Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono our current president received an award in the US for his excellence in religious tolerance and etc.
but reality in Indonesia is.. Muslims are prioritized
everything else is shit upon...
Atheism in Indonesia = Jail term (if the officials found out). They believe that being an atheist is declaring a war against God or in that sense "Allah"
so people get jail term or executed because of being an Atheist.
y'know.. in Indonesia; during the fasting period of Islam.. restaurants are forced to close or be threatened to be trashed...
they dont care if you're not Islamic; you have to follow what they want.
you often hear restaurants get trashed; karaoke bars get burned down; brothels get forcefully closed all because its "haram" during fasting period
heck... there's one prominent group in Indonesia called FPI (Islamic Defender's Front)
these assholes (literally); are a terrorist group no matter how much they deny it..
they rally people along with Imams to send people to join they Syrian war, or to attack Buddhists because of the whole Myanmar thing
Myanmar has nothing to do with Indonesia; but they rally Islamists to attack buddhist temples in Indonesia because of Myanmar buddhist fighting Myanmar islamists...

FPI also destroys stores and confiscates alcohol claiming its "haram" and etc. but later videos often emerge of them drinking the alcohol they "confiscated"
and they say what they do is just under the eyes of Allah and blah blah...

= w=

Oh Yeah, In Indonesia; EVERYONE HATES JEWS... even if they never met a Jew; they blame everything on Jews.
Imams spread so much words of hate against Jews; claiming all the world's problems are from Jews..
and im just sitting there thinking to myself "were it not for Judaism; Islam wouldnt necessarily exist..."
My employees often say stuff like "Jews are a bunch of rapists and they are animals who attack normal people for no reason"
and im like "what made you say that?"
and they say "the Imam told us; and everyone in the community tells us.. its in their nature"
... and i have to slowly re-educate them that Judaism is a religion and one which is rich in its cultural heritage and etc.


God... sometimes... ...i often feel dead inside when i live in Indonesia

Neither, because it still needs to have been built by the Rock Transformer creatures called Watchers. Without their craftmanship, Ham's ark will never be kosher.

If the bible really has Rock Transformer creatures called Watchers, I've never heard of them. It still sounds like a really great twist (for a sci-fi/Fantasy story, and not for something that supposedly happened, but probably is a made-up story made to scare children and adults from misbehaving).

Also, there are only three reasons sensible people are gonna watch that movie.
1: Hermion... sorry, Emma Watson
2: Russel Crowe
3: Curiosity

and what "point" would building an ark prove? that its possible to inhumanely shove a good chunk of the animal population into an uninhabitable wooden ship for an unknown amount of time (or until they start to DIE, which wouldnt be long, given how many species cant survive on that sort of crap)?
or would the "point" be that we should feel free to trash our ecosystem and environment for the sake of acting out our favorite fairy tales?



never, EVER underestimate how completely and utterly stupid people can be. ....ever.



no, it doesnt make me wonder. humans are, and humans have been doing so for far too long already. you cant just turn around and go "THESE GUYS ARE SO WASTEFUL" after youve been enjoying paper in all of its redundant and wasteful forms for years until now.
just because they choose to destroy nature in a way that you dont approve of, doesnt mean that the other ways in which humans destroy nature are perfectly necessary.
the rain forests will return, with or without us around to help out/benefit from it. we're only really screwing ourselves with our planet-sized apathy for the environment. it doesnt need us to thrive. something tells me that it would thrive without us.



too many people to count "lacks the rationality of common sense". let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
if youre going to go at it from that particular angle, then i imagine living in a world that is chalk full of derp must drive you insane every single day.

Catholic IS christian Darizuka means there are two branches of Christian accepted by government for Indonesian citizens, Catholic and Protestant.
Actually there are six religions are accepted for Indonesians to follow, Darizuka missed one: Islam, Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucius (Kong Hu Cu in Indonesian spelling or Kong Fu Tze in Hokkien Chinese)
Other than that, will not be accepted by government to publish on our ID card. In Indonesia, you have to state your religion on your ID card. It's mandatory.

You know the real reason why the religion must be put on ID card? Other than official statement saying for administration purpose?
If someone dies and found out by public, that person has to be buried and prayed following the specific religion custom based on the religion of that person's ID card stated.
If the person doesn't state his/her religion on his/her ID card, the person cannot be prayed because the religion is unknown
Then why doesn't ask the family of the person what his/her religion? Burying, praying custom for the dead is supposedly 100% of the family matters, right? Not public business.
The religion stated on ID card for administration purpose is pure bullshit. Other countries don't have religion statement on their ID card.

Religion is supposedly kept to ourselves, A belief that is supposedly as a path to live the life in humanity and maturity. But the reality? It becomes the otherwise: to show-off, intimidate, politics , oppress others.

Believers have right to convert their religion to others, it's supposedly private business. It's like you wear your underwear in specific color. You know it, you feel it, but other people cannot see it, because only you the person who knows it. Do you want to state your underwear color on your ID card? No?



I'm confused of what you said, "Pastor". Pastor is priest for Catholic. Not Protestant Christian.The story you brought up is obviously Protestant Christian. Protestant Christian has "Preacher" by himself. Preacher has right to say everything he wants, like, "You must believe in Jesus!!" "If you believe in Jesus, your sins will be forgiven to eternity!!" Other than Jesus saying and Bible are considered to be not right and heresy. While Catholic tends to humanity, the real act of what humans should behave and get along with others with rationality rather than have to follow "You have to live like this and that, other than that is wrong and not Christian!!" Every religion can have the dark side, including the preachers brainwashed their followers to follow his preaching, his rules, like Darizuka Even though I'm Catholic but I disagree with saying abortion is wrong. Killing fetus before becoming a baby born into the world is murder. How about the baby born to live later killed and disposed by his/her mother? The mother doesn;t want to keep her baby but later kill it, doens't that much worse to kill the live one in world rather than underdeveloped fetus inside the body?
Marriage is allowed for one man and one woman. Catholic doens't allow the practice of discrimination to anything, including homosexual people but when it comes to marriage, gay and lesbian marriage are not allowed, the reason is "man and woman are supposed to complete each other, like Adam and Eve." Later you know homosexual is not a genetic disease/ orientation disorder. It's natural like heterosexual too. Even animals can be homosexual.

In this country, Islam is the majority. The reality is, Islam is used for politic business. Muslim society has been taught to elect Muslim candidates only, not other religions. For destruction. Islam extremist defender (FPI) destroy the church, the statues they consider 'pornographic' , force close the bar, force close the food stall/restaurant during Muslim fasting period, attack other religions in disgusting and idiotic manner, in the name of their "Allah". Imagine the religion version of PETA, even worse than that. Every forum, including science forum, Muslim always bringing up their religion to their comments on forum, and show off and mock up other religions in immature way, because they feel they are the dominate over other religions in Indonesia. Other religion followers, Christian, Buddhist, Hindustan, don't act that immature like Muslim. I don't mean to insult Muslim/Islam, it's the reality. I have Muslim relatives of mine who are tolerant and mature, don't like these immature, extremist Muslims.

I'm also Indonesian and what Darizuka had said is true. That is the true face of extremist religions in our country and HAS to be spoken to the world.

Even worse than the ark is the creationist "museum". Pretty much like a fantasy park, showing a time where dinosaurs and humans lived together peacefully in the garden of Eden.

If early humans and dinosaurs lived together, even if the dinosaurs were mostly peaceful plant eaters, I'm pretty sure the humans wouldn't have managed. They'd either end up being eaten by one of the more dangerous dinosaur types, or get stampeded to death by a herd of giant, hungry plant-eaters. I also can't imagine humans would have been able to tame dinosaurs. I'm sure our limit when it comes to size is elephants, and even those can be difficult to keep in line if they're unhappy.

Creationists... *eye roll*

I only hope the rest of the world will come to their senses and realize they've blindly followed a human-written book all these years. The worst is that even the various scriptures in the bible disagree with each other, and if people can't even see through that, then there's not much hope for them.

I put my bet on evolution winning the "debate" (because the creationists simply can't move the world forward with their outdated thinking).

Even humans are slowly evolving. We're taller on average than for a few hundreds of years ago, our teeth have changed in just a few hundred years because we started eating with forks (instead of an even bite from pre-fork time, most of us have an upper bite), and we've got organs that used to have an important function but now are mostly useless. Even our brains evolve over time. The thing the creationists just can't see is that evolution for a certain species can stop when the creature has reached its full potential (which is why we've still got some old species that actually lived alongside dinosaurs). If a species is fine the way it is, then the mutations that do happen will be removed by natural selection, and won't get a foothold. It's not like their idea of a modern monkey suddenly giving birth to a human (ever heard the "I ain't no monkey" line?). That's not how it works. We're share common ancestors and are more like very distant "cousins".

Anyway, writing was invented some 5500-ish years ago, so that's probably why the bible history isn't much older than 6000 years (and also explains the sudden urge to write something "important"). We actually invented the wheel 7000 years ago, so there goes the creationism theory of how old the Earth is...

There's an amusement park a few miles down the road from me that shows a time where dinosaurs and humans lived together peacefully- it's based on the 1960's Flintstones cartoon TV show. Plenty of examples of people keeping dinosaurs tame and docile there, isn't that proof enough that they coexisted?To be honest, I'm not sure I see much difference between that and the creationist park... they're both equally believable to me! (that is to say, not at all believable.)

And MOST people might not have been able to tame dinosaurs, but thanks to the Rule of Cool, I still maintain that Batman could!

Best picture EVER XD
.
.
.
(I'm still laughing )

It is utterly ridiculous how many image results you get from Google for "Batman riding a dinosaur."

On a more relevant note, I don't know that there's really any point coming up with convincing arguments to try to persuade creationists with... no matter how well-reasoned and airtight your argument is, it can't stand up against the kind of faith they have. This really is for no reason besides that their faith isn't in any ways based on fact, so facts can't hurt it. There's a quote that always springs to mind when I get suckered into debating the merits of creationism with a true believer: “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, s#!%s on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” I don't even know where the quote is actually from, but you can't deny the truth of what it says.

Tempting though it is to try to beat these kinds of people by using overwhelming evidence and sound logical reasoning, there's really nothing to win there. Instead, what I really think should be the approach is to treat these people as real-world internet trolls. Everyone has heard the internet adage "don't feed the trolls," and there's no reason why that can't apply in the real world just as effectively. Ignore these people and instead focus, as you suggest, on moving society forward in spite of their outdated thinking, and eventually their influence will dry up and they'll disappear. It may not be as gratifying as an outright victory over that kind of stupidity would be, but the end result would be the same- creationist ideas would stop having an impact on the world, and I don't know about you, but I call that a victory.

The problem with religion is that it's based on faith, not evidence. If you have faith, you don't need evidence, and if they try to find evidence (other than in their book of choice) their faith apparently isn't strong enough, so they don't try. It's basically a vicious cycle.

Also, the pigeon analogy is pretty much on the spot.

Anyway... I think the discussion between Darwinists and creationists is part amusement and part "oh, stop this stupidity already" on the Darwinist side. The only somewhat valid argument on the creationist/religious side is the idea about a designer (although not a perfect one, with all the obvious faults in the "designs") that might have had a hand in the "spark" that started the universe and/or life - and that's only because there's no spesific, approved, scientific explanation that fully explains this possible "spark of life" yet (even if they're pretty close to getting there). But then you have the "who designed the designer" argument.

The worst is the whole debate on whether creationism should be taught as a "possible theory" in science class. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's religion. Religion and creationism belong in religion classes, not science classes. If schools want to teach creationism, then do it in religion classes, and please teach all the various theories from all the religions, so that kids get the foundation for making up their own rational thoughts about what to believe and not believe. That's the only way kids will ever be able to grow up as rational thinkers. If they get spoon-fed all the religious bs at school as well as home, then of course they'll believe it (kids will believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy if you just tell them about it when they're young enough, so go figure). That's why you have to start early for people to believe it at all. You can't come to a rational, thinking person who has never believed in a higher power and say "oh, by the way, there's a god in the sky" and expect them to believe it. Why is it that "my imaginary friend protects me" is crazy, but "I have faith in one or more deities that I can't see, hear, feel, touch, or otherwise communicate in a two-way route to" is thought completely sane? To me, they're both basically the same.

Anyway, if people could see their religious texts of choice as symbolic rather than hard fact, and accept that religions and science are technically not opposites, and that differences of opinion can coexist without needing to have a fight about it, there would probably be a lot less trouble in the world. It is possible to accept that the universe is 13-14 billion years; that evolution and natural selection along with the elements of nature is what controls the population of species on Earth; that Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus and all those other people known from religious texts are for the most part characters in a symbolical work of (mostly?) fiction; and that there may be a god (or more) that started it all, and maybe, just maybe oversees things but doesn't want to interrupt - either because it can't or won't (or does not exist).

Personally I don't think there is a god, but that's my opinion. I've grown up with a more or less religious Christian family (more on dad's side, a bit less on mom's), but I was thankfully allowed to make up my own mind throughout my childhood, even with all the influence. I mostly spent the time at Sunday school from the age of around 7-8 trying to figure out why I had troubles believing in what I heard. By the age of 12, I'd already made up my mind that while some of the stories were quite interesting, and I could see some of the symbolical and/or moral value in some of them, I'd come to the conclusion that religion didn't quite fit into my world view (except for Easter and Christmas vacations, and all those other extra vacation days that tag along - those were welcome - and who says no to gifts?). To me, all the religious stuff is more about tradition than faith (and celebrating Christmas isn't actually a Christian tradition, so for that I don't feel bad).

Anyway, creationists are a weird bunch (not the "god made the Big Bang happen" kind, because those usually have the abiltity to be rational and adaptive, and sometimes even have good points, but the "Adam and Eve" kind - particularly those who believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time).

Your personal story sounds pretty similar to my own in that regard, though I also was raised with a very healthy respect for the scientific method from my dad (hard to work in a natural sciences lab if you don't recognize scientific principles!). I see nothing wrong with traditions, wherever they come from, so long as there's nothing inherently objectionable about them. Easter and Christmas have both been big holidays all through my life too, and Easter in particular is one that many people have trouble separating from its religious components. My experiences with it growing up made that easier for me though- my family would either attend or assist with a sunrise service on the rim of the Grand Canyon every Easter Sunday, and when it came to the sermon and the actual service, we were usually too far away from the center of things to hear what was said, at least I can't remember any of it anyways, but I still remember watching sunrise over the canyon with my family, before going and having a great breakfast together at the El Tovar Hotel (OK, that might be kind of a plug for one of my downloads- sorry!). The point is, traditions around holidays, as you said, don't have to be tied to the religious aspect of the holiday- they just have to be significant to you in some way.

I would never argue to do away with religion either- I know plenty of people who have been helped out immeasurably in difficult times by their beliefs and their faith, I know churches that have done a great deal to help the community, and I certainly understand the need people have to get some kind of answer to the eternal questions that are at the center of many faiths. I don't have to be a believer myself to see the benefit that religion can provide people with, and I know people who in no way take the bible literally, who choose to see it as a work of fiction, and still get a great deal of benefit from the metaphors they read it as. Put another way, just because Aesop's Fables are fiction doesn't mean the lessons in those stories are worthless. Religion and its ideas CAN do a great deal to help in this world, but it can also do a great deal of harm.

In that regard, I think you hit the nail on the head- religion and science are not mutually exclusive, they just fill two different needs. The trouble is when people decide that religion can supersede science in its own area... the scientific method doesn't work if your attitude towards a problem you don't know the answer to becomes "I don't know, therefore God." Science has to be free to say "I don't know... I think I'll try to find out!" The people who I have a problem with (and it sounds like this is the type that you do too) are the ones who try to prevent this, who insist that religion is all there needs to be, and try to force the issue at every opportunity.

Indeed!

Religion is a tool of man, just like science. In the hands of good people, you can do a lot of good. But in the hands of bad people you can do a great deal of harm. That goes for both of them. Although, both of them also have the knack of really doing harm when you're trying to do good things (that's why we've got the Nobel price, by the way). At least there's always the possibility to admit your faults and turn things around when doing science.

There is research that suggests the bigger brain we humans have sort of creates a need to believe in something bigger than us. Parts of the brain seems to be dedicated to "divine purposes" (in need of a better term). It might be why we're that one step above animals, in that we're able to create things, use reason and logic on a higher level, and question our existence. We're above the basics (things like shelter, food, reproducing, and learning to care for ourselves), and need something else to do with our big brains.

We can ask questions, and therefore we find the most likely solution to our questions, in that "there has to be something else" when things happen. We've got science now, but the "divine power" of all the things we could not explain is still deeply rooted in us. The need to know how and why. Some people just really like that someone else thinks for them so they don't have to waste energy in being rational, and like the simple explanations.

Do you have a link to that research? I'd be interested to see that study if you do- it certainly makes sense. I've seen similar-sounding studies that argue that nature can pretty easily bring a species up to the point of being "clever,"- basically, self-aware enough to recognize its individuality and make deliberate use of the world around it. You see that in a few different species that exist today besides humans- other great apes and members of the dolphin family being the obvious examples. At this point though, members of the homo genus seem to be the only ones that have taken the next great leap beyond that- the step between being able to say "I am here," and asking "WHY am I here?" That's why you don't see gorillas building chapels in the Congo, or bottlenose dolphins holding prayer circles off the coast of California, but why, for as long as recorded history, humanity has had some form of spirituality.

IMHO, figuring out what it was that enabled human beings to make the step that, more than anything else, set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, is one of the most interesting questions science can try to answer. Quite frankly, I can't imagine the answer we eventually find being any less remarkable than the solutions religion proposes... Simple explanations bore me!

I don't have the actual research, but I've seen a few documentaries over the past few years, and it's been mentioned several other places. Right now it's much too late (early...) for extensive web scouring. If you search for "god spot" you're mostly on the right track. It's actually not just one dedicated spiritual spot, but several parts of the brain that seems to be the active parts when it comes to spirituality - but "god spot" will at least get you in the general direction of the research.

But yes, it sems that this is the evolutionary step that makes humans into humans. Wthout it we'd still be a form of monkies.

I'm no fan of simple explanations, either. In all honesty, I think it's a whole lot more wonderful if nature does everything on its own, if there is no god or divine power that sets it all into motion. I've never been a fan of the "poof, God did it!" explanation. It's too simple-minded for my taste.

I'm pretty sure that it's the "uselessness" of humans that made us into the thinking beings we are today. Without fur, we needed clothes, so we had to figure out how to make them. We had no claws or super-speed or anything else to hunt with, so when we figured out we wanted meat, we had to create tools and work in packs. Our teeth weren't perfect for raw meat, so we somehow managed to tame fire so the food could be digested easier. Basically, it's "find the simplest solution to a problem". And we're for the most part lazy by default and need to concerve energy (for running away, hunting, and other things), so we want solutions that concerve energy (tadah! Wheels!). Slowly the brain adapts, and we eventually learn more and more. You can actually see the brain evolve when looking at skulls from human ancestors. The earliest ancestors had flat and very apelike skulls, and when you get to homo sapiens the heads are higher and bigger. It's one of the reasons human babies are so "unfinished" when they're born. If their brains were to be fully developed on the stage of most other baby animals, they would have too big heads to be born. Our social system makes us able to take care of our babies from a much more unfinished stage than harsh nature usually allows. We reach adolescence when we're 12-16 years, which is a lot later than pretty much every other species on Earth. Our brains are actually not finished developing until we're around 25-30 years old.

If any other animal was born out in the nature under these conditions, they would not survive until adulthood, let alone their first few years.

As far as the original issue (stupidity and waste), I see the related religious component as incidental. But this thread has become a religious debate - guess that's more interesting ..?

I would generally agree with your assessment of the thread... I kind of wonder why it hasn't been moved to the Debate Room, but I don't know that it matters too much- people have managed to keep a pretty civil tone throughout it (it also seems to mostly be people agreeing with each other, instead of a true debate... not sure if that has anything to do with it still being just "Off-Topic). And it's certainly still leading to interesting discussion, so even if it has drifted somewhat, I'm still glad to see people posting. Either way, it has kind of wandered off the original topic though, hasn't it?