Atheist Threat
Oct 10th, 2008, in News, by Patung
Young atheists on the internet, and eradicating atheism and communism in Indonesia.
Governor of North Sumatra, Syamsul Arifin, said on 8th October at an occasion marking Pancasila Day that all elements of the nation must continually fight against and eradicate atheist beliefs among the people.
Atheism, which seeks to erase Pancasila and which once threatened the nation in the guise of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), and still does, has to be guarded against, particularly because it still finds support among sections of the poor.
Syamsul said children should be taught from primary school through to university to hate atheism, so that the creed could as far as possible be obliterated.
A 4th ‘T’ – Rakyat tidak ateis.
The butchery of the atheist-PKI backed murderers of the September 30 Movement of 1965 (G30S PKI) could not be allowed to happen again, he said, hence the need to struggle against atheism. beritasore
Young Internet Atheists
On the internet at least some Indonesians seem happy to declare themselves as unbelievers.
Running an “affiliation” search on the social network site Friendster.com for “atheist” brings up about 144 matches friendster.com, while “ateis” produces 185 odd results friendster.com, although more than a few seem to be claiming to be atheist as some kind of joke.
On the same site, created on January 23rd, 2007 is the “Atheist Indonesia” group friendster.com, with 76 members and a fairly active message board, and some of its members seem to be active in an Indonesian language Atheist Wikipedia. ateisindonesia.wikidot.com
1,311 Comments on “Atheist Threat”
-
Stupid Bule says:
Here some food for thought…
Philosophical Neuron
1. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary is a contradiction.
2. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non existent.
3. Deductive arguments for the existence of God attempt to demonstrate the existence of God.
4. There is no contradiction in denying that God exists. This follows from 2.
5. Therefore, deductive arguments for the existence of God fail as demonstrations because if they were sound, they would necessarily follow and could not be denied without contradiction.
6. God’s existence is not necessary, this follows from 2, we can conceive God as not existing and 5, deductive arguments for the existence of God can be denied without contradiction.
7. Ontological arguments argue that if God exists, then God necessarily exists.
8. If God doesn’t necessarily exist, then God doesn’t exist. Contra positive of 7.9. God doesn’t exist. This follows from 6 and 8.
The first premise seems reasonable. A contradiction is when we have the same statement true and not true at the same time. I.e. I exist but I don’t exist is a contradiction. If any attempted demonstration leads to the conclusion that I exist and at the same time that I don’t exist, it fails.
The second premise states the obvious fact that we can conceive of unicorns existing and we can conceive of them not existing. The same goes for dinosaurs, people and even God. In fact, even when I conceive of God existing it has no bearing on the matter, no more than my conceiving that there is no God. Existence is not a predicate as Kant said. Just conceiving something necessarily existing is no more existence than conceiving it not existing.
The third premise states what deductive arguments set out to do. Demonstrate or deduce the existence of God using formal logic.
The fourth proposition follows from the second premises. We can conceive of God existing and of God not existing with equal ease.
The fifth proposition follows from the premises 1, 3 and 4. That is there is no contradiction in denying the existence of God, which means that demonstrations (deductive arguments) that try to prove the existence of God are false.
The sixth proposition states that if God’s existence were necessary, we could not conceive of God’s non existence. Also, if God’s existence were necessary, then the conclusion any valid demonstration of God’s existence would lead to a contradiction.
The seventh statement just describes what ontological arguments attempt to do. They attempt to show that God has some property of necessary existence, and therefore if God exists, God must necessarily exist.
The eighth statement is the contra positive of the seventh. If God doesn’t necessarily exist, then God doesn’t exist at all.
The ninth statement follows from the sixth and eighth statements. If the premises are acceptable, the argument valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
Sounds reasonable to me …
-
To anyone who claims to be an “atheist”, here’s an acid test for you, no need lengthy philosophical “reasonings”:
When you’re in dipshit (or imagine you’re in such situation), do you cry, and say: “please plis plis… plis… hiks hiks… bua…. hiks… help me…. hiks”?
If the answer is “yes”: please stop being such a “rebel”, just accept that fact you need god. I don’t think being an atheist is such a cool thing (anymore).
Anyway, I don’t believe in religions.
-
Janma says:
So what even if you do ask for help from above when you’re in trouble…. that could just be cultural and spiritual conditioning… and since there is never an answer i would say that it’s proof that you’re on your own….
It’s not about rebellion…. it’s about making up your own mind…
flawed argument… -
@ Diego
Your own conditioning and your consumption of culture has blinded you. You should read ‘The Ethics of Belief’ by William K Clifford. The first instalment of this his essay, ‘The Duty of Enquiry’, Clifford sums up by stating: “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”
I fall into the category of an ‘Atheist’ not because I think it’s “cool” or “rebellious”, but because of the duty of inquiry I have towards a beliefs. (including my own)
Your comment, “just accept that fact you need god”, can you supply these facts for me? I’m unaware of any “fact” that asserts the “necessity” of a God, allegedly real or imagined.
The disease of ‘believing without sufficient evidence’ is an epidemic on planet Earth. The sooner we humans cure ourselves from this flawed ethos, the better we and the good planet Earth will be.
-
P.S.
The first inquiry should be made into the following claim;“Faith is a virtue, and doubt is a Sin”….who would of thunk it????
-
DumadiSatrio says:
You could be a shintoist
They only call on the gods in times of need
-
I think a big reason people lable themselves as atheist is because of disillusionment with religion.
There was a time when I became very agnostic, for that very reason.Without getting into details about it, I found myself in a place were I no longer believed in the reveled religions. In my heart I felt the holy books had holes, the rituals felt empty, and the god felt created.
I went to the masjid and did not feel comfortable, I went to the church and felt alone, I went to the temple and felt ‘meh.So I went to the waterfall, and felt good.
Many people are different, and I can only claim to speak for myself, but
I’m a simple man with a simple spirit, and in the simple concept of mamayu hayuning bawono I find my peace, and I dont worry too much about the rest -
Oigal says:
o you cry, and say: “please plis plis… plis… hiks hiks… bua…. hiks… help me…. hiks”?
Just like those poor children in Dafur or in floods in Indonesia..or like the wounded soldier who calls to his dead mother and provide comfort, she is long dead but still he calls, does that make her real or just a figment of comfort in his imagination? Ah if wishes were fishes..but hardly a logical argument for existence unless you except the premise of a swarm of long dead mothers wandering the earths places of torment in answer to their childrens calls for comfort.
Actually the unheeded prayers of children sprays reasonable and logic doubt on the merciful (?) under-achiever better than any human could.
-
ET says:
@ Stupid Bule
The disease of ‘believing without sufficient evidence’ is an epidemic on planet Earth. The sooner we humans cure ourselves from this flawed ethos, the better we and the good planet Earth will be.
It’s all a matter of degree and probability. One may believe 100% or 0% and everything in between. Between blind faith and absolute denial there is an entire scale of agnostic possibilities.
Advanced quantum physics have proven that at the very basic level there are no certainties but only probabilities (cfr. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and that the object of observation itself is directly influenced by the mere act of observing. Nevertheless it still seems very difficult for the human mind to accept uncertainty and integration as fundamental bases of knowledge instead of evidence at first sight derived from detached analysis. To do so requires a sceptic attitude and the ability to think outside the box.
My point is: never trust prophets but also don’t jump into conclusions based on the seemingly scientific obvious. There still remains a lot to find out and epistemology is also an evolving science. The brain and psyche are for a large part unchartered territory.A monk who wanted to be instructed came to Zen-master Bodhidharma and said: “My mind knows no rest. Can you put my mind to rest?”
“Bring your mind to me” answered Bodhidharma, “and I will put it to rest”.
“But if I go looking for my own mind”, said the monk, “I can’t find it”.
“Didn’t I tell you”, exclaimed Bodhidharma, “I put your mind to rest”.@DumadiSatrio
So I went to the waterfall, and felt good.
I know that feeling.
-
It’s all a matter of degree and probability. One may believe 100% or 0% and everything in between. Between blind faith and absolute denial there is an entire scale of agnostic possibilities. Advanced quantum physics have proven that at the very basic level there are no certainties but only probabilities (cfr. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and that the object of observation itself is directly influenced by the mere act of observing.
I’m also a fan of the Uncertainty Principle; it keeps us in the dark, so to speak. Not knowing is much more enlightening, don’t you think? As for percentages of belief, I’d rather not comment, as it opens up another philosophical debate, Nietzsche’s domain I believe.
Following the scientific principle has given mankind ‘fruits’, unfortunately Mankind’s adolescence has not. Our beliefs as W.K. Clifford states, “And no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone, our lives our guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age”.
My point is: never trust prophets but also don’t jump into conclusions based on the seemingly scientific obvious. There still remains a lot to find out and epistemology is also an evolving science. The brain and psyche are for a large part unchartered territory.
I agree whole heartedly. Science is the pursuit of Truth. And as Truth can be found at the bottom of a bottomless pit, we ‘Truth seekers’ will be in for a long ride indeed…
Jumping to conclusions will always be for fools. I rest my thoughts with the Universe, it hasn’t let us down yet. -
nobody knows….
-
Cukurungan says:
we ‘Truth seekers’ will be in for a long ride indeed…
But for how long I think your time will not any longer than Mr David Carradine found the real truth in Thailand
-
“we ‘Truth seekers’ will be in for a long ride indeed…”
I too, went seeking the truth and traveled to Tibet. There I met a Monk of incredible age and the poor man was selling hamburgers to tourists to make ends meet.
I did the right thing and although not hungry bought a hamburger from the poor old monk and gave him $20..
For a long time, he just looked at me…and when I said “Wheres the change”
He adopted a look of tranquil harmony and said..”Change only comes from within youngman”
-
I don’t believe you went to Tibet, but it’s a nice story…:)
Since we’re telling philosophical anecdotes, here’s one;
Two monks were walking, when they came upon a woman in need of assistance.
The woman asked to be carried across a muddied creek bed.
The eldest of the two monks offered to carry her, and she accepted.
After carrying her across, the monks bid the woman farewell and continued on.
The youngest monk curiously asked the eldest, “why did you do that, you know we’re not supposed to things like that”.
The eldest monk said, “why are you still carrying her, I left her back there” -
@ Cuk
But for how long I think your time will not any longer than Mr David Carradine found the real truth in Thailand
Go back to sleep…
-
Hans says:
Religion divides man, creates civil wars between people of the same race. I say, to those people who elect to be atheist, let them be. Their life, their rights, their choice. Who are we to force them to follow religion that they don’t want to adhere? What is the point of having a religion but not practising it? I hope my fellow Indonesians can be open minded and think not by the way they want it to be, but also see it from others perspectives.
-
Look,
After watching the last scene in the movie “contact” (jodie foster) many years ago, you know where there’s animation of layered worlds, that was kind of cool, ok, so cool the one we worship as good is actually worshipping another god above him, and the chain goes on until… who knows.
Then I stopped there: hey it’s a recursive. I have to put a stop somewhere, otherwise I’d run into stack-overflow.
So, there I decided to believe in god and not questioning about it anymore, and go on with my normal life (thinking about how to make money, how to produce stuffs, etc., etc.)
-
Did I just say “him” when referring to god. Allright, now I’m sexist, in addition to racist, and maybe fascist. Great.
-
kriya.sinudarsana says:
Why religious people hate atheists? Because of morality? If someone is an atheist, does that make him immoral? So what will the religious people do to atheist? Hate them? Alienate them from society? So what is moral then? Does morality encourage alienating and hating people?
“Truth” is everything we need to know to get human race survive this universe. Whatever happen beyond this life, that’s one’s belief, and perhaps we’re nowhere near unveiling it, yet the survival of human race is something within our grasp. And if you need some greater Higher-Being to live this life, that’s your right, just remember some might not need it and we should respect that for sure.
-
Patrick says:
@Kriya and any other liked minded individual. No one who truly believes in God hates you as God is found in you. Therefore to hate you would be to hate God! What is disliked or yes, even hated is the inability of an atheist to recognize the existence of God within himself (herself) and others. That inability causes within an atheist indifference to others that he (she) views as weak or unimportant. For example it causes the atheist to justify abortion as the right of a woman to be in command of her own body and at all times. Abortions were once done only up to 12 weeks are now in some countries being performed immediately before birth. Increasingly, the fetus is being viewed as a non-person unworthy of being called human. Therefore, in the mind of the atheist all action to support the rights of the mother are upheld and at the full expense of the unborn. We also see this in the exploitation of children and most notably the arrest of director Roman Polanski in Switzerland on an outstanding warrant from the USA to a Drugging and Rape charge against a 13 year old girl (at the time of the incident) and to which he pleaded guilty. The European Directors protested vehemently his arrest as did the Hollywood crowd and they even went as far as signing petitions calling for his release. Many were famous well known men and women. This all came about despite the fact that Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to the charges and then took flight rather than face his sentence in a USA prison. In past generations no one would have ever considered supporting such a scoundrel. It would have been considered immoral to do so!
In USA schools (Religious country) educators have been caught in a variety of scandals including showing books, promoting lesbianism, where a mother and daughter were portrayed as thinking her class mate (female) was sexy and they were both attracted to her. Other books are teaching that homosexuality and cross dressing are both decent lifestyles and children should find them acceptable. Now, I do not believe that homosexuals should ever be beaten or cast out of society but I do draw the line at teaching children in primary schools that these are lifestyles that are on par with marriage between a man and a woman and the family that comes from that union. It should be noted that the Boards of Education did nothing to inform the children’s parents about the books or that this type of curriculum would be taught to their children. Since when do educators have the right to teach their own brand of morality to children that upsurps the parents right not to have their young children exposed to lifestyles that they may deem offensive and dare I say immoral?
We have argued previously by definition God is inherently good and unable to change from being good, whereby mankind is in constant change since he (she) was formed. Therefore without the moral compass of our God, we are doomed to the uncertain and ever-changing morality, decided by men (women) that will have catastrophic repercussions for this and every generation in the future. This is what religious people find so offensive about atheist and atheism in general.
-
Andy says:
Patrick, going back to what kriya ased you do you think it is not possible for an atheist to be moral? In my time I have met loads of immoral religious people (Christian , muslim etc) and loads of atheists who are moral and know right from wrong. The examples you give about teachings in school are probably a result of the fact that these minorities were persecuted and bullied previously and they are now trying to redress the balance.
Anyhow, i’m atheist, married with a family, and without any criminal convictions. So what does that make me then?
One thing that astonished me was a survey I read that said Americans would be more inclined to vote a muslim into the White House than an atheist. Astonished because it was muslims who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11. Which would have to be the most immoral act i’ve seen in my lifetime. -
For example it causes the atheist to justify abortion as the right of a woman to be in command of her own body and at all times. Abortions were once done only up to 12 weeks are now in some countries being performed immediately before birth. Increasingly, the fetus is being viewed as a non-person unworthy of being called human. Therefore, in the mind of the atheist all action to support the rights of the mother are upheld and at the full expense of the unborn. We also see this in the exploitation of children and most notably the arrest of director Roman Polanski in Switzerland on an outstanding warrant from the USA to a Drugging and Rape charge against a 13 year old girl (at the time of the incident) and to which he pleaded guilty
Honestly Patrick, I do try and ignore you these days as you are a boring chappy as all fundies tend to be. However some of your comments just beggar belief (excuse the pun).
To link Atheists as being the righteous supporters of abortion (at whatever stage) and then a even more tenuous link as supporters of child exploitation is absurd even for you (In fact, if memory serves me right pretty sure Polanski is practicing Catholic anyway or was that a choir boy?)
Whilst your defence of the faith is expected, it is counter-productive to suggest that the morality of the church has prevented child exploitation in the past. A simple check of the number of legal cases against the church would indicate just how shaky that ground is. Religion in a number of its more repugnant costumes continues to facilitate child marriage and “honour” killings which makes a mockery of the point you are trying so valiantly to make. However a reasonable person would not then imply all believers are supporters of such acts.To continue the absurdity, you imply ” God’s moral compass” is the only thing that keeps humans on the straight and narrow, which history again would demonstrate the “religious” have have more than their share of evil doers. In fact, not that difficult to debate that the so-called “moral compass” is not responsible for the slaughter of millions.
No one is saying all the believers are nasty little child murderers, yet you in the oh so common intolerance of the self righteous you seem unable to attribute the same courtesy to anyone else who does not happen live the same myth as yourself.
Oh, the moral compass thingy does intrigue me. Is there like a particular brand or is it all religions. It might just be me but the moral compass of say Church of England, Catholic, Muslim all seem to point in slightly different directions.
.
-
donny says:
AFAIK, atheist is a person which did not recognise God …
how about me, then ??
I am Godless, and not believing in God
but I realize that there is something inside every human being, something similar … the source of love, the source of life, the source of smile and the source of everything … beyond any understanding
but can be felt inside my heart .. so warm, so beautiful, so understanding … beyond all words … you have to experience it yourself to know what this felt like …
realizing It, and all fears is gone … even if tommorow is doomsday =D
I do not know what to call It, every language seems dim compared to It, every word created by humankind is not enough … I realize my limitation … So I lower my standard and called it “The True Source”
and I cannot stop smiling … =D
-
Lairedion says:
Donny,
but I realize that there is something inside every human being, something similar … the source of love, the source of life, the source of smile and the source of everything … beyond any understanding
Donny, you hit the nail here.
Every sane human wants others to achieve happiness (in my personal view I extend this desire to animals, nature and environment). There is nothing philosophical or religious about this, it’s basic human feeling.
Keeping this in mind we must consider and rethink the consequences of every act and deed we plan to execute. Does a certain decision affect or help this basic human feeling of empathy towards others? Is it conducive to the good and benefit of one and all? Is it good or bad?
Here you have it, a non-divine source of morality, free from non-moral incentives like punishment threats or reward promises. Helpful for both theists and atheists and everyone in between them.
-
@ Oigal,speaking of boorish behavior, your defining Roman Polanski as a practicing Catholic is a total fabrication of the truth. Roman Polanski in his autobiography described himself as an atheist & he is listed on the Celebrity List of Atheist so Oigal as usual your spinning wildly out of control.
-
Laugh.. you are such chuckle
-
@ Oigal still frustrated? perhaps you should try using facts? However, that never got in the way of you posting one of your wildly inane rants. The memories of some of them make me laugh hysterically but sadly at you and not with you.
@Lairedion – Where is this Utopia that you speak of? Can you supply me an address?
@ Donny – Paul’s Letter to the Romans will specify exactly what and why you have such a GOOD inner feeling. Now there is no excuse for you not to find out so do it!
@ Andy – I really do believe that you try very hard to be a good man and that you do raise your family as morally as possible. Now allow me to ask you this, were your parents atheist? Grandparents? Were all of the following atheists? teachers , siblings, classmates, friends, neighbors? How about the laws and social mores of Australia, were they not developed from similar mores and laws found in England? And were not those laws and principles found in Australia developed from the Magna Carter and that great document was in turn developed from many of the principles found in the Holy Bible and particularly the 10 commandments? The point being is that you were not raised in a vacuum so you have been infulenced morally by Judeo-Christian Principles your whole life. The further we stray from this compass the greater the danger that we as a society will eventually break down into moral decay.
The question of why Americans would rather elect a Muslim than an atheist? Perhaps they do not judge all Muslims on the actions of a few? Muslims have basic guidelines much like the 10 commandments so from a moral perspective maybe American voters feel more comfortable with the known moral guidelines of a Muslim rather than the unknown moral guidelines of an avowed atheist?
-
Patrick,
My aim was to demonstrate a non-theistic source of morality on which people (believers and unbelievers) can base their decisions. What reality looks like is a whole different story.
As I said before I believe every sane human wants others to be happy. For instance, I also want you to be happy with MD. 🙂
Unfortunately the majority of people are egoistic, greedy and only want themselves to be happy, hence the imperfect world.
-
I’m not an atheist
but I did not believe in “God” … “created” by man … or you may call “Historical God”
and personally, I did not like Paul (but I did not hate him) … because he changed Jesus’s teaching of Love (which is without boundaries) to be exclusive religion with organisational charts and “business plan”
I have tried several religions and finds it unsatisfactory … now I choose to love freely, to smile, to hug, to help without thinking who and who …
If The One I loved choose me to stay in hell … I will gladly accept
If The One I loved choose me to stay in heaven … I will gladly accept, also
no difference … my love did not need reward or threat to operate =DI believe all mankind (including woman =D) is equal … regardless their color, their religion, their choice …
and I found peace !! =D
ask yourself … with your clothes of religion (whatever it is), can you hug someone who choose different religion sincerely ?? isn’t it brewing inside you that the one you hug will spend eternity in hell unless they convert ??
can you give to charity without thinking of pahala or paradise or heaven ? can you do good deeds without thinking of gain and/or losses and to be rewarded ?? where is the sincerity then ??
I make 5 good deeds and 3 bad deeds … 5 minus 3 equals 2 good deeds equals heaven ?? doing business with god, eh ??can you avoid bad things without fear of hell, fear of punishment ?
I can … =D
want to join me ?? =D
Comment on “Atheist Threat”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Well, I’ve copied it into my favourites, and I’m breaking it down sentence by sentence. It really helps to put things into perspective for me. Cheers again.