Indonesian Man Faces Five Years For Atheist Facebook Post

He deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny

This is what you get for using Facebook. I hope it's not too late for all the other Facebook users to learn.

Re:He deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is what you get with religious rule.
Re:He deserves it by FreeCoder · 2012-01-22 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is true for most of USA too. While you probably won't get jailed for saying such, there are just as ridiculous laws and customs based on Christianity, especially compared to other more saner countries. Especially about gay marriage and abortion.
Re:He deserves it by rrohbeck · 2012-01-22 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

+1 just my thought.
There's only a quantitative difference between the US and Indonesia. In many areas of the US you can not be elected to public office if you won't swear on the Bible.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:He deserves it by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-01-22 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You probably haven't lived in Indonesia, have you?

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Re:He deserves it by Joce640k · 2012-01-22 07:04 · Score: 5, Informative

While you probably won't get jailed for saying such...
...you can still get the Christian mob to lynch you, eg. Jessica Ahlquist

--
No sig today...
Re:He deserves it by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-22 07:05 · Score: 4, Funny

This is what you get for living in a primitive third-world country.
It happened in Indonesia, not the United States.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:He deserves it by Thing+1 · 2012-01-22 07:08 · Score: 2

"Fuck!"

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:He deserves it by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-22 07:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, not quite true. Many state constitutions do specifically require that only Christians can hold public office (And some define Christian in such a way as to exclude denominations unpopular at the time of writing), but there was a supreme court case years ago which ruled that these aspects of the constitutions are incompatible with the first amendment to the US constitution - and the US constitution overrules state constitutions.
Re:He deserves it by Chrisq · 2012-01-22 07:25 · Score: 2

While you probably won't get jailed for saying such...
...you can still get the Christian mob to lynch you, eg. Jessica Ahlquist
The thing is the Muslim lynch squad is literally a lynch squad and they are obeying their law.
Re:He deserves it by MrHanky · 2012-01-22 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure, with the minor difference that your imaginary atheist lynch mob does not in fact exist.
Re:He deserves it by frn123 · 2012-01-22 07:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Whether or not you see gay marriage a positive thing -
there are lots of fine atheist countries whose population is
against gay marriage.
For US citizen it might look like gay marriage is religious issue - i assure you that it is not the case.
Re:He deserves it by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-22 07:43 · Score: 2

And the atheist mob will do it to you if you're religious at all?
[citation needed]

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:He deserves it by OakDragon · 2012-01-22 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny

This is true for most of USA too. While you probably won't get jailed for saying such, there are just as ridiculous laws and customs based on Christianity...
Agreed. The US has many outdated laws based on the Old Testament. For example, did you know that murder is actually illegal in many states (particularly in the Bible Belt). And theft has many restrictions placed on it. Please, keep your tired old religions out of our law books!

--
Dark Reflection
Re:He deserves it by Chrisq · 2012-01-22 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative

If they were obeying their law, why didn't the police let them lynch the guy? Or was the lynching actually illegal, and your statement had no basis in reality?
It is legal in Sharia law, which is only half imposed in Indonesia so far. It is in Iran though.
Re:He deserves it by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-22 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

When did Richard Dawkins start beating people up? Did you ever hear of Dawkins throwing Molotov cocktails into someone's home? How about threatening to kill someone? No? None of that?

You can be critical of others without getting violent. Dawkins is critical of religion, sure, but publishing a book is not even close to beating someone up over a comment on Facebook.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:He deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

"You never hear in the news, "200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the north"." - Doug Stanhope
One side is indeed, worse.
Re:He deserves it by Cruciform · 2012-01-22 08:19 · Score: 5, Informative

When Ahlquist won Facebook and Twitter filled up with direct threats against her life and physical well being.
When the Cranston Florists started a Facebook page to take a stand against the "atheist hate" directed at them for refusing to make deliveries to her, the content of the threads I looked at contained no threats of any kind. Lots of criticism, but not even that many insults.
It's night and day in behavior.
Sure, there are assholes on both sides. But the Christians appear to have the lion's share this time.
Re:He deserves it by Opportunist · 2012-01-22 08:21 · Score: 2

Hell, for that salary I swear on whatever you want me to.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:He deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

it was called the Cultural Revolution.
Re:He deserves it by hedwards · 2012-01-22 08:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do you have any actual evidence of that? Lynch mobs in the US peaked in the '20s or there abouts, they were almost completely "Christian" and they would lynch people for being black or Jewish.
Now the rates of such lynchings have gone down significantly since then and rates of atheism have gone up since then. We can't conclude anything at all from that, but it's kind of an interesting to keep in mind. Christians in the US do not have a monopoly on morality.
Re:He deserves it by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-22 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Most of the laws of the old testament, including the ones you give as examples, pre-exist their supposed divine revelation in the old testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Re:He deserves it by todrules · 2012-01-22 08:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The KKK also thinks of themselves as a Christian organization, and they've done quite a few lynchings in their time.
Re:He deserves it by todrules · 2012-01-22 09:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

And the Old Testament also tells you that slavery is OK and even goes so far to tell you how to beat your slave. Damn those heathens for outlawing slavery!!! The Bible says it's OK!
Re:He deserves it by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-22 09:12 · Score: 2

It is legal in Sharia law, which is only half imposed in Indonesia so far. It is in Iran though.
And don't forget Egypt in 2013. ;-)

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:He deserves it by IceNinjaNine · 2012-01-22 09:27 · Score: 2

Try Dawkins, your citation can start from there.
You made the assertion, back it up or clam up. Seriously. Intellectual laziness pisses me off.
Re:He deserves it by LordLucless · 2012-01-22 09:29 · Score: 2

Sort of like the OP's lynch mob (i.e. Jessica Alhquist wasn't lynched, people called her names on the internet)

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:He deserves it by IceNinjaNine · 2012-01-22 09:31 · Score: 2

And I am also pro-choice and for gay MARRIAGE. This is also how we do things in the USA, in the south, in Georgia.

And you are one of the reasons I chastise myself every time I'm tempted to paint the entire south with the same brush. Thanks for piping up.

And when dealing with hordes of targets, I recommend Zombie Max from Hornaday in .223.
Re:He deserves it by BlueParrot · 2012-01-22 09:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Hitler was not atheist in the slightest, he made many references to Jesus in his speeches. He also got to power in part thanks to support from right wing social conservatives and Christian fundies. In his speech to justify giving him emergency powers he calledon the neeed to protect germany from socialism and atheism.
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.
Re:He deserves it by BlueParrot · 2012-01-22 09:41 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't actually know of any atheist country except maybe some communist dictatorships.
Most countries with a high number of atheists ( such as Sweden ) are best described as secular. The difference between a secular government and an atheist one, is that the secular one doesn't comment on whether there is a god or not. Secular governments are built on the principle that it is not for the state to promote religious beliefs ( or lack thereof ).
Re:He deserves it by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, and some values are better than others. Notably, those values which result in the murder of people who are guilty only of speaking their mind, are the kind of values that should be treated with deserved contempt.
Re:He deserves it by slasho81 · 2012-01-22 09:54 · Score: 5, Funny

This is what you get for using Facebook.
Five years is a harsh punishment. I hope twitter users get a shorter sentence.
Re:He deserves it by caitsith01 · 2012-01-22 10:49 · Score: 4, Informative

1. In contrast to religious fundamentalists, none of those individuals set out with the primary goal of forcefully imposing atheism on the whole of society (as opposed to a broader socio-political agenda which may have included eliminating religion or reducing its power). The Russian Revolution was about economic subjugation and World War One. The French Revolution was about economic subjugation. Etc. etc. for all of your examples. Just because a particular revolution, war or movement includes as an incident an attempt to limit or destroy the power of organised religion does not make that event inherently "atheist" in nature.
2. You are a liar, or at best twisting the truth to suit your anti-atheist agenda. For instance:
Mussolini - 'Mussolini publicly reconciled with the Pope Pius XI in 1932, but "took care to exclude from the newspapers any photography of himself kneeling or showing deference to the Pope." He wanted to persuade Catholics that "[f]ascism was Catholic and he himself a believer who spent some of each day in prayer..." The Pope began referring to Mussolini as "a man sent by Providence." Despite Mussolini's efforts to appear pious, by order of his party, pronouns referring to him "had to be capitalized like those referring to God..."'
Napoleon - 'As an adult, Napoleon was described as a "deist with involuntary respect and fondness for Catholicism." He never believed in a living God; Napoleon's deity was an absent and distant God, but he pragmatically considered organised religions as key elements of social order, and especially Catholicism, whose, according to him, "splendorous ceremonies and sublime moral better act over the imagination of the people than other religions".'
Hitler - 'After his move to Germany, Hitler did not leave his church. Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic", but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."' His interest in the occult is also widely documented.
As I found all of that in Wikipedia in about 10 seconds, I can only assume that you are deliberately being misleading.

--
Read Pynchon.
Re:He deserves it by Courageous · 2012-01-22 10:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hitler was most emphatically not an atheist. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and was firm enough about it to order his peers to remain members. Mein Kampf, which he penned in his own hands, is replete with religious references. I encourage you to question what you've been told, because it's clear that you are accepting input from others who are plainly not rich in their historical education. Regardless:
When someone cites for me the list of "atheist" tyrants and the bad things they did, what I conclude is that when governments of any enforce religious creeds on the many, the result is always an epic fucking disaster. I hope this is your view as well.
C//
Re:He deserves it by Arterion · 2012-01-22 12:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Atheism is not a religion, not even when you use "quotes". Atheism is relying empirical evidence rather than superstition. Atheism asks "why?" and doesn't accept "because god says" as an answer. It's hard to accept "we don't fully know yet", but it's a much better answer than "god". Once you write down "god" as an answer for something, you stop looking at the problem, or worse, it becomes taboo to look at the problem. That's a very bad place to be, because, god or not, I don't see anyone solving any human problems except for other humans.

--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Re:He deserves it by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 14:54 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
It should also be noted that Russian communists were so violently anti-religious to a great extent because Russian Orthodox Church was, quite literally (ever since Peter the Great), a department of the state. It actively worked both as official propaganda device of the monarchy - with "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" the official ideology of the Empire until its end - and also as part of its civil administration, dealing with marriages, schools etc. At the final years of Empire, many prominent members of the Church were also the ones promoting extremist views on the right side of the spectrum - extreme nationalism, absolute monarchy, pogroms against Jews etc. So most revolutionaries, who were already wary of religion from their doctrine, had plenty specific reasons to hate ROC in particular as an organization and as part of the oppressive state that they fought. And from there by extension they came to hate all organized religion. Then, when purges came, they swept in not only the top Church hierarchy, but also priests and even mere believers just as well.
Re:He deserves it by Sabriel · 2012-01-22 20:28 · Score: 2

Your mileage may vary, but I don't hold that being an atheist and being a member of a church (Catholic or otherwise) are mutually exclusive. A lot of people who've claimed to be members of a church (or even held official positions) certainly don't act as though they actually believed in a God whose Top 10 Commands include not to covet, commit adultery, steal, kill, etc.

This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's one thing persecuting people for their religion but persecuting atheists is going too far.

Re:This is terrible by Egg+Sniper · 2012-01-22 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's one thing persecuting people for their religion but persecuting atheists is going too far.
A small minority of 'different' people in your community often makes people uncomfortable when part of the culture is professing just how right and good it is to agree and identify with the majority. When that minority attempts to become vocal they are by definition wrong and therefore it is justifiable to punish them. If all you have to prove that you're living your life correctly is the assertion by yourself and those around you that it is so any argument against what you believe is dangerous. Certainly authority figures (from politicians to parents) won't allow dissenting opinions to spread, like some horrible disease.
People aren't persecuted for their religion. They are persecuted because their religion (or ethnicity or social status or etc.) is different from the majority of those around them. Group-think and ignorance will attack what it doesn't understand or can't control in whatever form it takes.
One could argue that, historically, atheism is the most persecuted belief system still in practice. It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
Re:This is terrible by walshy007 · 2012-01-22 07:41 · Score: 5, Informative

It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
I'd say australia is doing fairly well with the atheist business, the census five years ago indicated that approx 30% of australians don't believe in god. And of those that are religious australia has among the lowest church attendance rates in the world, even the believers rate it fairly low on their priorities placing family, work, leisure time and even politics ahead of it.
Re:This is terrible by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-01-22 08:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

100 years? I give it less than 10. Not for sharia law to be implemented, but for someone to get prosecuted for publicly claiming there is no god. Already, many EU countries have laws against insulting religion, and with tensions between various religious groups in Europe on the rise, that law is being applied more strict than before, and the European Court isn't making things any better with their guidelines on this matter. Already, advertising companies refusing ads like the "there's probably no god" campaign draws very little comment except statements like "that's understandable", while the same companies do show ads like "god is great" or "jesus loves". This same kind of thinking is argued in court cases: promoting your god is merely the exercise of freedom of religion, whereas stating that there is no god amounts to an insult to religion. As I said, I give it less than 10 years before this makes it into law, or at least into a EU court directive or guideline, or a ruling from the (batshit insane) EU Human Rights Committee.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by vlm · 2012-01-22 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Indonesia ... recognises the right to practice six religions ... Buddhism ... Atheism is, however, illegal.

Isn't this kind of contradictory?

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

When was the last time that religious followers needed a self-consistent, non-contradictory, logical message?
Besides, Buddhism does teach bizarre things about rebirth and such, and as an atheist I don't understand how that makes any sense at all.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by ilsaloving · 2012-01-22 06:51 · Score: 2

I fail to follow the leap in logic you made. Gov't is nothing more than 'garbage in, garbage out'. It's the people that made the laws, and it's the religion that people believe in that is dictating what laws are created.
I see this as just more evidence that institutionalized religion is the evil here.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by FreeCoder · 2012-01-22 06:56 · Score: 2

However, in general Buddhism (especially Theravada Buddhism) is much saner "religion" compared to Christianity and others. It is quite close to Atheism, and for example doesn't believe in gods. It's more like good guide for life, and promotes the idea of own mind. It also believes that Buddha only created the religion and he was a normal, living guy.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by SlippyToad · 2012-01-22 06:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am not sure how religious bigotry proves your thesis that government is inherently illegal.
Howeer, as I often say to people who hate government (usually for no coherent reason), you are welcome to try the alternative. It's called feudalism, and it will develop wherever nobody is in charge.
Ignoring this is retarded, and it is what stupid fucking people without a real education do.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-01-22 07:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I dunno... pretty much every tough-minded Christian ever?
You'll be very hard pressed to pose a question which Christian theologians haven't come to grips with over the past 1900 years. You may challenge their premises, but you're very unlikely to identify an internal inconsistency for which no resolution has been proposed.
There are plenty of people who have poor justification for even their accurate beliefs, including for mathematics and physics. It would be a mistake to dismiss sampling theory just because someone on Fox News made a dumb statistical inference. If you really want to know the truth about a religion, you'll need to dig deeper than just knocking down persons who pose poor arguments for it.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 07:00 · Score: 2

However Buddhism is not just a philosophy, like a guide to a healthy life-style, because it has teachings about 'soul' and such, which again, make no sense to me.
Obviously I can accept somebody practising Buddhism because they find it useful for themselves somehow, but I see it as a religion, not just as some form of exercise that's simply good for one's health. I mean souls and karma? :) In real life, not on /. ?

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

What do you mean? Like the messages in the bibles are somehow self-consistent? The old and the new testaments? What are abominations? The entire creation mythology? Noah's arc? Miracles? Bizarre ideas on what is salvation and why it's needed? Is salvation really about Jesus or is it about moral codes? Is it about doing something or just believing in something?
How about the entire idea of confessions and getting forgiveness from church workers for pretty much any transgression, including murder? Mass murder?
Virgin birth. Resurrection. Incarnation. ONE god or three? Believing in things that don't have any actual proof of any kind, believing in things that are shown false by science, justifying continuation of believing even when proven false.
Faith does not require logic and it does not require consistency, it certainly does not require understanding falsifiability or requiring it.
Faith in fact requires complete abandonment of principles by which we make discoveries and by which we change our circumstance, and that's what faith is SUPPOSED to be, because if it was possible to PROVE a god, it wouldn't require faith.
And if god requires faith without any proof, and if somehow proof can be obtained, then isn't the purpose of having faith defeated then? And doesn't it mean in religion that in fact proof can never exist (and in science we know it cannot exist, because goalposts can never be reached, and proving a negative is not exactly what we can do).
Anyway, I am not trying to convince anybody in anything in terms of believing or not believing here, that's not the purpose of the story though it's easy to degenerate this story into that kind of a discussion.
I suggest you don't do that, stay on topic, and the topic is: government is evil and government mixing up with religion is even more evil and individual will be crashed by government that takes away power of choices from individual.
Of-course in all societies there are orthodox believers, and some of them in this story came to beat up this poor shmuck, who actually worked for the government apparently, but didn't understand the law there.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 07:18 · Score: 2

Maybe you should follow the links in the comment (there are further links), but the point is not to abolish government, the point is to set the law above government in a way that it could not be circumvented.
The law above the government is Constitution (in USA at least), and it is completely abandoned. Suggesting that the choices are: what you have in USA and feudalism is stupid. How about: what you have in USA now and what you should have in USA - government that follows the law that is set above it exactly to protect individuals from being crashed by the government that becomes too powerful as it keeps taking away your liberties against the law that the Constitution is?

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by roman_mir · 2012-01-22 07:20 · Score: 2

Actually, the widely accepted (but completely nonsensical) doctrine of "one God in three parts, each of which is equal to the whole"

- I have no idea what that means, but that's part of the bizarre internal inconsistency that the believers just don't see as such.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-22 07:41 · Score: 2

It's the people that made the laws
Ha! Ahahaha! Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!
Get real.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-22 07:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because many religious groups believe in a collective morality - when a person is immoral in the view of their religion, it is nothing less than an attack on all of society. Even if the offender's actions harm no-one but themselves, it is still the duty of the believers to ensure such offensive acts are not committed. Otherwise they will be guilty themselves for not fighting against the evil, and thus giving implicit endorsement.

It's a big part of why American churches are so dedicated to fighting homosexuality. In their view, if two men have sex together then the whole of American society is tainted by the presence of such sinners. This cannot be tolerated. In Indonesia, the same reasoning results in an angry mob believing it is their duty to ensure their society is not tainted in the eyes of their own God by the presence of blasphemers.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by MightyMartian · 2012-01-22 07:47 · Score: 2

The Problem of Evil strikes me as one that has never really been answered. When you boil down even the most sophisticated theological arguments, it either comes out as sophistry or handwaving (ie. that's the way God wants it).

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by kanweg · 2012-01-22 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it is perfectly true for the variable being equal to 0
Bert
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by starfishsystems · 2012-01-22 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

I've been practising Buddhism for forty years and have only rarely encountered any discussion concerning the existence or nature of a "soul". It's not something that Buddhists tend to concern themselves about.

In fact, quite the converse. A fundamental observation of Buddhism is that dualism is illusory. Therefore, questions of whether there is or is not a soul are not meaningful from a Buddhist perspective. The doctrine of anatt> what appears in the Pali canon is very clear on this point.

--
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 10:02 · Score: 2

Maybe you should follow the links in the comment (there are further links), but the point is not to abolish government, the point is to set the law above government in a way that it could not be circumvented.
There's a Constitution in Indonesia as well, and it's also "above the government". Problem is, in countries with Muslim supermajorities, constitutions tend to say things like "Islam is a religion of the state" or "No law shall contravene the provisions of Shariah".
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 10:43 · Score: 2

Of-course if one never took an oath of faith to Islam, then he can't even break it. Are the children of Muslims forced to take this oath early in life and if so, how can a forced oath count for anything?
According to Islamic law, any male child of a Muslim father brought up with his family is automatically considered a Muslim, no oath of faith necessary.
The reason why it's not considered necessary also has an explanation. See, as far as they are concerned, Islam is the "natural religion" - i.e. all people would be Muslim by default, if not for the corrupting influence of other false religions. Thus, a person who grew up as Christian is considered acceptable because it's "not their fault", so to speak - they didn't know better. When they convert and say the shadada, affirming that they are now Muslim, they effectively claim that they do rationally understand and acknowledge the truth of Islam, reverting to their "natural" state; thus, from that point on, they cannot go back, since - as they "know" Islam is good - knowingly turning back on it is inherently evil.
With kids brought up in Muslim families, however, they don't get the "didn't know better" excuse. Since they were raised Muslim, they are already in the "natural" state of mind, and already "know the truth". Apostasy for them, then, is also knowingly choosing evil over good.
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by CRCulver · 2012-01-22 11:58 · Score: 2

It also believes that Buddha only created the religion and he was a normal, living guy.

Even the Theravada canon holds that a Buddha cannot be killed by fire, poison or drowning. That view of Buddha is less fanciful than other schools, but even there Buddha is hardly a "a normal, living guy".
Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer. by phantomfive · 2012-01-22 16:19 · Score: 2

I've got one for that:

You aren't on this earth to be happy. You are here to learn, specifically, to learn to be happy even when you have every reason to be miserable. From a celestial perspective, suffering and pain is a small, temporary price to pay for great knowledge.

The current world is a good one to learn to be happy when your circumstances are miserable, you have to admit that.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

His defense strategy should be ... by tomhudson · 2012-01-22 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny

"The devil made me do it!"

Yet another 3rd world reaction by G3ckoG33k · 2012-01-22 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yet another 3rd world reaction to the eternal pornographic issue - my deity is larger than yours.

Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by RyanFenton · 2012-01-22 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yet another 3rd world reaction to the eternal pornographic issue - my deity is larger than yours.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Carl Sagan quotes:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Even the religions with science in the name ("Christian Science" and "Scientology") are profoundly against freedom of inquiry, except where it is used to glorify their mythology. This story kind of backs up the whole "our god is a little god, we must coddle it" approach.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by Penguinisto · 2012-01-22 07:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry, but Sagan turned out to be, well, wrong:
Pope John Paul II - "Faith can never conflict with reason"
an interview with the gent who runs the Vatican Observatory
Why Catholics Like Einstein
A small peek into the whole controversy
a bit of insight
Everyone points at Galileo (quite a few centuries back) and screams, but turns a blind eye towards everything else that's been going on ever since.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by Xtifr · 2012-01-22 07:49 · Score: 2

One exception (and yes, it's nicely ironic that the Catholics have become just about the only form of Christianity that isn't anti-science) doesn't contradict what Sagan said: "Hardly any major religion..."
(The Anglicans show some signs of sense as well, but as far as I know, they haven't officially accepted evolution, like the Catholics have.)
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by artor3 · 2012-01-22 07:50 · Score: 2

Yep, those people from hundreds of years ago sure were dicks. I hear they had slaves back then too. I guess all of America is bad FOREVER because of the sins of their great great grandfathers. And the Europeans, sheesh, after what their ancestors did during the imperialist era, I guess we can't trust them either.
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by Kittenman · 2012-01-22 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hmmm - I followed those links (thanks for providing - good ground work!) and have to comment that a good science textbook is a good science textbook, regardless of whether it was written by a catholic, a jesuit, an atheist or whatever the heck. At least one of the links point to good science textbooks (reportedly) written by catholics. If true, that's great. The world needs more good science textbooks. But the links imply that catholics embrace science because they have written these textbooks. I'd argue that's coincidence. Maybe they also all had dark hair and were right-handed.
Being a catholic doesn't preclude you from writing a good science textbook. It doesn't help, though.
And the people who wrote these textbooks have my admiration, as much as anyone who spreads knowledge and popularizes science.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-22 09:11 · Score: 2

Science: About 10% of the human population, and higher or lower percentages of most other species' populations, are homosexual. There are also identifiable physical brain differences between hetero- and homosexual animals, as well as patterns that strongly suggest sexual orientation is influenced by factors before birth. Thus, homosexuality is natural, and not a choice.
Pope John Paul II: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
The Catholic church has had to make some interesting about faces in the last few hundred years, but they still seem to fall pretty securely in the GPs category of religions that embrace only the scientific discoveries that they find convenient.
Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction by Penguinisto · 2012-01-22 11:28 · Score: 2

The argument against condoms wasn't against using the devices as a means to safe sex. The argument was that you as a moral human being should have (or in the case of kids, instill) enough self-control to stop treating sex like it were a round of golf or a session of Modern Warfare 3, and instead treat it with the respect and dignity that intimate contact between two people should be in the first place.
Now certainly you might disagree, but misrepresenting the motivation by spewing the strawman you had? That isn't helping your argument any.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

The future is already here by vlm · 2012-01-22 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:The future is already here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

"If God existed, he would teach you compassion." Seriously, play to win.
Re:The future is already here by houghi · 2012-01-22 07:59 · Score: 2

Whenever religion enters, rationality exits
Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship
a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Todays witchhunts... by MindPrison · 2012-01-22 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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.

Hitchen vindicated. by Galactic+Dominator · 2012-01-22 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny

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 /brain

Only goes to prove that god isn't real by Nyder · 2012-01-22 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

when the religious people kill you because you say it.

--
Be seeing you...

Re:Only goes to prove that god isn't real by Opportunist · 2012-01-22 08:45 · Score: 2

I don't mind a god, but his ground personnel is really atrocious.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

This for Telling the Truth by fsharp · 2012-01-22 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:This for Telling the Truth by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-22 07:51 · Score: 2

Perhaps way way way way way waaaaaay back in the day, it was created to explain something. Over the millennia it has been warped into a moral and ethical control system, by which the leaders of some cult-like secret societies can dictate what is right and wrong to the world.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits

... are reversed into tomorrows witch hunts by Corbets · 2012-01-22 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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.

Re:... Not really...but... by MindPrison · 2012-01-22 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:The real problem here by MightyMartian · 2012-01-22 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

I could have spoken to God. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-01-22 07:01 · Score: 2

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

Religious Freedom by MarkvW · 2012-01-22 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative

For many people, religious freedom means the freedom to try to force your religion upon another person.

Re:Religious Freedom by lightknight · 2012-01-22 07:54 · Score: 2

Nonsense. "Religious freedom," in today's parlance, doesn't mean freedom to try and force your religion upon another person; it means freedom from other religions which are persecuting your religion, so you can be free to persecute other's religions. It's the theological equivalent to a "cease fire," during which you rapidly reload and pick some new allies / various weaker enemies to annihilate during the down time. It is, from my standpoint, breathtakingly boring, but since every side "believes" it can win, but only if they take the initiative to ambush / bonk the other side while they're not looking, it never ends.
Why yes guys, that's what we need -> more charisma, more strained arguments, more violence, more threats, more indirect answers, more lying on behalf of our god(s). That'll win them over.
Some days I almost, for several moments, consider that kind of future; with a good head start, we could play a game of who is the bigger monster; I don't know if I'd win, but again, with some resources and planning, I'm sure I can break the top one hundred. But war is rough on the china, and it's rarely very profitable, and certainly not sustainable (you'll run out of enemies to conquer sooner or later, and adjustment to peace-time operations can be rough on the average soldier's wage), so I'd have to give it a miss, out of habit.

--
I am John Hurt.

OMG! REALLY! by denzacar · 2012-01-22 07:07 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:abortion is legitimate question by samkass · 2012-01-22 07:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Just pick a religion from their list . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-01-22 07:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:note to self by Archon-X · 2012-01-22 07:15 · Score: 2

Yeah, and you'd miss out on a stunning country and amazing people.

Actually - stay at home. The less jaded people fucking it up for other people, the better.

Re:... Not really...but... by twotailakitsune · 2012-01-22 07:16 · Score: 2

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.

Re:God does not exist by realityimpaired · 2012-01-22 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Assuming "he" exists, he probably has better things to do with his time than worry about some carbon-based life form on one of billions of planets in one of billions of solar systems that makes up "creation"....

Personally, I like the pagan version of it... yes, gods exist, no they're not omnipotent, they're certainly not perfect, and Yahweh is a self-absorbed twat with delusions of adequacy. The best analogy I ever heard was that he's like the cheerleaders in high school... petty, vindictive, cliquish, and vain.

If God existed, he could fight his own battles. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

I will never comprehend the "if you don't believe, I'll beat the shit out of you" mentality.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by walshy007 · 2012-01-22 07:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-22 07:22 · Score: 2

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.

God, what is it good for? by JavaBear · 2012-01-22 07:27 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:note to self by MightyMartian · 2012-01-22 07:30 · Score: 2

An amazing people who are stark raving terrified of a guy saying he doesn't believe in God.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

not sure if god exists or not by FudRucker · 2012-01-22 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny

but he sure has a shitty fan club

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing

Atheism isn't a belief system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 07:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-22 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Atheism isn't a belief system, but the rejection or lack of one.
Exactly, just as an empty set is not actually a set...oh, wait...

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-22 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Same with creationists and evolutionists. If you tell a creationist that evolution is not a religion he will get really angry because it made evolution harder to attack.
But evolution is not a religious conviction (in the way that atheism is), it is a postulated observable natural process with potential to being proven or disproven by evidence (as far as the scientific method can be said to generate proofs). If creationists can't grasp it, they clearly belong to a group of people incapable a rational discussion in the first place, and any effort is best spent elsewhere, isn't it?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-22 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

How does a belief that there is no God not count as a belief system?
Well, first of all, atheism is not "a belief that there is no God," it is a lack of belief in any gods at all (for some reason, Christians insist that there is only one deity anyone could believe in). Someone who had never heard of any deities in their entire life would be an atheist: people must be taught to follow religions or believe in gods.

That being said, atheism is not a system at all. I am an atheist, but I still practice my religion -- I simply do not believe that deities exist, because there is no evidence to support that notion. Yet I still keep traditions, moral beliefs, and philosophies that emerged from my religion -- that is the "system." I am not alone in this -- it is more common in my religion than people would like to admit, and I suspect that it happens in other religions as well.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by Phernost · 2012-01-22 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly, just how Atheists and Catholics share the same belief system.
Atheists and Catholics both believe unicorns don't exist.
Agnostics don't know if unicorns exist.
Therefore everyone is crazy, because obviously unicorns exist.
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by chichilalescu · 2012-01-22 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

please take into account that set theory is not selfconsistent.
furthermore, atheism is not a belief system in the same way as when the amish say "I don't have a TV set in my house". whoever modded you insightful is kind of stupid.

--
new sig
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by Kittenman · 2012-01-22 09:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

How does a belief that there is no God not count as a belief system?
Well, first of all, atheism is not "a belief that there is no God," it is a lack of belief in any gods at all (for some reason, Christians insist that there is only one deity anyone could believe in).
Quote: Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Unquote.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by fatalGlory · 2012-01-22 09:21 · Score: 2

Ummm... hence the reason for my qualifier "at least a component of [a belief system]". Obviously there can be different broad worldviews that have atheism as a common element. For instance, as far as I understand his arguments, Sam Harris seems to hold that morality is objective. Michael Ruse, on the other hand, seems to hold that morality is a darwinian adaptation, subject to evolutionary change and therefore subjective. On the basis of that rather large distinguishing factor, it may be worth classifying these as different belief systems/worldviews/philosophies. But they are both atheistic. They both hold that the non-existence of god(s) is propositionally true. What's more, in common discussion, we would generally not have a problem with the phrase "Harris and Ruse are both atheists", as though we were oversimplifying the issue using the term "atheist" as a broad categorisation of multiple worldviews with common elements.

Claiming that atheism is not a metaphysical belief is very much like claiming "pro-life" is not a belief about abortion, but rather the absence of belief that abortion is acceptable. Such claims involve assuming the a priori correctness of the position in question, so as to frame the opposing position as a perversion of natural or self-evident logic. It's circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion in the premise.

To put it another way, when an otherwise articulate person defends their position by saying it is "just obvious", it is probably because they lack any legitimate arguments to defend it.

--
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by garethjrowlands · 2012-01-22 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's test that reasoning. Let's call "the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist" proposition M.
* Pretty much everyone: the value of M is "true"
* Pasta agnostics: the value of M is "unknown"
It's easier to understand if you remove the negative from the proposition, so let's try again. Call "there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster" proposition M'.
* Pretty much everyone: the value of M' is "false"
* Pasta agnostics: the value of M' is "unknown"
Thing is, propositions without evidence are typically false by default. Also, thinking something's overwhelmingly likely is not the same as logical proof and not the same as faith.
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

* Atheism: the value of P is "true"
* Agnosticism: the value of P is "unknown"
Thus "atheism" is by definition a metaphysical belief system (or at least a component of one), because it affirms at least one particular propositional statement about metaphysics.

If you're trying to use formal logic, you'd do well to first learn the difference between "I believe there is no god", and "I don't believe there is a god". As it is, your analysis is incorrect because your initial premise is wrong.
By the way, agnosticism, in the proper sense of the word, actually makes a strong claim - that whether god exists or not - is fundamentally unknown and cannot ever be determined. In other words, it is a belief system, unlike e.g. weak atheism. Unfortunately, because many people don't quite understand what this actually means, it evolved into a misguided synonym for weak atheism.
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by walshy007 · 2012-01-22 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

But evolution is not a religious conviction (in the way that atheism is)
How is atheism a religious conviction, when the overwhelming majority of atheists are quite simply saying 'I will not believe in unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo, there is no reason nor could there ever be to prefer "god exists" as a conjecture, so I will treat it like other unfalsifiable claims such as the tooth fairy'?
The only difference between atheism and agnosticism is how agressively they push 'unfalsifiable items are bullshit', in reality the two points are the same but one is more politically accepted even though both positions refuse to accept something without evidence (which can never be supplied, because for there to be evidence something has to be falsifiable)
Re:Atheism isn't a belief system by WCLPeter · 2012-01-22 10:45 · Score: 2

This is something I often have trouble with. How does a belief that there is no God not count as a belief system?
Because belief in something should require evidence.
Just like there is no credible evidence for Zeus, Ra, Horus, Thor, Loki, Odin, Hercules, Xena the Warrior Princess, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Jack Frost, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, the Giant Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in my basement, or any other number of ideas put forth to explain the universe, there is really no credible evidence for God; pointing at an ancient poorly translated text filled with contradictions, xenophobia, racism, and rampant misogyny, and from which people cherry pick their moral values from on a whim, does not count as evidence. No one says "Not believing in Zeus is a belief!" because we all know, and understand, that Zeus is just a story made up by people from a primitive time in an effort to explain the scary world they lived in. For people who didn't know about static electricity, electrons, and conduction, and who had no way of learning those things, lightning would be this scary thing that couldn't be explained and so saying that "Zeus did it!" was just fine.
Eventually though people figured out where lightning comes from and, even if we don't know with 100% certainty how its generated, we now recognize it as a natural phenomenon and not Zeus making battle with his enemies.
Sure, I'll admit, we don't know the answers to everything. Some things, like the origin of the universe, are only guesses. And while there is evidence pointing to potential answers for many of our unanswered questions, it also unlikely they'll be fully answered in our lifetime or the lifetimes of our children, or even our children's children, or perhaps never at all. But we do know enough about how the world works now, and we learn more every day, that the idea of God doing it just doesn't make sense and so his story can be treated the same as the primitive stories of Zeus, Ra, Horus, Thor, Loki, Odin, Hercules, Xena the Warrior Princess, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Jack Frost, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the Giant Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in my basement. I don't believe in any of them just as much as I don't believe in God. To me, they're all stories from a primitive people in a simpler time making their best effort to explain a universe they couldn't understand.
Unlike Religion, no belief system is required when one looks at the available evidence and makes the rational choice to recognize a fairy tale, as a fairy tale.

The difference between us and them by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-22 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:abortion is legitimate question by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2012-01-22 07:56 · Score: 2

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?

Re:abortion is legitimate question by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2012-01-22 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Re:abortion is legitimate question by ChrisMaple · 2012-01-22 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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

Re:abortion is legitimate question by Twanfox · 2012-01-22 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

He is wrong! by PPH · 2012-01-22 08:19 · Score: 4, Funny

This man has not yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage. Once he has, he will know The Truth.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by ChrisMaple · 2012-01-22 08:22 · Score: 2

You contradict yourself.

any rules we make up are ultimately because they make us feel good
we benefit from those rules

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

Re:abortion is legitimate question by walshy007 · 2012-01-22 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Re:abortion is legitimate question by ChrisMaple · 2012-01-22 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system

"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

Re:abortion is legitimate question by Opportunist · 2012-01-22 08:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by Twanfox · 2012-01-22 08:40 · Score: 2

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.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by todrules · 2012-01-22 08:42 · Score: 2

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.

Article 6 by KingAlanI · 2012-01-22 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Article 6 by tysonedwards · 2012-01-22 10:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

However, religious tests are required for the popularity contest that is reaching a public office.

--
Thirty four characters live here.

How to take down a religion by Animats · 2012-01-22 08:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Culture by AtomicAdam · 2012-01-22 09:05 · Score: 2

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.

Religion is not compatible with logic or evidence by walterbyrd · 2012-01-22 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Religious types don't do reason. Something is true because somebody says it is.

It is already happening in the USA by walterbyrd · 2012-01-22 09:18 · Score: 2

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/

He should have said "God" Exists! by presidenteloco · 2012-01-22 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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?

Upset zealots ... by Alain+Williams · 2012-01-22 09:35 · Score: 2

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 .....

Re:... Not really...but... by walterbyrd · 2012-01-22 09:44 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Maximum? by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-22 10:05 · Score: 2

"And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries."

Let's not be disingenuous. My country (Canada) for example, has anti-hate speech laws that make it illegal to advocate genocide or incite hatred against an identifiable group. Saying "there is/isn't a God" is perfectly acceptable. Saying "all members of $IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP deserve to die" is not.

Hate speech laws in the US and UK are broadly similar. Much of Europe is also similar, except that you can get in trouble for saying the holocaust didn't happen (but then the holocaust isn't really a matter of belief).

Re:note to self by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-22 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, and you'd miss out on a stunning country and amazing people.

I don't know about GP, but as an atheist, it would seem to me that said stunning country and its amazing people have actually made it illegal for me to enter. Or, at least, to truthfully answer any question about my religion if I do.

Re:God does not exist by MartinSchou · 2012-01-22 10:55 · Score: 2, Funny

And he knocked up some random chick and pissed off as soon as he found out.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by makomk · 2012-01-22 10:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by narcc · 2012-01-22 11:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:God does not exist by xOneca · 2012-01-22 11:16 · Score: 2

Bender once became a God also, but things were a little wrong... It's not easy to be God!

Re:abortion is legitimate question by ShadowRangerRIT · 2012-01-22 13:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Republican party platform: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

--
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print

Re:abortion is legitimate question by gmhowell · 2012-01-22 13:31 · Score: 2

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

Re:The real problem here by MightyMartian · 2012-01-22 13:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

You could check out the Umayyads that ran Spain. During their time in power, Spain was the most advanced state in Western Europe; and Jews were shown far more tolerance than in almost anywhere in Christendom. As well, check out medieval Baghdad, which was one of the great centers of learning and scholarship in the Medieval world, up until the Mongols burned it to the ground, with the loss of thousands of Classical and High Muslim volumes.

Modern Islamism, by and large, is a response to the failure of the Ottoman Empire and the fallout from that (which, one way or the other, the Middle East is still going through). The first seriously effective hard core conservative Islamist sect was the Wahabis, who were striking out against what was viewed in the Arabian peninsula as the decadent ways of the Ottoman Empire.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Beaten in the name of God by okmijnuhb · 2012-01-22 14:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Affirms my position that there is no God, and that followers of a myth are dangerous.

clerical terrorism by epine · 2012-01-22 17:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:abortion is legitimate question by antifoidulus · 2012-01-22 18:38 · Score: 2

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

Truth by xenobyte · 2012-01-22 20:19 · Score: 2

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) --

Atheism does not drive murder, etc. by fyngyrz · 2012-01-23 00:29 · Score: 2

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Indonesian Man Faces Five Years For Atheist Facebook Post

144 of 907 comments (clear)