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”
-
deta says:
Interesting chart, but science and faith cannot be separated by a sturdy line. The part of “get an idea” could initially be driven by “faith”. Even if the Big Bang theory has no flaw in it (which some people doubt), Hawking was biased in his idea by his belief of no-God to begin with, therefore he put an effort to prove the non-existence of God instead of the existence of it. Something unusual in general science because an entity that doesn’t exist has nothing to be proven.
From this point, one can argue that if a phenomenon (in this case earth creation) can be explained without involving an entity, or by demonstrating that this entity is not needed to explain the phenomenon, science has proven that this entity doesn’t exist. The origin of universe, however, is only one phenomenon of all, and only all, natural phenomenon people have to explain in order to be able to refute the existence of God.
-
ET says:
Your idea of science being diagonally opposed to religion is something based from your christian background
Did I ever say I had a Christian background? Maybe you should put it out of your narrow Indonesian way of thinking that all people are supposed to have a religion and that being a westerner automatically equals being a Christian. In these modern times in the West people aren’t forced or supposed to adhere to any religion. This doesn’t prevent them to take an interest in religion itself as a psycho-social phenomenon and even to make an effort at comparative analysis, including other faiths than your obsessive Islam/Christianity dichotomy.
as there is no history of Muslims burning scientists, despite the fact that those burned christian scientists at the time usually based their work on previous or contemporary works of muslim scientist (so there are equally smart muslim scientist at that time, safely un burned.
Do I smell a sense of spite and jealousy here for the fact that after Al-Ghazali nothing philosophically and scientifically substantial has come out of the Islamic world. At least in the West after the dark ages when the Church reigned supreme we had the Renaissance which has given the onset for the development of our minds independently from dogmatic prescriptions. When in the early period of Islam the Hanafi school still allowed for putting greater emphasis on the role of reason and being more liberal, later on the Hanbali school became predominant in the Arabic peninsula and led to Wahabbism and Salafism, wallowing in conservatism, blocking the way for more liberal interpretations and imposing more and more its imprint on the rest of the Muslim world.
Did you say no muslims burned scientists? So what about Mansur Al-Hallaj and the countless others who were executed for their non-mainstream opinions? And they were equally expert in destroying scientific infrastructure like the Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din, the Nalanda university in Bihar India, its great library being so vast that it is reported to have burned for three months after the Mughals set fire to it, etc.
-
deta
Hawking was biased in his idea by his belief of no-God to begin with, therefore he put an effort to prove the non-existence of God instead of the existence of it.
It would be interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that Hawking was biased by starting from the no-God idea. As far as I understood from reading his books and from his discussions with the militant atheist Richard Dawkins in the TV-series ‘Genius’ he takes on a rather agnostic standpoint. He doesn’t categorically deny the existence of god but suggests that the existence of god is unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe. Conform to scientific methodology he takes all possibilities into account, also that the universe ‘simply is there’ but he gives no definitive answer, only that “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”.
He has said literally: “I want to find the answer to the big questions. This is what keeps me going” and “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority [imposed dogma, faith], [as opposed to] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” “The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second,” he explained. “If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God,’ but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”From this point, one can argue that if a phenomenon (in this case earth creation) can be explained without involving an entity, or by demonstrating that this entity is not needed to explain the phenomenon, science has proven that this entity doesn’t exist.
I would be glad to learn which scientific theory has proven that spontaneous creation cannot exist. As far as I’m aware – but I’m willing to stand corrected – it has been observed on the quantum level.
It always strikes me how difficult it is for people of your faith to abandon the dualistic notion of cause and effect and grasp the meaning of immanence. -
realest says:
ET – It would be interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that Hawking was biased by starting from the no-God idea.
His ex-wife, Jane (Spouse 1965-1991) said during their divorce proceedings that he was an atheist. We know that at least he’s an atheist from the age of 23. Ofc there are all sorts of excuses like changing beliefs at age 49, ex-wife is bitter on the divorce and so on.
Speaking of quantum physics, here’s something interesting: # Fourth principle of Quantum mechanics: In quantum measurements, the result is always undetermined. correct me if im wrong but quantum mechanics are currently only in the theoretical stage; more philosophy than science.
We’re all geniuses just by reading wikis 😛
-
correct me if im wrong but quantum mechanics are currently only in the theoretical stage; more philosophy than science.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider is built with a budget of 7.5 billion euros. Philosophy seems to be an expensive pastime.
-
“We are all geniuses just by reading wikis”. Well no but it does make it so much harder for the dogma slaves to present factual nonsense as actual facts and tends to make them look pretty silly at the same time.
-
The CERN Large Hadron Collider is built with a budget of 7.5 billion euros. Philosophy seems to be an expensive pastime.
They’re experimenting on real particles, not a bunch of arrows simulated in a computer.
Well no but it does make it so much harder for the dogma slaves to present factual nonsense as actual facts and tends to make them look pretty silly at the same time.
Like I said, there are many other verses in the bible anyone could pick from which couldnt be explained by science. I’ve never explained anything biblical outside the context of the bible itself. And being wrong about shallow conclusions that’s explicitly written in the bible just makes the claimant plain ignorant. That’s why i pick my battles when defending biblical verses, it’s called growing a brain.
-
Patrick says:
Lucu kali!
-
ET,
It would be interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that Hawking was biased by starting from the no-God idea.
I referred to the chart you put earlier and tried to show that someone’s faith can shape the way he constructs the initial idea of investigating things. The idea that the universe started from a single point in space and time is not the only theory scientists before him had come up with about the origin of universe, but Hawking chose to prove this theory out of other possibilities to explain that the existence of God is unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe. He could be an agnostic, but even an agnostic can have a skewed believe toward the existence or non-existence of God. The nature of science is neutral and unbiased, but the way scientists construct their ideas isn’t.
And this result of his research can lead to different theories, again, shaped by someone’s initial faith. It can be viewed as God doesn’t exist because no deity is necessary to explain the origin of the universe, OR at the other extreme, it can be viewed as big bang was simply another God’s initiative.
It always strikes me how difficult it is for people of your faith to abandon the dualistic notion of cause and effect and grasp the meaning of immanence
And I am flabbergasted to find how difficult to talk objectively with you without involving my faith.
-
being wrong about shallow conclusions that’s explicitly written in the bible just makes the claimant plain ignorant. That’s why i pick my battles when defending biblical verses, it’s called growing a brain.
Ah yes, the foot stamping in the corner, calling anyone who does not agree with me ignorant (don’t you mean heretic?) or various other childish names, now there’s a common theme.
Very few people (besides the foot stampers) would concur that a great majority of the religious texts of the world are anything but explicit. This of course leaves the door wide open for any number of sects, cults, loons and self righteous to declare only they have the way to their chosen deity. Even on this thread we have had the pleasure of watching a commentator take a passage from his chosen deity novel and turn it into a treatise on Nuclear Power.
Stamping ones feet, calling people names from a safe distance and declaring it must be fact because it is “written in black and white” displays adherence to rusted on dogma but explains nothing other ones personal belief and interpretation of texts hundreds of years old.
Patrick, I am not overly focused on Lot, pretty much the same inconsistencies turn up in any part of the document (although the new has been toned down a lot for the mass market obviously). Would you like to pick someplace else where the jealous deity does not end up slaughtering men, women and children?
-
The origin of universe, however, is only one phenomenon of all, and only all, natural pheno menon people have to explain in order to be able to refute the existence of God
No that only holds true for a believer, (skipping past the obveious issue of trying to prove a negative)
At best, the God theory is only one of several potential explanations particularly the personal god that demands tribute and sacrifice from his submitters. On the balance of scientific probabilities the one theory least likely is the concerned, merciful watchful diety.
The problem for the believers is they run into at the basest level is the concept is that the uniWverse had to be created by something therefore that something was God. Unfortunately the next logical question obviously who made God?..To which the answer is Oh he just is. Which may be true but “he just is” hardly likely to give a tinkers cuss on what day I go to church.
Not a cracker of the above is important, as it changes nothing or influences nothing in how the world in physical sense continues to evolve. Where it does become dangerous is when people who believe in a vengeful, jealous version of some deity or another start imposing that belief system on others or start confusing science with faith. We are seeing enough of that every day in this country alone to provide us ample warning of what happens when faith overcomes reason.
-
@Oigal – I just wondered why you kept referring to Lot at various times through this debate? What was your point or was that answered?
Oigal – your chutzpha continues to know no bounds as once again you are trying to (albeit slyly) defend Han’s assertion that the knowledge of Quantum Physics has brought enlightenment to mankind that God does not exists. You will, no doubt, recall that I asked him to prove the statement and he remained silent. Only you chose to defend him with your curiously weak points that Hans didn’t have to prove a negative nor was his English developed enough to explain Quantum Physics. In actuality you should have said that Quantum Physics Theory was not developed enough to prove or deny the existence of God and Hans in plain English tripped over his own tongue 🙂
-
“you are trying to (albeit slyly) defend Han’s assertion that the knowledge of Quantum Physics has brought enlightenment to mankind that God does not exists.”
Oh Fair Go Patrick, I think my position is clear enough without attributing things to me which I never said. Let’s try and be honest about this, it demeans you and shows a more than hint of desperation that demanding someone whose English is at best described as “interesting” would want to get into a battle of verbose (ness) with you or the other fundamentals who have had centuries of practice in avoiding straight answers.
I would say that no scientific advance has even enhanced the position of proving the existence of God, in fact as said before with every advance the Deity (s) are forced into the ever receding dark places of human knowledge.
In actuality you should have said that Quantum Physics Theory was not developed enough to prove or deny the existence of God and Hans in plain English tripped over his own tongue
I would actually agree with that but again the flaw in your whole position is how on earth does anyone prove a negative?? It is not a weak point but a fundamental fact in the discussion. Does the Easter Bunny exist, prove he doesn’t position is hardly logical. Is there flying teapots orbiting Saturn we just cannot see them yet with today’s science, prove they are not there. Of course you cannot but you can of course on the balance of scientific probability say highly unlikely as one would say with flying horses, water to wine etc.
Again no one cares if someone wants to start expending their time and effort hoarding tea bags for when the pots descend to earth but when they start killing coffee drinkers then its just about time for the human race to grow up. Not that I think that will happen anytime soon as too many need a crutch to justify their actions good and bad.
-
@Oigal – ha ha ha lucu kali is the theme of the day.
Believe me when it comes to doing the twist Chubby Checkers has nothing on you! Logic dictates that if Hans makes an assertion that is at best dubious to others he better be able to defend it. If he cannot then his credibility will be greatly diminished and it has sorry to say.
-
I am relieved to hear although not surprised that your position is the flying tea pots and the Easter Bunny exist. I do so enjoy your little forays into the real world Patrick.
Speaking of the real world, Just for fun and interesting positions. What’s the go with the richest religion in world allowing their churches to declare bankruptcy to avoid litigation costs concerning serial and ongoing abuse of minors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/05milwaukee.html?_r=1 -
Ah yes, the foot stamping in the corner, calling anyone who does not agree with me ignorant (don’t you mean heretic?) or various other childish names, now there’s a common theme.
Leviticus 11:7-8 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
Which part of this is unclear for you again?
Very few people (besides the foot stampers) would concur that a great majority of the religious texts of the world are anything but explicit. This of course leaves the door wide open for any number of sects, cults, loons and self righteous to declare only they have the way to their chosen deity. Even on this thread we have had the pleasure of watching a commentator take a passage from his chosen deity novel and turn it into a treatise on Nuclear Power.
As i’ve said, I pick my battles because i know some things cannot be explained by science – so waving the old broad stereotype card don’t really help much.
-
Your Kidding aren’t you? You really want to play contradictions in the the text?
Leviticus 11:7-8 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
unless of course
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. — Genesis 9:3
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. — Mark 7:18-20
There is nothing unclean of itself. — Romans 14:2
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils … commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. — 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Don’t waste everyone’s time, even the most devout will tell your the texts are full of contradictions, which why faith is so important to see beyond them but lets not pretend otherwise.
-
Anyway dunno what you are so worried about, us heathens will be eating the flesh of our children in another piece dietary advice from Leviticus. Although some also threaten this for the people who voted for BO for President, go figure.
Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:29
-
Lairedion says:
Flesh of children I won’t eat but I cannot resist Indonesian pork dishes, especially babi rica…
-
deta
The nature of science is neutral and unbiased, but the way scientists construct their ideas isn’t.
That’s right. Exactly as I said a few days ago.
But one must also admit that science itself isn’t always free from dogmatic tendencies, especially when funding for research is involved. Instead of science it then becomes ideology.
This is why peer reviews exist. It opens the way for adjustments and amendments, even rejection, and keeps the process alive. It makes more sense and is a lot safer than to put all your trust in the words of one prophet who declared himself to be the seal.
-
@ET, Yes you are correct about science not placing all its trust in one prophet. But yet science has been very guilty of that indeed as we have demonstrated numerous times on this thread concerning Darwin and Evolution Theory. It doesn’t matter how often the theory doesn’t fit science continues to bow down at the altar of Evolution and hunt down all heresies and heretics who dare question its dogma.
Lucu kali!
-
Yes but Patrick what is the alternative theory? It’s all about probabilities? I would honestly be curious to know which are you:
1. Creationist – Literal or Modified
2. Intelligent Design – Literal or Modified
3. Noah’s Arc (a lead on from “1” I concur)
4. Alien Seeding
5. OtherBit puzzled on what the gaping holes you are inferring in Evolution are anyway? Pretty much seems the best fit since Darwin and most discoveries since then have only served to polish the theory
-
@Oigal – This all reminds me of an old Rolling Stone song called “Sympathy for the Devil” as I came to this topic as the “Devil’s Advocate”. I had rather hoped that a plausible explanation for how life began would emerge but sadly none exists within the realm of science. Many times we spoke of the gaps in Evolutionary Theory including no examples of any species being observed in transtion from one species to the next. In fact that is the same problem with fossil records there are no transition species so as you can see to make the leap it requires conjecture on our part. If we look at the Theory itself and its and that all life decends for one common ancestor but yet we science cannot come up with an explanation, that makes sense, of exactly how that organism sprang to life? If we look at the “probability” of life on earth starting this way and ending up as it has today it is virtually impossible. One mathematician said the likelyhood of it coming about would be the same chance that a tornado would sweep through a junkyard and after throwing the parts around being left with a fully assembled 747 jetliner. Even Eistein an avowed athesist much of his life came to believe in Intelligent design because of the complexity of DNA and the precision workings of the Universe. He and Dawkins can claim that this Supreme Being won’t be the God we find in the bible (who is a personable God) all they want but He would be a God none the less. I hope this answers all your questions 🙂
-
Arie Brand says:
The ‘quote’ function often doesn’t seem to work for me. Here is another go:
Patrick said:
One mathematician said the likelyhood of it coming about would be the same chance that a tornado would sweep through a junkyard and after throwing the parts around being left with a fully assembled 747 jetliner
.
The man referred to is the astronomer Fred Hoyle and the analogy is called “Hoyle’s fallacy”. Hoyle meant it as an argument against abiogeneis i.e. the idea that life can emerge from non-living matter. The intelligent design people, however, often use it as an argument against evolution, in which case they make the analogy even more misplaced because natural selection is a non-random process.Here is an interesting comment on this and other ideas of Hoyle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gYs4nnYUwk
fact that is the same problem with fossil records there are no transition species
The fossil record is poor but not as poor as that. In fact the first transitional form was found two years after the publication of The Origin of Species viz. the Archeopteryx, a half way station between reptile and bird. Since then nine more examples of this fossil have been found. The Wikipedia, that “makes geniuses of us all” except when we don’t want to be, has a fairly long list of transitional fossils. Darwin used to encounter the argument about the fossil record by his opponents by asking whether any of them could show the transitions between the wild dog and the greyhound or a bulldog.
Seems also a bit of a false analogy since we are not talking about different species here. An interesting question though.
-
I had rather hoped that a plausible explanation for how life began would emerge but sadly none exists within the realm of science.
That doesn’t mean automatically only something supernatural can fill this gap. A much more honest position is just acknowledging we simply don’t know yet.
-
Even Eistein an avowed athesist much of his life came to believe in Intelligent design
Actually he did not despite the efforts of some, sorry Patrick bit too busy to play for the next few days. So you have plenty of time to research it yourself, it would be interesting if after doing that you still can honestly avow that comment.
as I came to this topic as the “Devil’s Advocate”. I had rather hoped that a plausible explanation for how life began would emerge but sadly none exists within the realm of science.
….Oh Please Patrick!!
I do enjoy our little debates but for it to be real fun it requires a little honesty..You and I both have an agenda (I for one think you are fundamentalist nutcase for instance)but that should not stop some interesting debate but when you just make stuff up…
-
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein’s secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Hardly a rallying call from the Pope..
anyway have good weekend and don’t waste a sunday!
-
we simply don’t know yet
Yes. Whether science will eventually fills all the holes in evolution theory (including giving a scientifically established answer to the simple question “How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to start the evolution?”), or science will finally reveal the Supreme Being behind the Intelligent Design (oh wait, any discovery that leads to support the existence of Supreme Being is not even called science 🙂 ), we’re simply not there yet (if we ever will be). All people can give so far is the “best guess”. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
Odinius says:
Who cares?
No atheist has ever threatened me. No religious person has either.
What matters in the here and now is whether you’re a caring and ethical individual, not what team you support.
Comment on “Atheist Threat”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
What is missing from that chart is the fact that they both will sooner and later converge.
Because they have to if religion (I am talking for Islam here) is really coming from God.
In Islam, natural laws (gravitation, frictions, etc) are also considered God’s law for governing the world. It is a muslim’s religious duty, in fact, to explore the world and understand it, by scientific method. Your idea of science being diagonally opposed to religion is something based from your christian background, as there is no history of Muslims burning scientists, despite the fact that those burned christian scientists at the time usually based their work on previous or contemporary works of muslim scientist (so there are equally smart muslim scientist at that time, safely un burned.
Quit lumping all religion as one. They all evolve in a different setting and history. You are applying your one sided experience/background with only one of them to all.