs science, then you're bound to lose, no matter what the outcome would be as long as the outcome is anything but peaceful.
And history shows - people DO take things to an extreme. You don't see a bunch of scientist raging out on the streets over some cartoon-drawings, burning down embassies, cars and peoples homes?
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
In the southern India in the state of Tamil Nadu atheistic parties gained lots of ground in the 1960s. ( Even now all the dominant parties there eulogize a noted atheist, but the parties themselves have become more tolerant towards theism). One of the fanatical members of this atheistic party named his son "God Does not Exist" (kadavul-illai in the local language). Name was found to be too long for the liking of his teachers and classmates. So they shortened it to "God" (kadavul). So, yes, I could have spoken to God, if I had gone to that school. God flunked eighth grade and dropped out of school, if I remember it right.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
For many people, religious freedom means the freedom to try to force your religion upon another person.
Religious people are scary...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Welcome to Sharia Law made official.
(and at the rate things are going viz. immigration, welcome to Europe c. 2112).
100 years from now Europe may be officially under Sharia Law?
Now that's a cause for alarm and quick and resolute action if I ever saw one.
We have only 100 years to come up with a solution - and these days 100 years ain't what it used to be.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The pro abortion groups could be more constructive by trying to negotiate towards a time or state that the government will recognize that an embryo switches to being a baby.
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice". Some alternatives have been proposed: pre-conception (Catholic), conception (fundamentalist/protestant), second trimester (Roe v. Wade), "Can survive outside the womb" (some medical definitions), or even "one month after birth" (Jewish law in Jesus' time which he didn't seem to have a problem with).
E pluribus unum
FTFA:
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.
I'd go with Confucianism. If nobody can understand what he said, nobody can understand if you are practicing it or not.
If you live amongst a horde of unpredictable religious fanatics, it's best to keep your mouth shut.
My God told me so.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I think I'd probably want to punch someone who refused to believe in gravity.
I think anyone who posts on facebook should face 5 years in prison.
science does not have any morals. It can be taking to extremes too. That is why code of ethics are needed. The code CAN be based on things found in science (can something feel pain). That is what helps keep the same things from being done in the name of science.
All of the implications of the godless world. Like last week when Arfa what's-her-name died -- that's one less vagina to be used, and not a fuck was given by any supernatural entity.
Tragic.
I will never comprehend the "if you don't believe, I'll beat the shit out of you" mentality.
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
It's more a difference in how the situation is looked at. The pro-choicers see humanity as a matter of some type of standards. They can't agree on what it is that makes a human for moral purposes, though most would point to something about the brain, but they do agree there is *something* physical that makes humans different from other animals and thus worthy of protection under the law and a right to life. The pro-lifers though see humans as magic - to them, it isn't about the anatomy of the brain or standards of mental ability. It's magic. Humans are inherently, supernaturally special - and the moment that sperm meets egg, a new soul is created. There is little that two camps like that can say to each other - they have trouble just comprehending each other.
it so happens i'm seeing various religious/philosophy quotes at the bottom of slashdot at the moment...
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
"one month after birth" (Jewish law in Jesus' time which he didn't seem to have a problem with).
I have it on good account that in regards to this particular issue, He actually commented, "Thank God I was hidden in a stable for a while, being a bastard son, and all that. Hell, even legitimate babies can be killed off in the first month...."
Through the ages, Jesus has been accused of many things, including whether or not He even existed. Apparently, He was crucified because of some accusations.
I'm not sure if He was ever accused of being brief, and I'm sure He may have commented on many things, but He only lived for 33 years.
Many folks can't even agree on the merit of the current documentation, and you're pointing out something else He missed commenting on?
Carry on with the hate, tho'
If God wanted everyone to believe in him with merely faith...
Either way, beating and imprisoning someone for not believing is both morally outrageous and completely unjustified.
Palm trees and 8
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their Gods go out to fight to take their lives
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
God
Friend only to the undertaker
God is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of God blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean
Life is too precious to be fighting Gods each day
God can't give life it can only take it away
God
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
God
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But what?, there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
God
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Yeah, completely the same in a largely Christian country...except for the whole going to jail part.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Why not just drop stuff on them ?
who cares when it's a life or not? it's growing INSIDE another person and that makes it THEIR CHOICE on what to do with it, period. parasites are life, do we give them more rights than their host?
He just got some particularly harsh feedback.
but he sure has a shitty fan club
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Some alternatives have been proposed: pre-conception (Catholic)
It never was "pre-conception" for the Catholic doctrine and early abortion (i.e. just after conception) is equaled to murder since 1869 (before it was considered just lust). By the way the Catholic doctrine does not state that an embryo is a "human being", but a "human life" (a concept that was introduced in the second half of the XX century): they don't think it is a baby until later in its development, however an agreement about how much later is missing since the Middle Age.
Try Facebooking that the Holocaust did not exist.
Atheism isn't a belief system, but the rejection or lack of one.
"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.
The difference between that young lady's story and what happened in Indonesia is this: people were just talking, online, about how much they hate her. When she is being beaten up, or people are shooting at her, or Molotov cocktails are being thrown, then maybe the comparison will make sense.
In America, you can voice your dissent, you can call people garbage, and you can do so for any reason -- even if you are calling them garbage for putting an end to a blatant constitutional infraction. The constitution protects the rights of atheists and religious people of all varieties equally, and that includes the right to be rude, insulting, and to hate the very constitution that provides you with those protections.
Palm trees and 8
Both groups agree that humans have a more developed brain at 8 months than 8 weeks, but each group merely has a different idea of whether this matters.
There will be a point in science at which we can determine whether an 8 week old embryo has more potential as a human being than an 8 year old with mental retardation, at which point any "standards of the brain" argument is for killing the 8 year old (or at least for leaving him to die by withdrawing support).
Remember that "pro-choice" means pro-choice for the woman, whereas pro-life means pro-choice for the human which will develop if the embryo not destroyed. There's nothing inherently correct about believing that a woman must or must not look after a fertilised embyro inside her, just as there's nothing inherently correct or incorrect about believing parents must look after their 8 year old kid. In the end, nature has evolved by chance into the organised randomness we have today and any rules we make up are ultimately because they make us feel good. Any objective attempts to justify them are merely ways of distracting people while we benefit from those rules.
this is just wrong.
I'd ask him to step out of the window...
Some people need religion. Some of them because, though intelligent, they are emotionally incapable of coping with existential crisis. Others because they are just stupid. But in either case, threatening their religion (especially by presenting simple and clear arguments that undermine it) will result in every kind of defense mechanism, including violence.
Buddhism is really a system of mental training to cease ones suffering. Although, the goal of the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni) was also stated to get out of the never ending cycle of birth and death - reincarnation as the Hindus taught it. So, if you want to call it a religion, it can be considered an offshoot of Hinduism.
when does an embryo switch from being a mass of cells, to a baby?
I will take my own religion's answer: at birth. This is neatly aligned with medical practice, easily adapts to advances in technology that keep premature babies alive, and does not require us to hold funerals every time a sexually active woman has a period. It is even supported by the bible, in case anyone cared (not that expect anyone outside of the religion to care).
OK, now that we settled that problem. What's next?
Palm trees and 8
I am sorry, but facts are not "negotiable". We can't negotiate how old the earth is, and we can't negotiate the terminal velocity of an object falling to earth.
In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.
That is the main problem with religion, people "believe" and people "decide" and "compromise" in areas where those words don't apply.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I am pro abortion. Just imagine, if we had preemptively aborted all of this religious wackos we wouldn't be having this stupid discussion now.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Absolutely. I am pro life. I am alive, and I consider life to be one of the most amazing things in the universe, and, as a thing that is alive, I tend to strongly support life, out of pure self interest. On the other hand, I think woman should have the right to abort their pregnancies. The reason this assholes call themselves pro-life is because nobody will rationally say they are "anti life".
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I said I didn't believe in gravity and walked off the roof of a three story building. The next thing I knew, I woke up the hospital in a body cast. Those gravity worshipers are really brutal towards heretics.
Either there is no God, or He just doesn't care to interfere with the messengers -- which means these religious vigilantes are screwed either way.
So in this case we have a man who claimed there was no god, and now he is being put to death. Sounds to me like this might actually be proof that there is a God, and he will have put to death anyone that does not believe. In other words the messenger has been "interfered" with, and you are going to have a hard time proving that it was not Gods work. The fact that God is operating through people, makes it no less Gods work than if he had struck them down with lightning (it's actually more efficient since lightning expends a lot more energy than a court case and a hanging).
I'm not saying I believe in a god, only that in this case your argument could very well be proof that there is a god, as much as you believe it proves there is not.
I would have expected a good ole fashioned Texas stoning at the very least.
Since when is posting the maximum sentence good for anything other then over dramatizing a case?
It sounds like the police are cooperating with him and even taking his side so far.
And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
clearly you understand both religion and science if you can say something like this:
I'm all okay with religion as long as people don't take it to extremes, but history has proven over and over again that if you chose belief over facts - aka religion vs science, then you're bound to lose
it is not an either or proposition.. science and religion arent mutually exclusive.. science doesnt deal with morality, or faith..
oh i will just let the wise man say it!
cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.--Albert Einstein
"Pro-life" is actually a poor choice if only their opponents would use it properly. Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"and who is the god fella anyways....and poof he disappeared"
we should send or bombard these peopel wiht dvdrs of hitchikers guide ot galaxy original edition
haha
I feel a sense of shame when I say this. My entire life, I've been a classic socialist liberal. But the older I get, the more "conservative" principles I seem to be latching on to.
The more I hear about ultra-religious cultures, the more I realize that not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are reasonable (I won't say good), and some are, quite simply, bad. Inhumane. Disgusting.
I've been out to protest war more often than I can count (Iraq 1 & 2, Afghanistan, Lebanon/Israel.. possibly soon US/Iran), and still feel that war is fundamentally wrong. But, do I feel so because it involves killing and destruction? Or that they're usually for profit and undeserved control?
Because as bad as it sounds.. I would love to see the people responsible for this particular outrage (like so many) put up against a wall and shot. And that fills me with shame. :(
It's not that I disagree with what these religious nuts, or what they say. It's that they're hurting people not in defense of themselves or others.
Why is it we humans make war for profit, but not for gross violations of human rights?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
As far as the Fundies are concerned its as soon as the guy sticks his dick inside of her--sex is for procreation only!
I wonder, did he try to back up his claim using the babel fish proof? I case you've forgotten, it goes like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Reading The Bible ( The only religious book I know ) by its litteral words, sense, thoughts is a total brainless, brainwash, idiot, animal brute force of bastard idealogy from the evil leaders in their current era. The Bible is a total lies made by psychopaths-control-freaks devil's shit (of lies), basing their peaceful behaviours for their own profits - using human loving nature and behaviour to brute-force introducing culpability and darkness and denial into the soul - instead of healing the (human) soul by elevating the glory of it(the soul), free move of the Love, Light and LIFE!
The religions extermists are the most dangerous creatures in the Universe: They are moved by the dark-light energy of DENIAL.
Remember that "pro-choice" means pro-choice for the woman, whereas pro-life means pro-choice for the human which will develop if the embryo not destroyed. There's nothing inherently correct about believing that a woman must or must not look after a fertilised embyro inside her, just as there's nothing inherently correct or incorrect about believing parents must look after their 8 year old kid.
The problem with the above logic is this.. even in this day and age, life from conception to birth is still has a really high morbidity rate. That is, women miscarry all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, and often times aren't even recorded. Sometimes the body determines that the embryo is not viable. Sometimes the embryo has a flaw which kills it early in the process. Sometimes it's late in the process. Sometimes random chance puts a perfectly viable embryo into a situation where it just grabbed onto the wrong spot (ectopic pregnancies), putting itself and the mother at risk. Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.
This is a problem that has no good solution. That there is a ton of controversy around it only reflects that fact. I'm pretty sure that even most pro-choice folks would carry the opinion that abortions should not be a replacement for responsible behavior, and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible. Mandating that they cannot be done for any reason whatsoever places those prospective mothers into servitude at the whim of a potential child which may not even make it to term, which may kill the mother, or which may inflict years of torment on an unfortunate victim of rape. The idea of banning abortions completely, or the current tactic of defining a fertilized egg as a legal person, is a problem for women because this natural process is about as high risk a venture as is ever carried out. Flexibility is a must when there is this much risk involved, if you value human life at all.
For my mind, though, I just can't stand the hypocrisy of (generally) the same folks crying for less government interference in their lives, while going on how you should live by their morals (injecting government into someone else's life). Can't have it both ways.
This man has not yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage. Once he has, he will know The Truth.
Have gnu, will travel.
You contradict yourself.
Proper rules are closer to "rules we benefit from", they are chosen rationally. "Feel-good" rules are chosen emotionally are are likely to cause harm.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Ok, then pro-religious fundamentalism or pro-killing whenever you feel like it.
Better?
Hmm... thinking about it, usually they're not mutually exclusive...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.
Science may show the mental capacity of the fetus and it's ability to feel etc however by no means does this show when it is no longer ethical.
Ethics deal with morals, morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.
And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
...that this really is about as wrong as uploading a Michael Jackson song, and this time the punishments are the same.
"A substantial part" is not precise. And if that "substantial part" is equivalent to, for instance, a full-grown dog, do dogs then also gain human rights? Scientifically speaking, of course.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
when does an embryo switch from being a mass of cells, to a baby?
I will take my own religion's answer: at birth.
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
See, it's not an easy question. With neonatal incubators babies as young as 23 weeks have survived.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Ok, so I'm anti-life. Actually I am, this planet is overpopulated as it is, no need to increase the human biomass.
Let's face it, people. Whether I live, or you, doesn't really matter in the general sense, does it? Sure, you're happy to be alive, as am I, and there are probably a few people who won't be all that happy when we cease to exist, and not only because they have to borrow a suit for the funeral. But else? Nobody gives half a fuck whether you live. Or whether I do.
So why the heck should I care if someone I don't know has an abortion? Does it affect me? No. Could it affect me if it was cast into a law? Since I'm not a fetus anymore, and neither have the appropriate parts to have one inside me, no. Neither actively nor passively.
So why the heck should I have any say in whether someone has the right to choose to have an abortion?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Think again. It's likely their parents where religious wackos, too, so they would not have had an abortion. Instead, the secular people would possibl...
Hell, I'm anti-abortion now! Think about it, if abortion was absolutely legal, only the non-religious wackos would get any.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
religion /rldn/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. The celebration of ignorance.
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
Do you see a problem with this? I am not seeing why this should be a problematic thing to accept.
Palm trees and 8
I'm pretty sure that even most pro-choice folks would carry the opinion that abortions should not be a replacement for responsible behavior
Actually they do. Usually, they're the same crowd that considers condoms eeeevil!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know that science can decide matters of ethics. We may use our ethical standards to decide what knowledge we want to learn, though. If science discovered a process to clone a human being, the process would not be in question whether it could be done. Our ethical standards would tell us whether it is something we wanted to do or not. If you want a good rule, science discovers what we can be done. Ethics define whether we should do them or not.
The problem with using 'when a baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system' is that it completes the major structural development well before the 20 week mark (around week 8-9, actually). It will continue developing from there til the end of the pregnancy and beyond. Unfortunately for your definition, week 8-9 is still within what is generally acceptable for abortions. That 20 week mark is important because it is just about the earliest possible date that a fetus can survive outside the womb (with major support from a NICU). That ability to survive isn't defined by how well developed the central nervous system is, but rather how well formed the lungs and other internal organs are.
Just because he doesn't believe in the supernatural you shouldn't assume he is an atheist he is probably a bright http://www.the-brights.net/ A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
the face of Mohamed: (_|_)
Well, every group has its fringe elements. The group as a whole should not be judged based on them, but rather what the majority opinion is.
In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.
Science can't prove when something is ethical. Ethics are a personal choice for all of us, and we all have different standards and opinions.
Amendment 1 yes, but I was thinking of Article 6: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Also from Article 6: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..., any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The conventional wisdom is that it's not possible to take down a major religion. The US, though, did it once - after WWII, the US Army took down State Shinto in Japan.
It's worth understanding how that was done. It took not only a military victory, but a determined large-scale occupation, with far more occupying troops than the US used in Iraq. It didn't prohibit worship. It pulled the plug on public funding of Shinto. It eliminated any political power wielded by religious figures. Separation of church and state was forcibly imposed on Japan. It worked.
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
Hillary Clinton supports so-called "anti-blasphemy" laws
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
We can't really shit about what happened here... I doubt more than 50 percent (myself included) understand their religion or the culture of the society/religion. The Article didn't talk about the mob getting in trouble so obviously this happens a lot, or has happened, or has been known to possibly happen. He knew the consequences and I almost think he was hoping this would happen. It's not really news IMHO. The only reason it made news is because it's facebook related and we all know what gets posted on your facebook will directly fall back on you to employers/community. Feel free to comment if you feel otherwise.
MrHanky, Mashiki's remark is the sort of idiocy that, it certainly seems to me, implies he/she/it believes in the existence of imaginary creatures, ('like 'god').
Obviously, if Mashiki thinks the Creation Fairy exists, it's a trivial leap to imagine atheist lynch mobs exist.
So just stop arguing RIGHT NOW. You know what they say, "don't start an argument with a fool. Others around you won't know which of you is the fool, and which the other, since only a fool argues with a fool". Or something like that.
it is not an either or proposition.. science and religion arent mutually exclusive.. science doesnt deal with morality, or faith..
And that...is exactly why religion never must be in control over other humans faith - aka...religions must never be the law.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Religious types don't do reason. Something is true because somebody says it is.
Hillary Clinton supports "anti-blasphemy" laws
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
I think you've got that arse-backwards there. What pro-choice group would consider condoms evil?
worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
because your pastor|priest|imam told you that Jesus|Mary|Mohammad told him that it's very very naughty.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hillary Clinton is bringing about anti-blasphemy laws.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
"God" exists,
"God" is a concept oh so useful to the hierarchs.
"God" is a pernicious lie told to the sheeple under the steeple, to keep the path to power steep, to make the disloyal (called the unfaithful) weep.
"God" makes beautiful music. No arguing with that.
"God" the great pacifier in the sky - "peace be upon him/her/it"
"God", What a concept! - so much much bigger and badder than "Unicorns".
Reality: defn 1: That which is still there after you stop believing in it. Why does "God" need belief so much? Because it's just an abstract frickin' IDEA. Without belief, or at least being thought about, or written down, or sung about, it doesn't exist. It is only the IDEA of "God" that has an effect on the world.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So I wonder, who is this anonymous reader who keeps pointing out religious persecution in Muslim countries today? Is it the "burn the Koran" preacher guy? Maybe a DOD propagandist?
"Especially about gay marriage and abortion."
Yes, because we all know it's sane to stick your penis into a hole where feces exits.
We all know it's sane to allow people to carve out unborn life and toss it away like garbage.
Sick people.
I have a problem with this. You are suggesting that the mere location of the baby determines its status as a human.
best. frape. ever.
and what happens - you get attacked. This phenomenon is not unique to Indonedia or Islam, look at what happens if someone posts to slashdot and asserts that MicroSoft is NOT 100% evil .....
it's directly responsible for wars all over the planet.
The fact that you can type this with a straight face just demonstrates you have no knowledge of history, politics or human nature, and that any of your comments that touch on any of those subjects can be safely ignored, with nothing of value lost.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Science can certainly provide a rational basis for morality. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that religion has nothing to do with morality. Moral codes are certainly preached by religions, but I don't believe they're originated by them.
Take murder for instance:
Thou shalt not kill. It's in the bible (cribbed from older ideas, of course, but it's in there). Except when it's in God's interest, and God's designated representative on Earth commands you to. And heresy was absolutely a good reason to kill, and in horrific ways.
As evidenced by this article, some of us have purged that second bit from our moral code. Many of us don't even think it's right to imprison someone for heresy. Why? Did some great thinker in some religion or another issue an edict after studying the bible/torah/qur'an? Nope.
Some religions eventually adopt new moral ideas, but I really don't see them originating them. If you want a more contemporary example, take homosexuality. Many or most of the non-religions, and even lots of religious people, think that homosexuality is not immoral. All the major religions disagree. Yes, even the Dalai Lama thinks homosexuality is, "from a Buddhist point of view... generally considered sexual misconduct."
Enough with this tittal tattel.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
it is not an either or proposition.. science and religion arent mutually exclusive.. science doesnt deal with morality, or faith..
How can believing due to faith, be compatible with believing in the scientific method? Faith means that you believe without logic or evidence.
Well then it fails at morality. Things seem just fine as long as your a fine upstanding church goer. But if you blaspheme, all the rules go out the window, and you get a trial by mob.
it's directly responsible for wars all over the planet.
Citation needed. Actually, don't bother, it's patently false and you won't be able to cite any.
I am suggesting that whether or a not a baby is living on its own, breathing on its own, outside of the womb, without an umbilical cord, is the determining factor. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and as far as I am concerned this is the least problematic place to draw that line.
Palm trees and 8
How mid-evil of her.
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://techtalk.dice.com/t5/Miscellaneous/Hillary-Clinton-supports-so-called-quot-anti-blasphemy-quot-laws/m-p/247326/highlight/true#M970
I don't think it's facebook that is criticized.
I wish I could mod you insightful...
Your stance is not 'anti-life'. Your stance is 'It's none of my fucking business'. Just saying... it's not the same thing.
This is not surprising in the slightest.
but... he is pro-abortion so he would be forcing them to abort their babies and then take the products of conception to a lab so the mad scientists can use their processes to extract Embryonic Stem cells for use in their in human experimentation to further the cause of headless human clones for use with organ transplant.....
Yeah right! Tell that to the fairly intelligent animal called pig the next time you eat one. You are seriously considering that science can determine ethical questions like wether it's ok or not to kill a living being!
Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.
Infant mortality is still incredibly high compared to the mortality rates from toddler-hood through middle age, do you support infanticide? To be more direct, your argument is almost pure naturalistic fallacy - that because nature does X it's OK for us to do X.
Atheism was effectively banned for local citizens (not visitors) after a communist coup failed in 1965 (but blasphemy is illegal even for visitors). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia
'God does not exist' on Facebook
If it's been said my bad, didn't read all the articles.
I think you're getting confused. Pretty much all the pro-choice groups and individuals are pro-contraception - in fact the biggest boogeyman of the anti-abortion movement in the US, Planned Parenthood, actually puts most of its resources towards providing contraception. It's the anti-abortion groups that tend to be against contraception, and in favour of telling kids in school that it doesn't exist and making it harder to obtain in general.
Gesundheit
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
An interesting question for your to contemplate?
Are Libertarians pro-choice or pro-life?
Certainly you are aware that certain prominent ones (Ron Paul, et al) are pro-life, but what's the party line, here?
The answer to this question lies deeply nestled down in the theoretical/ethical basis of Libertarianism. Basically, ethical Libertarians have this notion of "rights, which are inalienable" (and so forth, I won't get into it here). So the real question in a pro-choice/life discussion is "when do rights begin"? At what point does a new life have "rights"?
This is an interesting question, and the back-and-forth arguing about it one of the defining arguments of our age.
You don't have to believe in any kind of hokum to say that they begin before birth. While I personally find any choice one makes here to be rather arbitrary, it's not all certain that a pre-birth pro-lifer is religous or a magical thinker. To the contrary, one could arbitrarily pick rather objective standards such as "it doesn't have rights if the brain hasn't developed yet, and does if it has." Science has plenty of answers for you here, feel free to investigate on your own regarding at what stage fetuses begin to have brain power.
C//
Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?
You don't have to go that far. Just ask them if they support the death penalty.
You'll be amazed at how many "pro lifers" think that killing people a few years after they're born is fantastic.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I agree with your post for the most part, but
> And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
While morals are not an inherent aspect of the universe, in practice and despite outliers, there is significant clustering of moral worldviews throughout humanity due to the strong biological component of our thinking that we know of due to evolutionary psychology.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
The problem is that Islamic civilization was not always as you describe, nor is it even now. At one time, many Islamic societies were far more advanced and open than their Western European counterparts. What you're saying makes about as much sense as condemning Christianity based on what you find wrong in Catholicism.
More accurately:
The most succesful and better known Islamic empires in the Middle East were more advanced and open than the ravaged remains of the West Romain Empire and yet uncivilized lands of Western Europe where held sway.
This doesn't execuse the religious persecutiong by the Byzantines but socities do tend to be less tollerant when they are on the defensive. Also, even the more elightened socities were rather intollerant by modern standards.
The Crusades?
The ways a civil servant can behave in public are restricted in most places in this planet. He really should have been more aware of his position. It would have been a very different story if the person would have been a private citizen who doesn't work for the government, the press or the legislature, all positions regulated or heavily regulated in many places especially concerning what you can say or how to behave in public. Facebook makes people think they are at the privacy of their homes which can be very dangerous. Facebook should pay at least the legal costs of the man for creating a comfortable environment in which you think you can say what you really think.
Have anyone heard of a person getting beat up for... not believing in Gravity?
I knew a man that didn't believe in gravity. He jumped off a building and got beaten to death by the ground
I support the right of women to choose an abortion. I also support the death penalty. I consider only supporting one of those two positions to be hypocritical.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
hahaha oh snap!
This is really not so hard. With the death penalty the person is guilty of a heinous crime.
With abortion the person is innocent. See the difference?
I hate to do this and I haven't done so before but above comment needs to be upped. so:
MOD PARENT UP!!
Untrue. If you ignore the blind believers there are a lot of scholarly people who reconcile science and religion or approach religion from a position of skepticism and become convinced. Even moreso in non-Christian religions.
when does an embryo switch from being a mass of cells, to a baby?
I will take my own religion's answer: at birth. This is neatly aligned with medical practice, easily adapts to advances in technology that keep premature babies alive, and does not require us to hold funerals every time a sexually active woman has a period. It is even supported by the bible, in case anyone cared (not that expect anyone outside of the religion to care).
Am I correct to assume you are referring to (a misunderstanding of) the case law in Exodus 2:22 and that your argument goes something like this: "Exodus 2:22 has a mild punishment for killing an unborn child. It is therefore a non person"? The KJV translates Exodos 2:22 as:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Assuming that the child is dead is to jump to conclusions. The Hebrew term for miscarriage, nephel, is not used in this verse. The context don't imply that the child is dead. Because of this I don't see a need to argue that the mild punishment in this case don't imply that the child is a non person even if it was stillborn so I'll stop here.
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
you'd change your mind if you came to one of my parties.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Republican party platform: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
So fucking medieval. My country may have it's issues, but at least the mob would go to jail and the guy would go free instead of the other way around.
...my Possibilian crew doing this sort of shit?!
"I'm all okay with religion as long as people don't take it to extremes, but history has proven over and over again that if you chose belief over facts - aka religion vs science, then you're bound to lose, no matter what the outcome would be as long as the outcome is anything but peaceful."
The problem is you tie that to religion erroneously. People taking extreme positions is a trait of human beings, not that of religion. Some of the worst atrocities of man were done in the name of science, something a lot of science types don't like to research nor admit. Man does not need religion to wage war. I think thats been proven in the last century pretty solidly.
Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?
You don't have to go that far. Just ask them if they support the death penalty.
You'll be amazed at how many "pro lifers" think that killing people a few years after they're born is fantastic.
Which is one of the few areas where I give it up for the Roman Catholics. As an organization, they are fairly consistent, being against abortion, the death penalty, and most wars. In the US you are more likely to find a mix and match set of 'pro lifeness' moreso amongst the evangelical Christian churches.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This is really not so hard. With the death penalty the person is guilty of a heinous crime.
I find your overabundance of faith disturbing.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
How about the first link that comes up when I searched (on Yahoo) for violence against Christians?
Malthus called, he wants his 18th century illogic back.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I find your comments uneducated. you can not say " ALL" anything. That is bigotry strait and narrow.
It is like saying ALL Jews " something" or All Black " something".. or all Scientists " something" .
Your comment is bigotry pure and simple. Last I heard.. Communists put people in prison for being religious and still do in places like China or even North Korea .
So saying ALL Atheists are somehow Morally grounded is also not educated. Have you Read history?
Just a Point of reference.
Religious thought was repressed by Banning the Bible as reading material for many many centuries. Groups that built Kingdoms around it had no real Guide but Imperialist religious but not BIBLE based religious persons.
The REFORMATION was the beginning of those who actually READ the BIBLE and though many many still misused it.. it is a LOVE , NOT HATE based belief system of Service . You should read that too.. Gandhi did and it even changed India.
We now have education.. schools everywhere..and hospitals.. food dispensaries and help groups.. all started by a True Bible based Faith.
harmless and serving. I would rather they TRY for a Great thing.. and fail.. than us say we don't need a Great thing and Succeed.
We in America are spoiled brats.. and we have ability to voice our ignorance at will.. for now.
Many many religious persons have done so.. but they do not speak for the greater margin of those who are and are not like them.
I am sorry you had bad experience with those. If you don't believe in a Heavenly special friend.. then Don't.. but for The sake of Darwin or GOD.. get off their neck.. or you are just no different than they are.
... skycake!
That is stupid. It's hypocritical to support abortion but don't support euthanasia, or the other way around. But the death penalty is a whole different thing. You are intentionally murdering an adult because you THINK he did something wrong. So you are doing something even worse than what he did in order to punish him?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Science does not have morality because reality has no morality. Morality is purely a human invention and exists only in our minds.
I didn't say science can define ethics, I said science can determine what is a human being and what isn't. What is a fetus and what is a baby, that's science territory.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
WHAT? The Catholic church has been one of the leading causes of death for a few thousand years.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
.. guantanamo longer.
Before anyone starts the race-hating/belief hating BS.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -House M.D.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Sorry, but faith does not allow for logic and evidence. It's just a fact.
So saying ALL Atheists are somehow Morally grounded is also not educated.
Good thing I never said that. Oh, but you are person of faith. So, things become magically true just because somebody says so.
Religion has been the primary source of why people have committed atrocities, and gotten away with it. It's my firm belief that without religion many civilizations will flourish, and will generally prosper. Those that have acquired the knowledge of criticizing the bible benefited the most through understanding why the word of god is meaningless. I suggest for others to enlighten individuals to reasoning, and giving them understanding of our positions.
The complexity is brought in by politics to sway voters. Ideally if everyone was educated enough to realize specifics of the issues than being frank would be appropriate; however, since many are not familiar with the specifics the broadening of stances will be more appropriate at targeting individuals to vote in their favor. When politics are introduced with such levity it's important that you receive as much voters as possible whether through labeling or elaborating women's rights not to have their child due to health, grievances, etc. The underlying theme here is to persuade individuals.
Affirms my position that there is no God, and that followers of a myth are dangerous.
I thought Confucianism was more of a philosophy than a religion.
In Iran, he would have probably been sentenced to death.
Religious types don't do reason.
And neither does Richard Dawkins, although your description probably covers him implicitly anyway.
Are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a serial killer or someone who qualifies for the death penalty and an unborn child? Seriously?
People may snicker and think that this is an Islamic or Indonesian problem, but there are many Western countries with laws against disparaging religion. In Germany, for example, saying anything that might get a member of a religious organization upset enough to "disturb the peace" is illegal. So, statements disparaging Islam or Mohammed are in violation of German law. And the law is enforced; for example, someone who printed the word "Koran" on toilet paper (in response to Islamic terrorism in Germany) was sentenced to prison. The violation is determined not by the speech itself, but by how upset people get; so, if people become more fundamentalist on average, merely stating that God does not exist could fall under it as well.
I agree with this, I never said that many people can not have many values/goals that are similar and some of those similarities are from biology, e.g. the wish to find a partner and procreate, the wish to survive, etc etc.
I was simply countering that ethics is not a clear cut thing, one mans evil is another mans normal, and so using the argument 'I am morally right' means nothing if the person you are talking to does not have that moral, and it cannot be used in the sense that "I am morally right, therefore inherently right" like so many try to do.
Ok, so I'm anti-life. Actually I am, this planet is overpopulated as it is, no need to increase the human biomass.
I have good news for you. This is one thing you can absolutely directly control. Care to put your money (or shotgun, or LD50++++ of various drugs, etc) where your mouth is? You can be part of the solution.
Nahhh.. can't speak for Him if he has not spoken it himself.
Jesus was very openly against anything that had tradition without being IN the Actual law itself.. he upheld and even modified Moses Laws to better fit the real spirit of the law.
Since Killing a child IN the womb is considered Murder and yes there are scriptures about that too.. He was against it by his default statement against Additions of Traditions of Men.
But are you really going to try and fight an ideological war with religious persons scriptures ?
I know it is done because it works, I just find it reprehensible.
Also quite frustrating when you point it out to people and they call you 'evil' or some such, just for wanting to discuss a point plainly.
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
This is why I enjoy annoying liberals and conservatives alike by explaining that I'm pro-choice on gun ownership.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Sigh, I WISH Australia had annexed them before it lost all the F-111's. It would have taken a weekend to paralyse their military, a couple more weeks to make them critically dependant on supply lines from Australia, and then less than a year to replace their government with a locally elected secular one (and shoot all the imams and other idiots). Too late now, all they've got now is the Collins subs and those toy FA-18s the yanks forced them to buy in the 80s, and that aint enough.
But you're using logic to establish that.
I hope you see the error in this.
I didn't say that since nature does it, it's ok if we do it too. You must have missed the part where I said '... and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible.' I'm all for being responsible. I have been myself, and only had a child when I was darn well good and ready for it (if one can ever be truly ready for it). Don't use abortion unless it is a last resort. Just the same, it may be necessary to do so. The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion. Risky processes require flexibility in handling them with the most positive outcome possible. It won't always be possible to save every mother-to-be AND zygote/embryo/fetus. I seriously recommend you read up on ectopic pregnancies (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy). Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
To the point, my argument isn't a naturalistic fallacy, it is objective realism.
I wonder what would have happened if said user had posted a sketch of him having a three-way with Allah and God? My guess is nothing short of very thoughtful, masterfully delivered dismemberment.
If only we could harness this horrifyingly powerful force of insecurity - our species would have power enough to last eons.
There are presently 69 comments that show as +5 under my preferences. (Long ago I think I disabled the funny bonus since some moderators have a tau on fart jokes suitable for dating planetary origins.)
Not one of these premium insights mentions Christopher Hitchens, far and away the most outspoken critic of clerical terrorism, much of which originated in the Salmon Rushdie context, and since expanded.
Slowly I've been recruited by ugly world events to Hitch's analysis of fatwa fascism.
Hitch makes a point about Iran that their nuclear ambitions and their intransigence on democracy are inseparable: the nuclear card is a gambit to retain domestic political power.
In the same way, if top leadership endorses fatwa decrees, the general population is going to feel far greater inclination to break down doors and lay on a can of whup-ass over dissenting opinion.
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. It's a safe bet that this beating was done by Muslims.
If that is so, religion has no morality either.
i think most people who are anti-abortion (in the US at least) are christian. "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. also see Original Sin. these embryos aren't innocent, they're depraved sinners!
nobody's perfect
Interesting recollection. I am from Kerala and I know Tamil Nadu well.
IMHO Dravidian parties who spurned a "religious god" replaced them with personalities and leaders. Doesn't MGR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._G._Ramachandran - remind you of a modern day Jesus Christ (I am not talking about the quality of MGR as a person / administrator / actor - only how he is perceived by Tamilians.) When he died, 14 others killed themselves in in the city of Tiruchi.
I studied at Tiruchi - almost a temple city - with temples for upper castes - Srirangam - and for lower castes - Samayapuram. Srirangam is relatively cleaner and tastier offerings, Samayapuram is crowded and so on. In the midst you have leaders and political movements following an atheist philosophy.
You don't even need to go that far, the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates on the planet, not just among rich countries, but in the world, and a big part of that is very little access to pre and post-natal care for women and their infants. And yet among pro-lifers you will find the most vociferous opponents of any sort of health assistance for those "leaches" who don't have enough money to get proper care. Lovely people.
Monstar L
So, Vatican next? Or did you just pose an example?
nope, not even stalin was an atheist. When operation barbarossa started all he did was pray, unable to act as 'commander and chief'.
I'd like to see how many real atheist there are when facing certain death.
I think I'd probably want to punch someone who refused to believe in gravity.
Wouldn't it be more fitting to just knock them over? Besides, for someone to SERIOUSLY not believe in the EFFECTS of gravity (regardless of what they think the cause may be), they'd pretty much have to be immune to it. If they were, you might not be terribly inclined to argue with them.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Its ok, you can say it, we all are thinking it, 'primitive third-world country' = MONKEY LAND!!!!
(yes Im calling muslims a bunch of monkeys)
EDIT, muslims and any other religious fundamentalist, and lol @ US evangelicals...dinochrist much??
The guy was and is right: God does not exist. Never did either.
What's the problem? - Who cares if you believe in the Flying Teapot or the Spaghetti Monster? Or Budda? Or Xenu? Or God?
Keep your beliefs private and let others do the same. The world would be a much better place instantly.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Science sends men flying to the moon. Religion sends men flying into skyscrapers
I am pro-abortion... abortion of all offspring of those bible-thumping morons in the misnamed pro-life movement.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Yes, forget about fringe elements of christianity like, say, the Pope, for example.
You don't have to embrace the right simply because you've realised that cultural relativism is a crock of shit.
There are good cultures and bad cultures, and there are cultures that are good in some aspects and bad in others. Many of the left have known this for years, they just tend to get shouted down in certain, fairly silly, forums.
Europe is objectively better than the US for healthcare (this can, and is, quite easily measured) due to universal coverage. US is objectively better than Europe for free speech (1st amendment) . Both are objectively better than the Taleban in every possible way you can think of.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Here's a weird conundrum for staunch anti-abortionists:
If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you abort him or wait until he was born before fucking up his shit?
No, it is not true "for most of USA too". The US vigorously defends free speech, has gay marriage in some states and domestic partnerships in others, and abortion is legal everywhere in the US. Outing yourself as an atheist and even insulting religions may lose you friends in the US, but it is legal and protected.
Contrast that with Europe, say Germany. Germany is governed by a Christian party, gay marriage doesn't exist, abortion is technically illegal and has significant restrictions, the government funnels billions of Euros to Christian churches, and you can get jail time for disparaging religions. Other European nations aren't quite as backwards as Germany, but they all share at least some of these restrictions.
Atheism has no dogma; no catechism; no rules, no tenets, no nothing. All atheism consists of is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
The attempt to link atheism to the acts of Hitler, Pol pot, etc., is simply a (very poor) attempt to lessen the obvious responsibility of religion, for myriad religiously-driven murder sprees. It doesn't work unless the listener isn't paying attention. It's lame.
Hitler and pol pot and etc. did what they did because they were murdering assholes. Not because they were atheist, even assuming they were (highly doubtful in Hitler's case, for instance.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Religious types don't do reason.
And neither does Richard Dawkins, although your description probably covers him implicitly anyway.
OMG. You obviously never read any of his books. I'd recommend "The Selfish Gene", one of the finest example of sound reasoning I ever came across. A delight cover to cover.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
I am suggesting that whether or a not a baby is living on its own, breathing on its own, outside of the womb, without an umbilical cord, is the determining factor. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and as far as I am concerned this is the least problematic place to draw that line.
Really? You picked *this* as the least problematic place to draw the line? It's as though you think something magical and special happens with the baby between being in the womb 5 minutes earlier, and being outside on its own 5 minutes later. Seems far more like a choice of convenience than anything else.
If you want to draw the line at the least problematic point, that would have to be conception. I'm not arguing here that it's a human at conception, I'm just saying that this is the least problematic, as you're *very* unlikely to kill a human if you take this as the boundary line.
If you were to pick the very end of the pregnancy as the most obvious place, then you have chosen the line that has the highest risk of killing a human, if it turns out that babies become humans at some stage in the pregnancy. I personally think the stakes are too high - there's a reasonable chance that late term abortion is killing a human, and given the reasonableness of that chance we should be erring on the side of caution. Your suggestion is throwing caution to the wind.
> the difference between a serial killer or someone who qualifies for the death penalty and an unborn child? Seriously?
I can't, at least not concerning that peoples life. Did you give life to them? What makes you think you should be allowed to take their life?
But I have Him in my "Remember not to Curse" circle in Google+
I think you're exaggerating, but "a few years after they're born" could only literally refer to infanticide. I don't know any conservative who is for infanticide.
However, if you're referring to the death penalty, then the operative difference there is that the party is usually guilty of something heinous. Innocent fetus versus very guilty adult. But you don't want to look at it that way...
I wish I had mod points. This is one of the finest arguments on the whole abortion issue I have ever seen. I salute you.
Trip them at best...
You considering something as such doesn't make it so.
This argument assumes that the definition of when a set of cells which may eventually become a child is or isn't human is something which objectively exists regardless of the decision we're seeking to make here.
Simply put, I can't accept that assumption. We're making that decision, ourselves, right now; that's what this debate is about. Deciding what is or isn't morally wrong is what we're trying to decide -- but how can the result of this moral decision be objectively incorrect?
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
No, the issue is about the state's interest in enforcing abortion laws vs. the individual's rights to be secure from undue searches and seizures.
Roe vs. Wade was not about a right to an abortion, it was not about a right to privacy, it was about the state being unable to show admissable evidence that the law had been broken. The evidence they had was deemed inadmissable because they had no right to obtain it. They had no right to obtain it because they were unable to convince the justices that the state's interest in ensuring fetuses become babies was more important than the 4th amendment.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, the librarian of Alexandria was pulled off her carriage and skinned alive. Literacy dropped. Even the Pope had to have the Bible read to him. In the first crusade, Christians killed 10s of thousands of people they called "infidels". The Children's Crusade (1212) caused the deaths of nearly 50,000 children. Preachers sentenced to death and executed thousands during the Inquisition (1233-1834) for heresy and witchcraft. There were the the Salem witch trials (1692) in America. The 17th Century Thirty Years War (Catholics v. protestants) wiped off tens of millions in Europe off the planet. In the Taiping Rebellion in China in the 1850's a Christian cult started a war that resulted in the slaughter of twenty million people. In the Holocaust six million Jews were murdered. Muslims and Christians in Bosnia reached a death toll of over 250,000.
Want more?
Ask the Aztecs about the wars againt the Portugese and Spanish christians. Oh, that's right, you can't they were exterminated by the christians.
The Crusades of course.
World war 1 started because of a religious fanatic shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The african wars between the Hutus and the Tutsi's.
The Arab-Israeli war(s) were of course, religiously motivated.
The millenia long conflicts between the Shia and the Kurds is religiously motivated.
The conflict between Israel and Lebanon (hezbollah) is undeniably religious in nature.
The list is endless.
Don't even try if you aren't prepared to stand the distance, faith blinds people from the truth. You believe what you "WANT" to believe.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
In regards to "Jewish law" I imagine you're citing Maimonedes' restriction on mourning for children only if they had been alive for more than 30 days. That's hardly encouraging abortion.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Death_and_Mourning/Contemporary_Issues/StillbirthNeonatal_Loss.shtml
You are right about Stalin being an atheist, but it wasn't atheism that motivated his actions. He just generally "eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control. The church was just one of many examples.
I don't think this is true. Clearly many or most of Stalin's crimes can be explained by motivations like greed for power. But thats also true for most of the crimes commited during religious wars. Most of it can also be explained by non-religious motivations like greed for power, resources, money, etc.
But during religious wars there are also crimes commited where non-religious motivations fail to explain why people commited these crimes. I believe something similiar is also true for some of the crimes commited by Stalin: You can explain most of his crimes by ""eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control", but for some of his crimes, such an answer fails. Stalin didn't just kill religious leaders, but also killed many almost completely powerless village priests, monks and nuns. There was also the League of the Militant Godless. You'll fail to understand why these people were killed, if you don't look at the role of atheism within the communist ideology.
So atheism wasn't his motivation but communism? Not really, that is just like saying: "Oh religion wasn't part of the reasons for crusades, catholism and the pope was the reason."
Jan
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
Do you see a problem with this? I am not seeing why this should be a problematic thing to accept.
Because of the obvious analogy to other situations where humans are helpless but apparently still considered alive, e.g. life support.
I work at the airport security for one major airports in the south of Asia. We collect people who have been marked as bad for unnamed reasons. I would like to say without claiming any real names of the countries, because I do not want to put myself in danger.
Anyone can get a year of prophylactic detention in that region of the world. All you need to do, is just to say something really bad about the judical system, the president, the owners of the country or the king. You do not have to be a citizen in order to enjoy a first class detention that will suck out your savings. Just happen to be in one of the airports in the south of Asia and we will get you ready for the trip of your life.
Other countries are doing it too, even if they have no king or president. It is some kind of fashion in here.
Atheism has no dogma; no catechism; no rules, no tenets, no nothing. All atheism consists of is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
The attempt to link atheism to the acts of Hitler, Pol pot, etc., is simply a (very poor) attempt to lessen the obvious responsibility of religion, for myriad religiously-driven murder sprees. It doesn't work unless the listener isn't paying attention. It's lame.
There is no responsibility of religion because such a thing simply doesn't exist. What exists are many different religions. Christianity, Islam or Hinduism can be responsible for murder sprees, but religion can't, because it simply doesn't exist.
Or you can say I use religion as a word for the set of all existing religions., but then you need to be fair and accept that other people will use atheism as a word for the set of all existing atheistic ideologies.
Jan
You completely miss the point. There are no "atheistic ideologies." Ideologies may include atheism, but atheism itself includes nothing. Atheism stands alone. It has no opinions; there is no mental lever provided by the atheist stance to start anything. It's just a lack of belief in an absurd proposition. It causes nothing. It's not an active stance. It's a lack of one.
Atheism doesn't say "eat this but not that." Atheism says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "stone the unbelievers", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "whip one's self until bloody", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "fly the aircraft into the building", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "Give 20% of your money to the church", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't even say "don't go to church." it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "memorize this book." There is no book. There isn't even a paragraph. Here is the whole atheist ball of wax, nothing left out at all: "without a belief in a god or gods." That's it. Finis. Exit stage left. Whoosh.
However, religions -- theism, the opposite of atheism -- are active stances; stances that uniformly, in and of themselves, have and promote (often insist upon) tenets, dogmas, rules, authorities, entire books of ridiculous claims and instructions for behavior. These often include instructions to deal harshly with people. Atheism has no such instructions; it's philosophically, ethically and morally empty and cause-free: it describes nothing more than the fact that the atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods.
Whereas theism... the crusades. Witch burnings. Blood libel. Galileo's incarceration. Bruis' burning at the stake. Beheadings. Hangings. The inquisitions. Abortion clinic bombings. 9/11. Excommunication. Sexual repression. Can't buy beer on Sunday. Can't marry this religion, or that sex, or X number of spouses. Also, propositions like "the earth is 6000 years old."
Tenets are to religion as hair color is to hair. There are lots of colors; hair color is integral to the idea of hair. You can't say hair doesn't have a color. But atheism... it's like being bald. You can't describe a hair color for a bald person -- the idea is meaningless. Just as ascribing tenets to atheism is meaningless. There aren't any. When a person who is an atheist ascribes to any tenet, proposition, dogma, etc.... it's a 100% guarantee that said concept didn't come from atheism, but from something else. So please, stop trying to assign wrongheaded ideas to atheism. Atheism is the lack of adherence to one very specific idea, no more than that, and therefore doesn't drive adherence to any set of behaviors at all.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Pro-choice" does imply that you believe that abortion should always be voluntary on the part of the woman. Some of us support mandatory abortions in certain cases (drug addicted unemployed pregnant woman with fetus determined to have Downs...)
Is there any religion that beats the snot out of people who are conformists?
When thousands are beaten, tortured, and jailed for not denying they believe in Jesus every day. Are we really supposed to rally around an atheist because he made a statement that 60% of Slashdot would identity with? Wake up Slashdot...
http://www.persecution.com/
No, the issue with "pro life vs pro choice"ers is about whether people think abortion is morally right. What you have brought up is a court case whose purpose was to discover the legality under the present set of laws for people to have abortions. There is a difference between a set of judges saying "we interpret present law as x" and people trying to say 'I find y morally right because of z'
Appealing to peoples other likely held values is a nice way to convince people of a topic as people like to stay consistent. It does not however, change what the topic is, which in this case even in the supreme court case was ultimately about abortion (and the issues it raises).
The real challenge facing humanity is that biotechnology and information technology will create situations with which we are not equipped by our moral evolution to deal with on an ethical basis. A well known example is the following: suppose one by one your neurons and all other cells are replaced by artificial equivalents with function that is identical in the beginning and can then gradually provide enhanced functionality later. For most people this would be a winning proposition. However, consider now instead using a non-invasive scan to record the details and state of every cell, then assembling the artificial copy while killing the original person. In theory, the result is the same. Yet very few people would undertake this version of the process. There's no rational basis for that. People will take a position on the issue because of biological feeling that continuity of consciousness/life is "better", but explanation is not justification. So the direction of development that morals/ethics takes is necessarily arbitrary, and there's no better way :(
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Yeh, there is none. Civilised countries dont have the death penalty.
god does not exist. allah does not exist, and santa clause does not exist.
get over it! Religitards
no
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive?
Except pro-lifers don't limit their arguments to edge cases like that. If that's all they took issue with, then their stance would be much more defensible. Unfortunately, they equate a weeks-old lump of cells with a fully formed baby, and use misleading imagery and arguments to confuse people about what most (as in, the vast, vast majority) performed abortions are.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion.
OK, but that really wasn't clear in the post I replied to.
Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
If you kill someone when you have a 'reasonable belief' that it is the only way to save the life of another person it isn't murder. Even if a 'personhood law' was passed and abortion was legally defined as being murder, aborting a fetus in order to save the mother would still be legal, even without an explicit exception written into the law.
And Harvey here tells me it's a good thing. Why is his imaginary friend more important than mine?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think the point was that Catholics are officially against using contraception. Masturbation is also "wrong".
Hence, they're also opposed to "ending" a fetus' life before it has even been conceived.
It's useful to also capture that particular bit of lunacy, but I agree it's a stretch to phrase it that way.
it is not an either or proposition.. science and religion arent mutually exclusive.. science doesnt deal with morality, or faith..
How can believing due to faith, be compatible with believing in the scientific method? Faith means that you believe without logic or evidence.
Not wishing to defend religion in the slightest, but I think people jjust have faith in God/Jesus/Mohammed or whatever, and rely on normal human methods to do things like buying burgers or calculating the velocity of an unladen swallow.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I consider myself pro-life, but I would never suggest an abortion be denied in both your scenarios (rape, and inflicting death on the mother). I have a problem with people who have sex willingly, then consider abortion the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. At the point where a child is conceived, the woman has already made a choice and I don't believe there should be an ability to take that choice back at the expense of killing an unborn child.
If the person truly doesn't want the child, there are many people who are willing to adopt.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So then why is it illegal for me to kill my children? They are growing inside of my house, they are parasites on my money and time. When do you draw the line between a legal choice and murder?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's not his imaginary friend. It's theirs. Plural.
If there's millions of them, they're a religion. If there's thousands, a cult.
Just you? A nutter.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How about, "God does not deign to exist; existence is beneath Him"?
Or, "God cannot exist: He could not tolerate Himself having power rivaling His own"?
And lastly, a quotation on existence itself:
"[B]efore I came on stage, the Universe had been around for twelve billion years. All that time I was in a state of nonexistence, and it wasn't bad. Pretty comfortable as a matter of fact. I figure it'll be just as comfortable for the next twelve billion years." -- Dr. Kurt Mendel; Odyssey 5: "Pilot"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Many Slashdot posters, especially those who label themselves as "liberals", do not know shit
Like in this case:
* They do NOT know Indonesia
* They do NOT know that the Muslims in Indonesia MURDER non-Muslims routinely
But still they want to opine, posting messages that they think is cool, in trying to compare the Christian fundies in America with those murderous Muslims of Indonesia
Gone are the days of open-minded geeks who frequent Slashdot to gain knowledge
Nowadays Slashdot is filled with narrow-minded retards trying to impress the world with their asinine postings
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"...no need to increase the human biomass."
First, that's a funny way of putting it. After all if you are describing things in biomass terms, how is human biomass any worse than stinkbug or daffodil biomass?
Secondly, I agree that without a good reason to curtail a right, the right should not be curtailed.
Actually, yes, it's worse. Considering the (negative) impact the average human has on the planet, I think it's safe to say that no matter what other biomass could litter the planet, it certainly will be better.
Plus, no stinkbug or daffodil will ever compete with me for the same resources, be it food or work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ummm.. I would imagine the same amount of biomass in stinkbugs as in one human would require roughly the same air, water, and food intake. Perhaps a bit less since they are different kingdoms. But if we take animal kingdom biomass, and compared an equal amount of human mass, and I dunno, ferret biomass, they would use pretty much equal resources to sustain themselves.
If you are suggesting that humans are worse for the planet due to their technology, who can disagree with that? But to say you don't compete with resources with stinkbugs and daffodils is mistaken.
Of course you compete for the same resources... it's just that you always win.