God and the Burning of Anne Askew

Here's a link to tell you about Anne Askew. What was done to her is horrific. There were so many injustices done to her in the name of God it's hard to take it all in. This was a barbaric Christian society. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling believers to be civilized democratic loving people. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling a society of believers that men do not own women. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not coming to her aid in some miraculous manner. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not giving people divine guidance about such matters. I would hide my head in shame if I were God. I would confess my guilt and turn away from my uncaring incompetent ways. And I would let my defenders know they too need to repent for not caring about the Anne's under Christian rule. I would repent for being an uncaring incompetent deity, for that's the kind of God that exists if one exists at all.

72 comments:

brenda said...

"There were so many injustices done to her in the name of God it's hard to take it all in."

I take it you are equally offended by injustice done in the name of atheism? No? Funny how your outrage only works one way. Followers of atheist ideologies have also committed injustice. I'll take the atheist's claims of moral outrage at religious abuses seriously when they take a little responsibility for their own.

"If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling believers to be civilized democratic loving people."

Perhaps you missed a few Sunday schools classes since love, forgiveness and compassion for others really was the big message of the New Testament. Same is true for other major religions. Perhaps you should remove that beam from your own eye before examining the splinters in others'.

"If I were God I would be embarrassed for not coming to her aid in some miraculous manner."

Sadly, people do not always use the best judgment in the exercise of their free will. I mean, which is it? Do you really want a dictator god who will rule with an iron hand or do you want to be free? You can't have it both ways.

"If I were God I would be embarrassed for not giving people divine guidance about such matters."

According to all major religions the divine guidance has been given. The blame falls on those who don't follow it. What part of "You should love your neighbor as yourself" is difficult to understand?

"I would repent for being an uncaring incompetent deity, for that's the kind of God that exists if one exists at all."

Translation: "I haz a sad because my daddy god expects me to grow up and be a man."

Anonymous said...

Brenda; so I hope you understand that if you use "free will" and "poor judgement" to give your religion a pass, then "the religion of atheism" gets a pass too.

You also cannot have it both ways.

Steven said...

Here we go again, Brenda.

The point that non-theistic moralities are imperfect isn't a subject worthy of debate. Everyone concedes this. We atheists have already thought about this enough to see this. We are also able to see where people (even other atheists) have had their moral judgements clouded by ideology, megalomania, and religion. If the theists (and incoherent agnostics such as yourself) would wake up and recognize that their moral judgements are often derived from instances where these problems occur, rather than merely presuming that there is something special about this collected wisdom, we might make some real moral progress.

Moving on... the problem is that theistic morality claims perfect morality, and yet one only has to read the bible to see that this so-called perfect morality is so full of holes that theists have to immediately begin to equivocate, downplay, and/or reinterpret scripture to avoid sounding like the monsters that are depicted in their holy book. And of course, in some cases they don't equivocate, and they themselves become moral monsters.

This is exactly the sort of bullshit I'm talking about:

According to all major religions the divine guidance has been given. The blame falls on those who don't follow it.

...the problem is that this guidance is hardly as clear as you make it out to be. In fact, this "guidance" is entirely consistent with primitive, non-theistic, "common sense" moralities that you would expect to get picked up by the cultures that they arise in and become codified into societal rules and eventually ascribed to divine authority. There is nothing magical going on here.

Perhaps you missed a few Sunday school classes as well. Jesus didn't just speak of love, he also talked about breaking up families and pitting them against each other. Go ahead and talk about beams all you want Brenda, your line of argumentation fails.

Jim said...

Brenda,

I take it you are equally offended by injustice done in the name of atheism?

There is no such thing.

It's as coherent as saying your bad behaviors are in the name of "agnosticism."

Maybe we can even claim bad behaviors in the name of a-stamp-collecting, or a-football-playing.

The foundational truths, dogmas, and rituals for "a"theism are the same as "a"anything else.

Unless you can point me toward the foundational book(s), essay(s), etc. that direct atheist belief and behavior structure . . .

I CAN point you toward foundational book(s) that direct THEIST belief and behavior structure and a lot of it is immoral.

brenda said...

Steven said
"the problem is that theistic morality claims perfect morality"

Only atheists and fundamentalists believe this. I was raised as a liberal Christian and so I was taught that the central message of Jesus is that we should follow the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. That in fact the Pharisees, by their insistence on the letter had violated the spirit of the law.

We are told that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself, this is the whole of the law."

What sayest thou Pharisee?

brenda said...

Jim said"
There is no such thing."


No such thing as atheism? Google reports 5,140,000 results for atheism. It obviously exists. The Google says so.

"It's as coherent as saying your bad behaviors are in the name of "agnosticism."

If I had written books on ow agnosticism is the only rational alternative to religion and then written political books detailing how agnostic economics (socialism) is the only rational alternative to Christian economics (capitalism). Then if I had millions of followers who mounted a revolution with me and we over threw the leaders, sanctioned by religion, of several nations. Then if we imprisoned the priests or just murdered them outright in the name of agnosticism. Then if I set up a political party that had totalitarian rule in that nation and the only way to become a member of my party was to be an agnostic. And if I then systematically eliminated all religions and declared that only my agnostic scientism could be taught there. And if I also engaged in pro-agnostic propaganda for decades, waged war on those who refused my agnostic political system and murdered dissidents to agnosticism...

Then and only then could one say that those crimes were committed in the name of agnosticism.

But that's just crazy talk. That would never happen to atheism.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Brenda,

What injustice done in the name of Atheism are you referring to? The fact that a dictator who is nominally atheist is not injustice done in the name of atheism. To make such a claim would mean that the genocides currently being waged in Africa constitute violence done in the name of Christianity because the leadership is nominally Christian. This is obviously not a case anyone is making.

Please cite an example of an instance where us evil atheists have persecuted the faithful in the name of atheism. I can cite thousands of the reverse.

Paul Rinzler said...

Brenda wrote:
Do you really want a dictator god who will rule with an iron hand or do you want to be free? You can't have it both ways.
If I had my legs destroyed on the rack and was on the pyre, about to be burned alive, I'm sure I'd appreciate anyone, including God, stepping forward to give me out. God is just as liable as any human who didn't heop her.

Paul Rinzler said...

Oops, typo: not "give me out," but "help me out."

Paul Rinzler said...

Could anyone seriously maintain that God, facing the decision whether to intervene against torture, decides not to so that humans can be given the chance to do the right thing, which is exactly what God refuses to do?!

You either accept this absurdity, or believe that the Christian god doesn't exist.

ildi said...

Brenda: agnostic economics (socialism) is the only rational alternative to Christian economics (capitalism)

Quite the opposite; Christian economics is socialism. Jesus wanted his followers to sell all their belongings and live together in communes. Do you just make things up as you go along?

Anonymous said...

Brenda: agnostic economics (socialism) is the only rational alternative to Christian economics (capitalism)

I'm sorry but don't capitalism is not Christian economics.

Sure, you can find capitalist teachings in the Bible, but you can find plenty more teachings that jive with socialism (or even communism).

I think it is foolish to apply the label "Christian" to any economic system (or political system).

GearHedEd said...

Brenda said,

"...I was raised as a liberal Christian and so I was taught that the central message of Jesus is that we should follow the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law."

If this is true, then your upbringing is based on moral relativism, because your teachers all but said

"Interpret the spirit of the law, because the letter of the law is morally repugnant."

If the Bible is God's divine revelation, then we humans have no business "re-interpreting" it into a kinder, gentler version of God's Just Wrath, fundamentalist or not.

Jim said...

Brenda,

Are you being intentionally obtuse just to waste my time?

You know very well when I said there is "no such thing" that I was referring to the whole prepositional phrase "injustice done in the name of atheism."

Please finish the following phrase:

The doctrine of atheism compels me to (fill in the blank).

Do you honestly believe there is any answer other than "It's the wrong question, because atheism doesn't compel anyone to do anything."

Does agnosticism compel you to persecute those who claim to have knowledge of God? Maybe even persecute them or burn them at the stake? Of course not. And neither does atheism. Atheism is simply "lack of belief in a god or gods."

Theism has all the baggage associated with it--atheism has none.

You can't get an "ought" from a "non-belief."

brenda said...

Jeffrey A. Myers said...
"What injustice done in the name of Atheism are you referring to? The fact that a dictator who is nominally atheist is not injustice done in the name of atheism."

Joseph Stalin and Mao tse Tung were "nominal atheists?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Paul Rinzler said...
"If I had my legs destroyed on the rack and was on the pyre, about to be burned alive, I'm sure I'd appreciate anyone, including God, stepping forward to give me out."

Two points:
1. I will take your moral outrage seriously when you (atheists) start taking some responsibility for abuses committed in the name of atheism.

2. Your concept of god borders on a strawman. The idea of god as a big daddy in the sky who should take care of us is shared by only you and fundamentalists.

ildi said...
"Quite the opposite; Christian economics is socialism."

1. I wasn't talking about the early church.
2. The Bible doesn't advance an economic theory.
3. Communism, which is what they practiced, is not an economic system but a way of structuring society.

diglot said...
"I'm sorry but don't capitalism is not Christian economics."

1. My comment was snark first of all.
2. Capitalism does flow from the protestant work ethic.
3. Conventional wisdom during the cold war was that it represented a struggle between atheistic communism and Christian capitalist democracies.

brenda said...

Jim said...
"Are you being intentionally obtuse just to waste my time?"

No I'm not, your definition of atheism is deeply flawed if you think you can define a thing by the absence of another thing.

"Do you honestly believe there is any answer other than "It's the wrong question, because atheism doesn't compel anyone to do anything.""

Neither does theism compel me to do anything.

"Does agnosticism compel you to persecute those who claim to have knowledge of God? Maybe even persecute them or burn them at the stake?"

Nope, and neither does theism compel believers to murder and torture people. You are straw-maning theism if you believe that a theist must necessarily torture and kill people.

"You can't get an "ought" from a "non-belief.""

Atheism is not the absence of belief. Atheism is a rejection of the existence of god.

Atheism entry on Britannica online
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons [list of reasons given]"

Kai E. Nielsen specifically rejects the atheism as a lack of belief drivel pandered by ignorant atheists today. His definition in the Britannica is the correct one.

brenda said...

GearHedEd said...
"If the Bible is God's divine revelation, then we humans have no business "re-interpreting" it into a kinder, gentler version of God's Just Wrath, fundamentalist or not."

Spoken like the true fundamentalist you are GearHedEd. Right wing authoritarians usually do see liberals as muddled headed relativists. It is a false accusation based more on your own illusions than anything else.

Of course, liberal Christians don't believe that the Bible is the literal divine word of god. That is idolatry of the text. Liberal Christians believe that god "speaks through" the Bible.

And no, it is not relativist because there are some points that a liberal theologian will not give ground on. The basic idea though is that the holy spirit will guide you to the correct interpretation.

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is a pretty big hint that perhaps rape, murder and torture are not ok. But I guess you are deaf to such hints. You need big daddy to intervene in your life because otherwise you're liable to do just anything huh?

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Brenda,

Mao and Stalin were dictators who happened to be atheists, they were not dictators because they were atheists nor did they conduct their purges in the name of or to further atheism. Mao and Stalin were first and foremost paranoid megalomaniacs obsessed with personal loyalty and power. The Stalinist purges of the officer corps and party apparatus were carried out primarily to secure Stalin's position as unquestioned ruler, maintain his power base and silence any organized opposition, especially amongst the intelligencia.

As far as Mao and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are concerned, I strongly suggest you actually read something about the history of the Cultural Revolution as you seem capable of doing nothing more than reciting gibberish you read in a Christian Chain Email. The vast majority of the 14 million deaths were due to famine and were largely the consequence of incredibly poor centralized planning and a conscious decision on the part of Party Officials to divert scarce food and resources into industrialized regions rather than rural ones. This hardly constitutes an injustice in the name of atheism.

To be sure, both Mao and Stalin were hostile towards religion, but only because they perceived it as a threat to their own personal prestige and power. Neither worked their injustices in the name of atheism.

To simply take the religious affiliation of a leader or country and claim that any injustice worked by that leader or country is intellectually lazy, dishonest and leads to all manner of ridiculous and erroneous conclusions.

The genocides presently being worked in Afria are not Christian injustices merely by virtue of the leaders and their people being overwhelmingly Christian. Nor were the gross injustices of Mao and Stalin atheist injustices merely because the leadership was atheist.

Try again.

Jim said...

Brenda,

No I'm not, your definition of atheism is deeply flawed if you think you can define a thing by the absence of another thing.

You don't even understand the Britannica entry you hyperlinked to.

It's simple: There is no compelling evidence that there is a god or gods. Because of that, I reject the belief in a god or gods. Because I reject the belief, I remain without belief.

I reject the belief in all things where there is no compelling evidence for belief, and you should too. Thus, I remain "without belief" in many things.

If you, Brenda, cannot say "I believe in a god or gods," then you are an atheist, plain and simple because you have rejected the belief in a god or god(s).

This is totally different than "I claim there is no God," which would require some sort of evidence on part of the claimant. Is this closer to what you think "atheist" means? Something like, atheists make the positive claim that there is no god or gods?

We wouldn't even have the term "atheism" if it weren't for people who first made the term "theism" and made it mainstream. Atheism was then simply a verbal shortcut.

You've got your own pet mental image of what atheism means and you're trying to shoehorn other valid definitions into that. Fail.

As far as defining something by the absence of something--what is agnosticism?

Please define the term "nothing" without using absence of something.

Good luck.

Jim said...

Brenda,

And then you finish with:

Atheism is not the absence of belief. Atheism is a rejection of the existence of god.


Again, you don't even have the same definition as the Britannica entry you hyperlinked to.

Atheism is not the rejection of the existence of god.

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in the existence of god. Why? Because there is no compelling evidence.

brenda said...

Jim said:
"I reject the belief in a god or gods. Because I reject the belief, I remain without belief."

That's fine. That's positive atheism according to some and is the standard definition of atheism as the denial of god. However, the reverse is not true. Just because you reject belief in god and so are without belief it does not follow that all who are without or lack belief are atheists. The definition of atheism as a lack of belief is the one I object to and you'll not find it in the Britannica article.

"If you, Brenda, cannot say "I believe in a god or gods," then you are an atheist"

I neither accept nor deny the truth value of the claims made either by atheism or theism.

"As far as defining something by the absence of something--what is agnosticism?"

Skepticism with respect the the claims made by theism.

"Please define the term "nothing" without using absence of something."

Not. Any. Thing.

What do I win Alex?

GearHedEd said...

Brenda said,

"...And no, it is not relativist because there are some points that a liberal theologian will not give ground on. The basic idea though is that the holy spirit will guide you to the correct interpretation."

A finer definition of Cherry-Picking I could not have written myself.

GearHedEd said...

Brenda said (to me!)

"..."You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is a pretty big hint that perhaps rape, murder and torture are not ok. But I guess you are deaf to such hints. You need big daddy to intervene in your life because otherwise you're liable to do just anything huh?"

I control myself without recourse to some alleged "objective morality".

Did you forget that I'm an atheist?

Jim said...

Brenda,

The definition of atheism as a lack of belief is the one I object to and you'll not find it in the Britannica article.

. . .

I neither accept nor deny the truth value of the claims made either by atheism or theism.


I disagree with your assessment of the Britannica article. It quite clearly to me repeats "rejection of belief" (i.e. lack of belief) many times. I don't know how you're reading it differently.

And atheism doesn't make any truth claims, but that wasn't the question.

The question was "Do you affirm a belief in the existence of god(s)?"

That means it's about your beliefs and not about "truth claims."

Once you are presented with a proposition by someone about anything under the sun, you HAVE to have either,

1. A belief in the proposition, or
2. Lack a belief in the proposition.

The only way you can be an agnostic without being either theistic or atheistic is to never have been introduced to the concept of god(s).

If you lived in a culture where not a single person had ever even considered or dreamt up the idea of a supernatural being, then your idea about just leaving theism/atheism off the table would be fair--but I don't see it that way.

danielg said...

Pure obfuscation. She wasn't in a Christian society, but in a CATHOLIC one.

Standing for the truth in many non-Christian societies, including Catholic, Muslim, or atheist, will get you persecuted and killed.

This is pure sophistry, an entirely invalid argument. Awful.

danielg said...

>> If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling believers to be civilized democratic loving people.

I see that you do have a concept of what God OUGHT to be like.

Maybe God did tell them that but they didn't listen.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

That's right; you tell'em, John!

(Besides, we all know that the "Holy" Bible condones stealing!)

Jeffrey Shallit said...

your definition of atheism is deeply flawed if you think you can define a thing by the absence of another thing.

At this point all the mathematicians in the audience just throw up their hands and move on, convinced that it is pointless to argue with someone so dense.

Either that, or they have to give up studying "sum-free subsets", "pattern-avoiding words", etc., etc., etc., all of which are defined by the absence of another thing.

brenda said...

Jim said...
"I disagree with your assessment of the Britannica article. It quite clearly to me repeats "rejection of belief" (i.e. lack of belief) many times. I don't know how you're reading it differently."

"Lack" is not synonymous with "reject". Deny is a synonym for reject. The atheist denies or rejects belief in god. Once someone makes the positive claim that they reject belief in god then you could say that they lack belief but lack cannot be the definition because not all that lack belief deny belief.

I've had atheists tell me that since an atheist is defined as lacking belief then rocks and galaxies, tables and chairs must be atheists. This is absurd and is why I don't accept that definition.

What is belief? "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

Which proposition is held to be not true for atheists? That god exists. So if belief is the assertion that god exists, to deny belief is to deny that "god exists" is true. Notice that this encompasses the discussion in the Britannica article. Notice also that it is a very different claim than "God does not exist".

brenda said...

Jeffrey Shallit said...
"At this point all the mathematicians in the audience just throw up their hands and move on"

This isn't about mathematics. Mathematical objects can certainly be defined as you say. When discussing atheism we're not talking about an abstract concept but about a really existing thing that exists independent of our beliefs about it.

Atheism possesses an ontology and as such it simply cannot be a lack. "Non stamp collectors" do not exist, atheism does exist. The reason why is simple. There is no collective intentionality that non stamp collectors should exist but there is a collective intentionality that atheism should exist.

Human institutions are socially constructed. Atheism is a human institution constituted by the collective will of those who identify as atheists. So atheism is a real thing, as real a cocktail parties and universities. As such it cannot be fully characterized as a lack only. There must be a positive claim as to what it is. That positive claim is that atheists deny that "god exists" is true.

Unknown said...

Brenda,
Quit playing semantics... You know full well that when an atheist says that they don't believe in gods that they MEAN they don't believe in your god. Or the Hindu's gods, or the Islamic god.

Most atheists I know don't say for sure that a god or gods don't exist. They DO say however that there is very little chance that the god your religion (or others) created/made up exists.

Unknown said...

simply put, they are without belief in theistic gods.

like you, I don't like the defintion of atheism but follow this logic and try to escape it.

Why does atheism mean a lack of belief in a god when we have other words like amoral, atypical, agnostic, defined as follows…

amoral means without morals
atypical means without typical(ness)
agnostic means without knowledge

Why does atheism mean lack of belief in god when it clearly follows the same spelling methodology as these other words?

In other words, atheism means without theism.

That being said…

From dictionary.com

theism means the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, WITHOUT rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

deism means belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, WITH rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

So while a deist believes in the existence of a god, he DOESN’T believe in the existence of THEISTIC gods, thus making him an atheist, because a deist is without belief in theistic gods.

Beautiful Feet said...

John wrote, "If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling believers to be civilized democratic loving people."

What God did --- He sent a living breathing authentic human example to demonstrate humane authority and power. Especially to those who are lost and without humane hearts.

(Don't be so limited in your perspective -- the ppl who are infected with cruelty need grace more than anyone else -- hard to accept but true).

John wrote, "If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling a society of believers that men do not own women."

What God did -- Jesus exemplified compassion towards women in a time when they were perceived as inferior and weak.

John wrote, "If I were God I would be embarrassed for not coming to her aid in some miraculous manner."

What God did -- He gave us His promise and His word that death is but a doorway -- He gave us His promise that how we live, value life and love is what goes beyond the death of our carnal bodies. By faith, death need not be a condemnation, but a deliverance in this case, from cruel surroundings and circumstances.

John wrote, "If I were God I would be embarrassed for not giving people divine guidance about such matters. I would hide my head in shame if I were God."

What God did - He gave us more than divine guidance - He gave us a living, breathing human example of a caring human being could experience in a full life.

John wrote, "I would confess my guilt and turn away from my uncaring incompetent ways."

What God did : He expressed His love for humanity in a sacrificial way --- He gave us a safe place to confess our guilt for our uncaring and incompetent ways.

John wrote, "And I would let my defenders know they too need to repent for not caring about the Anne's under Christian rule"

What God did - He warned us that His antagonist's closest relatives were those who corrupted the image of divine power to abuse others.

The gospel is win/win -- love always wins --- that tends to agitate and antagonize those infected with an egotistical desire to condemn. Just saying....

Paul Rinzler said...

Brenda wrote:

1. I will take your moral outrage seriously when you (atheists) start taking some responsibility for abuses committed in the name of atheism.

2. Your concept of god borders on a strawman. The idea of god as a big daddy in the sky who should take care of us is shared by only you and fundamentalists.

I'm only talking about a loving, omnipotent god, that is all that is required for my point, which is that there can be no loving, omniscient god that allows torture.

Would a loving parent allow its child to be burned alive if to do otherwise meant removing the free choice of another to save the child? That is the analogous situation.

Beautiful Feet said...

It was written, "Would a loving parent allow its child to be burned alive if to do otherwise meant removing the free choice of another to save the child? That is the analogous situation."

What on earth makes you think that a person who uses torture has free choice? I think your idea of "free choice" is skewed. I would say they were intimidated, impressed and subjugated by cruelty and indoctrinated into behaving inhumanely. One might be a bit limited in one's perspective if one believes that a loving God is only interested in saving some -- Christ exemplified concern for both victims and victimizers.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Les

Why did Brenda answer you with more lame semantics but not respond to my riposte about Stalin and Mao? I'm still waiting for Brenda to regale me with the list of injustices done in the name of atheism. Perhaps she's busy right this moment on wikipedia reading about the atheist pogroms, atheist burnings, atheist crusades, atheist conquests to spread the not-faith.

Wait... those things don't exist...? Perhaps that's why she didn't respond.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Danielg

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Catholicism is not Christian?

Paul Rinzler said...

B. Feet, you're stuck either way.

1. If Anne's torturers did not make a free choice to torture her, but were indoctrinated into it, then God has no reason not to save her in order to save the free will of others, because those others (her torturers) did not exercise their free will - they were indoctrinated.

2. If Anne's torturers did make a free choice to torture her, and God didn't save her, that is analogous to a parent not saving his/her child from burning alive because they wanted the torturer to try to make the right choice not to do it.

danielg said...

>> JEFFREY: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Catholicism is not Christian?

The whole reason the Reformation happened was precisely *because* the Catholic church had strayed from Biblical Christianity, and so in very real terms was NOT Christian.

So, while John portrays this situation as 'christianity against an alternate christianity' (an internal squabble of Christians being cruel to other Christians), a more reasonable and clear view would be that this was a struggle of genuine or Biblical Christianity against an -ism, a non-biblical perversion of Christianity.

In that sense, the persecution of 'biblical' Christians by the Catholic Church is no different than the persecution of these same Christians by atheist regimes, Muslims, or any other hateful intolerant ism.

So while John might be able to marshall other 'Christian atrocities' from history, I don't think this is one of them.

Breckmin said...

The burning of Christians at the stake?

What about all of the early Christians that were fed to the lions?

God will reward them with an eternal reward. Anne Askew has a reward waiting for her by which she will PRAISE God and acknowledge that it was God's Will for her life to stand up for TRUTH.

There are many evil things we can point to that were wrongfully done in the Name of God throughout history.

All death leads to either judgement or reward. Anne's eternal reward will reduce these objections for the rest of eternity. God's justice and grace will prevail. Question what we have missed here with respect to means of death(s).

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Danielg

The fact that you are willing to expel Chatholicism from the fold of Christianity counts as a fairly intolerant and hateful exercise of Danielgism.

@ Breckmin,

I am still waiting for someone to point me to an injustice in the name of Atheism. The Romans who (debatably) fed Christians to lions were polytheists. This is actually even farther than atheism than you guys who are monotheists. The vast, vast, vast majority of Christians burned at the Stake throughout the 1st and early 2nd MCE were burned by OTHER CHRISTIANS for their alleged heresy.

Try again.

Unknown said...

Brenda?

Still waiting for a response... I know you're busy defending your positions and tieing yourself up in knots trying to rationalize the truths being imparted to you but come on.

It's not as convoluted as you make it to be.

Either there is a god, or there isn't. Let's establish that point first. Then we can deal with the theistic gods that you're so fond of.

Either way, IF there is a god. I'm DAMN sure he/she/it ISN'T the one you like to forward as the creator and savior of man.

danielg said...

>> JEFFREY: The fact that you are willing to expel Chatholicism from the fold of Christianity counts as a fairly intolerant and hateful exercise of Danielgism.

That's an interesting perspective - but inaccurate. I am willing to expel any church organization, Catholic or Protestant, that fails to keep the essentials of the faith, chief of which salvation by faith.

Notice I said the Catholic Church of the time ... today's Catholic church, esp. since Vatican II, is much more biblical than the awful heretical and unbiblical church of the late middle ages.

Such non-biblical heresies as indulgences, praying to saints, salvation by membership in the outward church, and elevating the authority of men above scripture is exactly what Luther complained about in his objections to the very un-biblical stances of the Catholic Church.

This is pretty standard historical stuff, but perhaps you are not a student of history.

As far as individual Catholics being Christian, naturally, that is possible, just as it is possible to be a member of a Protestant church and NOT be Christian in actual belief.

Please don't be a liberal that throws the word 'hate' and 'intolerance' around whenever there is a principled disagreement - it's anti-intellectual, and heat rather than light.

>> JEFFREY: I am still waiting for someone to point me to an injustice in the name of Atheism.

Ahh, then look no further than these articles - atheism, when scaled up to government size, has killed more people in history than any other ideology. Of course, individual atheists would not do such a thing, but collectively, as I argue below, their very viewpoint inexorably leads to intolerance and persecution of believers.

Worse, the argument that "Marxism and Stalinism are not atheism" is a hollow defense, since atheism was one of the cornerstone beliefs.

Atheist Atrocities
Why Atheists are inevitably autocrats

Here's one of the money quotes from the second link:

" At the end of the Darwinian atheists' first great experiment in civil government, 1917-1991, at least 85 million residents of Communism's officially atheistic social laboratories had been either executed or starved to death by their rulers. The more likely figure is a hundred million, according to The Black Book of Communism.

The total may have been higher. Mao's strategy of systematic extermination may have resulted in tens of millions of executions not recorded or else not yet made available to researchers. What went on in Castro's Cuba has been recorded in horrifying detail.

What has gone on in North Korea has not been equally well recorded. The death toll from starvation is in the millions. This is the survival of the fittest, Darwinist-style."

Anonymous said...

Jim,

You said (to Brenda): "Unless you can point me toward the foundational book(s), essay(s), etc. that direct atheist belief and behavior structure . . ."

You don't NEED a book, or essay, or concrete object. You just need an ideology. An ideology that teaches religion is a disease - and we should elimate diseases.

An ideology that teaches religious people stand in the way of progress -and we need to progress.

An ideology that teaches that any real hope of a blossoming future for this world, lies in the hands of "free thinkers" ...not in the hands of the "deluded". So action is expedient.

While atheism in-and-of-itself is not that ideology- it correlates with it. It is no "coincidence" for someone to be an atheist, and to hold to that ideology.

New Atheism, and that ideology, go together like peanut butter and jelly.

danielg said...

>> ANA: You don't NEED a book, or essay, or concrete object. You just need an ideology. An ideology that teaches religion is a disease - and we should elimate diseases. An ideology that teaches religious people stand in the way of progress -and we need to progress. An ideology that teaches that any real hope of a blossoming future for this world, lies in the hands of "free thinkers" ...not in the hands of the "deluded". So action is expedient. While atheism in-and-of-itself is not that ideology- it correlates with it. It is no "coincidence" for someone to be an atheist, and to hold to that ideology.

Ana, you said that very well, and I am (not) surprised that atheists like to hide behind the idea that atheism does NOT lead to such thinking because it is not a full-orbed ideology. What it is is a central pillar and seed of the ideas above. When coupled with any congruent ideology, it contributes mightily to the logical outcomes you mention above. Perhaps not in the thinking of the individual atheist, but in the hands of atheists in power, history has shown that this system, which in general eschews objective morality, always ends up in cruelty. It can't not, logically speaking, even if some protest to the contrary.

Like 'good muslims', the only reason that atheists are not monsters, as Gary Demar argues in Why all atheists aren't monsters (PDF), is that their humanity and intuitive recognition of objective moral truths and human rights keeps them from faithfully and logically following their ideology. As Demar says,

"Most atheists are inconsistent with their atheistic assumptions, keeping them from becoming heartless beasts.

Beautiful Feet said...

Hi Paul, you said, "B. Feet, you're stuck either way"

Only if my expectation is for God's definition of "salvation" to prolong one's carnal existance and in accordance with circumstances suitable to appease ego and a sense of survival. That is no longer my idea of salvation.

Anonymous said...

Jim said,

"Atheism is simply "lack of belief in a god or gods."

Bravo! for yet another repetition of the official "internet-atheists' " definition of atheism.

Unfortunately for atheists, it's not the legitimized definition of atheism in philosophy and academia.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Peer-Reviewed)

What is called "soft atheism" is really just agnosticism, and to avoid spreading further confusion, the latter is what it ought to be called. Agnostics can truthfully say they don't have a burden of proof. Atheists cannot.

Perhaps theists should define theism as: "The lack of belief in the non-existence of God".

It's a lack of belief, so no burden of proof right!

Ryan M said...

I'm not sure how to properly define 'Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism'.

I generally say 'theism' is the belief that the proposition 'A God(s) exists' is true, and Atheism is the belief that the proposition 'A God(s) exists' is false (False with either certainty or a probability of over .5). Agnosticism I define as 'The belief that both the proposition 'A God(s) exists' and its negation are at an epistemic parity'.

I find this to be the most pragmatic way of using the terms in my daily life. So when I say I am an Atheist, I mean I think theism is probably false.

danielg said...

Ryan, your definitions sound perfectly sound and practical. But are you arguing about Ann's point that the burden of proof might lie with the atheist?

Ryan M said...

DanielG,

I think its fair that with my definition of Atheism, the atheist does have a burden of proof.

Unknown said...

Ryan/Daniel,

When you were born, did either have you ANY conception of god? I'm willing to bet no. You learned it from your parents... who learned it from their parents, ad infinitum on back into antiquity.

What does that mean? It MEANS that the default position is to have no belief in god. You had to learn the ins and outs of your religion from your family and friends and pastors, etc... It was proposed to you at an early age that there IS in fact a god, and oh by the way, his name is Yahweh, or Allah, or Vishnu, etc.

I don't fault you for falling for it. I did too when I was young. As children we all look up to our older siblings and parents as the authority on this thing called Life. The wisdom they impart to us is important to the well being of us as people for the most part. Except for in this one regard.

You don't have to believe in a god to be good. You don't have to believe in a god in order to know right from wrong. You only need to understand the "I" and the "other".

Look at it this way. If someone were to come to you with the proposal that the loch ness monster is real. Is the burden of proof on the person making the claim that the loch ness monster is real, or you (the person receiving the news)?

If you said the person making the claim that hte Loch Ness monster was real, congrats.

Now use that same analogy when it comes to the idea of god.

That's ALL atheism is.

Paul Rinzler said...

B. Feet, the issue isn't prolonging life and ego, it's about suffering and pain. God is a monster for not preventing torture not because of prolonging life (at least that's not my argument here), but for letting someone suffer pain and agony horribly. *That's* the monstrous part.

Breckmin, you didn't address this idea at all.

Ryan M said...

Paul Rinzler,

Thats exactly what I think. The issue of gratuitous suffering seems far more important than the continuation of life.

Unknown said...

No comment to my comment Ryan?

Ryan M said...

Les,

I understand your use of 'atheism'. However, from what I can recall, a lot of Philosophers tend to claim Atheism is the belief that the negation of the proposition 'A God(s) exists' is true. I think Philosopher Paul Draper may be one who accepts this. But I recognize that Flew's definition of weak/strong, or George H. Smith's implicit/explicit atheism may have some pragmatic uses.

brenda said...

Les said...
"Quit playing semantics... You know full well that when an atheist says that they don't believe in gods that they MEAN they don't believe in your god. Or the Hindu's gods, or the Islamic god."

Philosophy is little more than semantics. You keep talking as if a god was something that a person could have, "your god". I don't "have" a god, I don't even know what that would mean. I'm agnostic.

I think that one of the problems in this discussion is the confusion over what the word "belief" means. Philosophically the word belief simply means the assertion of the truth or falsity of a proposition. Religious people have a different meaning which is closer to trust. One says that one "believes-in" god. When a person of faith says that they believe in god they are not really even making a truth claim.

"Why does atheism mean a lack of belief in a god when we have other words like amoral, atypical, agnostic, defined as follows…

Because quite simply atheists are not without a belief with respect to the existence of god. Since belief means "Any cognitive content held as true" all we need to do is ask ourselves "do atheists have an opinion (cognitive content) they hold as true with respect to god's existence"?

Yes, they do. Whether it is "god absolutely does not exist" or "it is very unlikely god exists" they still have a belief about the truth value of "god exists". Namely that it is false. The atheist who says "there is insufficient evidence for god's existence" is still placing himself in a position of opposition with respect to the truth of the claim that god exists.

brenda said...

Les said
"Why does atheism mean lack of belief in god when it clearly follows the same spelling methodology as these other words?"

People who are amoral are not actually without morals. We simply label them amoral because they reject, there's that word again, the consensus morality of society. It is not possible for a human to utterly lack morals. Even a sociopath has a moral system. It's just that his is centered completely on his own narcissistic needs.

We do not discover the truth by looking up words in a dictionary.

"theism means the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, WITHOUT rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism)."

Total nonsense. Theism is belief in god. Belief is mental content held as true. So one who believes in god is one who hold that "god exists" is true. Deists also hold that a god exists. Therefore deists are theists.

"So while a deist believes in the existence of a god, he DOESN’T believe in the existence of THEISTIC gods, thus making him an atheist, because a deist is without belief in theistic gods."

Listen to the nonsense you spout. Are you actually claiming that an atheist can believe in a god?? When you reach an absurd result like this from following your assumptions to their logical end. Which you have done. Then you should know that you've made a mistake and should re-examine your assumptions.

Like many atheists today it really isn't "belief in god" that you rail against. What you reject is Christianity which you then conflate into being the same as theism.

brenda said...

Jeffrey A. Myers said...
"Why did Brenda answer you with more lame semantics but not respond to my riposte about Stalin and Mao?"

Because your belief that Stalin and Mao weren't really atheists and that their actions were not motivated by their atheist ideology is so laughable sophomoric as to not merit a response.

The children at the kiddie table get a polite pat on the head. Finnish your kool-aid, later on we'll have ice cream.

Unknown said...

Brenda said,
"Total nonsense. Theism is belief in god. Belief is mental content held as true. So one who believes in god is one who hold that "god exists" is true. Deists also hold that a god exists. Therefore deists are theists.

We have words for a purpose Brenda, don't be an idiot. If deists are theists, then why have the word deists?

The definitions I supplied came from Dictionary.com. Deists may believe in a god or gods, but they sure don't believe in gods of revelation such as Yahweh, El, Wotan, Allah, etc...

When you examine the commonly understood definitions that I provided from Dictionary.com then you understand that any god with a name is either a part of a monotheistic or a polytheistic belief system. Again, they are gods with names.

So while a deist might believe in a god or gods, they're not believing in gods with names (a theistic god) so in effect, a deist most certainly IS an atheist.

MOST Atheists don't say that a god doesn't exist... Just that gods with names and revelation behind them don't.

brenda said...

Les said
MOST Atheists don't say that a god doesn't exist... Just that gods with names and revelation behind them don't.

So I can be an atheist even if I believe in a god just as long as that god doesn't have a name?

Very well then. I believe in the god of Abraham. You'll recall that even though god is sometimes referred to as YHWH that is not his name. In fact, YHWH has no name and it is forbidden to name him.

Am I an atheist?

According to you I must be. Please finish your ice cream. Time for your nap.

Unknown said...

Dense...

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Brenda,

Really, ad homenim is the best you can do?

You clearly need to do some reading on history because you have no idea what you are talking about. Stalin and Mao were no committed their injustices in the name of atheism than Saddam Hussein committed his in the name of Islam or Mobotu committed his in the name of Christianity or the Hutus or Tutsis committed their rapes, murders and genocide in the name of Christianity. None of the aforementioned were done in the name of theism or atheism, but to consolidate power for the ruling elite. You are affirming the consequent and engaging in false causation due to historical ignorance.

bob said...

Danielg - "The whole reason the Reformation happened was precisely *because* the Catholic church had strayed from Biblical Christianity, and so in very real terms was NOT Christian."

Danielg - "I am willing to expel any church organization, Catholic or Protestant, that fails to keep the essentials of the faith, chief of which salvation by faith."

Wow! The more things change, the more they remain the same.

danielg said...

>> BOB: Danielg - "I am willing to expel any church organization, Catholic or Protestant, that fails to keep the essentials of the faith, chief of which salvation by faith." Wow! The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Bob, what you are purposely missing here is the fact that, logically, not everyone who claims to represent Christianity must be doing so, esp. when they make contrary claims.

Taking a simple definition of using the Bible as the measuring stick, some fall outside the pale. This does not mean, for example, that Catholic or Protestant churches that vary in the non-essentials are not Christian, but if they stray from the essentials, they could be considered non-Christian from a definitional point no matter what their label.

That does not mean that individuals within the organizations are not Christian, for as we know, many do not follow the beliefs and dictates of their organizations - for instance, most Catholics do not follow the prohibition on contraception.

So when I say am willing to call middle age Catholicism NOT Christian, I am not making a parochial judgement, but merely stating the obvious - they were not following the teachings of scripture, but were teaching things contrary to it while persecuting those who were following it in a clearly more exact fashion.

In this sense, a non-Christian entity, the Catholic church, was persecuting true Christians (using a straightforward understanding of the orthodox teachings of the Bible as a guide).

My point was that this happens all the time, and that the Catholic Church was being evil, not representative of the teachings of Jesus, and doing what both Muslim and atheist regimes do to believers.

So when John claims that this shows the evils of Christendom, I beg to differ, since Christendom was being persecuted, and though Catholicism may have been the 'face of the Church' in that time, it was not the face of actual Christendom, which Jesus taught exists in the heart of believers, not in some outward power structure.

jpmoody said...

How can an atheist profess moral outrage about anything, when the only basis of morality is that someone has the right to say what is right and what is wrong for all of us? Someone like, say, God, maybe?

Beautiful Feet said...

Paul said, "B. Feet, the issue isn't prolonging life and ego, it's about suffering and pain. God is a monster for not preventing torture not because of prolonging life (at least that's not my argument here),"

We are the ones who perpetuate pain and suffering and cooperate with its existence --- God's grace increases for those subjugated and coopted by cruelty. He loves His enemies -- that is not cruel, but it offends our sense of justice and desire to condemn/elminate the source of pain - one another. In order to completely eliminate pain and suffering a human would have to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. God awakens us, invites us to progress out of pain and suffering. I believe He feels the expression of life and grace is more powerful than any attempts to abort it. Until we are saved, we are blind to this power and value of life. Until we are saved, cruelty has a more powerful pull on our lives than love. Take care and the best to you, Paul!

Paul Rinzler said...

We are the ones who perpetuate pain and suffering and cooperate with its existence
Both people and God can logically perpetuate pain. Just because we can doesn't mean that God can't as well.

--- God's grace increases for those subjugated and coopted by cruelty.
You mean those who torture, not those who are tortured, right? That makes it worse. God therefore says to the tortured, "I have a goal over here (increased grace for torturers) and I'm going to use you to do that because I can't think of any other way.

He loves His enemies -- that is not cruel,
Loving your enemy is great. You can love your enemy and still do a great evil by not stopping torture.

but it offends our sense of justice and desire to condemn/elminate the source of pain - one another.
Not for me. I condemn tortures no matter whether they are us, or whether it is God.

In order to completely eliminate pain and suffering a human would have to wipe humanity off the face of the earth.
I'm talking about what God could do and is therefore responsible for, not what people are responsible for. That's a straw man you just created. I never argued here for removing all evil, I'm only talking about the evil that God doesn't prevent.

Beautiful Feet said...

Hi again, Paul,

You countered, "--- God's grace increases for those subjugated and coopted by cruelty. You mean those who torture, not those who are tortured, right? That makes it worse. God therefore says to the tortured, "I have a goal over here (increased grace for torturers) and I'm going to use you to do that because I can't think of any other way."

God does not condemn -- that poses a problem now doesn't it? Nor does He promote sin. What makes you think a person who is involved in torturing another person is not himself tortured?? Who is the real victim here? The one torturing is a victim as much as the one he is torturing! More so! Torture is a symptom of a depraved person -- a candidate for salvation. Why would a divine being exclude such an individual from being saved? Only we would judge that way.

Then you wrote,
"I never argued here for removing all evil, I'm only talking about the evil that God doesn't prevent."

You have no doubt spoken very accurately here --- you probably wouldn't remove the evil you like to do -- and no doubt, you reserve the definition of evil to only extreme overt acts of violence -- while God assigns the seed of evil to those who are moral hypocrites who corrupt their authority to degrade those surrounding them, depriving them and driving them into more overt acts of evil.

With God, there is no condemnation -- there is grace. Grace trumps evil -- Life is more valuable and worth expressing than the cruelty and evil that attempts to destroy it.

Then this,

"You can love your enemy and still do a great evil by not stopping torture."

If you are enabled to intervene on torture, why would you withhold that action? But you aren't always enabled to do so -- God's expectation is not for us to abort all evil or else He would not have warned us about the continuation of such. The ultimate salvation is not the remediation or suppression/subjugation of all evil on this earth but to save ppl from perishing from it and to progress forward spiritually from this material world.

At any rate, thanks for the conversation.

Paul Rinzler said...

B. Feet wrote:

God does not condemn -- that poses a problem now doesn't it?


If you be so kind as to state the problem, we might discuss it.


Nor does He promote sin.


If you would be so kind as to state what this has to do with the idea that God refusing to stop a torture is monstrous, we might be able to discuss this.


What makes you think a person who is involved in torturing another person is not himself tortured?? Who is the real victim here? The one torturing is a victim as much as the one he is torturing! More so! Torture is a symptom of a depraved person -- a candidate for salvation. Why would a divine being exclude such an individual from being saved? Only we would judge that way.


You're setting up a false choice, as if God's only choices were to include or exclude the torturer's salvation at the cost of another's suffering. Why not prevent the torture and find another way to save the torturer?


You have no doubt spoken very accurately here --- you probably wouldn't remove the evil you like to do -- and no doubt, you reserve the definition of evil to only extreme overt acts of violence -- while God assigns the seed of evil to those who are moral hypocrites who corrupt their authority to degrade those surrounding them, depriving them and driving them into more overt acts of evil.


You're assigning me positions about other evil, and I reserve the right to state my positions when they are relevant.


With God, there is no condemnation -- there is grace. Grace trumps evil -- Life is more valuable and worth expressing than the cruelty and evil that attempts to destroy it.


If you would be so kind as to make explicit what this has to do with God not being monstrous because he won't prevent torture, we might be able to discuss it.


If you are enabled to intervene on torture, why would you withhold that action? But you aren't always enabled to do so -- God's expectation is not for us to abort all evil or else He would not have warned us about the continuation of such.


I'm not talking about people being able to stop torture, I'm talking about God being able to stop torture.


The ultimate salvation is not the remediation or suppression/subjugation of all evil on this earth but to save ppl from perishing from it and to progress forward spiritually from this material world.


Why are the two goals you mention mutually exclusive? If they are not, then why doesn't God stop torturers?

Paul Rinzler said...

B. Feet wrote:

God does not condemn -- that poses a problem now doesn't it?


If you be so kind as to state the problem, we might discuss it.


Nor does He promote sin.


If you would be so kind as to state what this has to do with the idea that God refusing to stop a torture is monstrous, we might be able to discuss this.


What makes you think a person who is involved in torturing another person is not himself tortured?? Who is the real victim here? The one torturing is a victim as much as the one he is torturing! More so! Torture is a symptom of a depraved person -- a candidate for salvation. Why would a divine being exclude such an individual from being saved? Only we would judge that way.


You're setting up a false choice, as if God's only choices were to include or exclude the torturer's salvation at the cost of another's suffering. Why not prevent the torture and find another way to save the torturer?

More below.

Paul Rinzler said...


You have no doubt spoken very accurately here --- you probably wouldn't remove the evil you like to do -- and no doubt, you reserve the definition of evil to only extreme overt acts of violence -- while God assigns the seed of evil to those who are moral hypocrites who corrupt their authority to degrade those surrounding them, depriving them and driving them into more overt acts of evil.


You're assigning me positions about other evil, and I reserve the right to state my positions when they are relevant.


With God, there is no condemnation -- there is grace. Grace trumps evil -- Life is more valuable and worth expressing than the cruelty and evil that attempts to destroy it.


If you would be so kind as to make explicit what this has to do with God not being monstrous because he won't prevent torture, we might be able to discuss it.


If you are enabled to intervene on torture, why would you withhold that action? But you aren't always enabled to do so -- God's expectation is not for us to abort all evil or else He would not have warned us about the continuation of such.


I'm not talking about people being able to stop torture, I'm talking about God being able to stop torture.


The ultimate salvation is not the remediation or suppression/subjugation of all evil on this earth but to save ppl from perishing from it and to progress forward spiritually from this material world.


Why are the two goals you mention mutually exclusive? If they are not, then why doesn't God stop torturers?

Beautiful Feet said...

Hi Paul --- You said this, "You're assigning me positions about other evil, and I reserve the right to state my positions when they are relevant."

I have no clue what you are attempting to articulate here, but that's okay - no need to clarify - I'm fine with whatever...

As for the rest of your response, it all boils down to the POE again which has been hashed out here ad nauseum. Your stance is consistent with one of nonbelief.

Anyway Paul, it's been great chatting with you, but I'm checking out of this convo --- The best to you!