There is a Heaven

[thestoat]

Now, if you are now claiming that there is no connection whatever between your claim of "high possibility"

Come on then, I'll play. Where do i mention "high possibility" in this thread - since you mention this in quotes I feel it logical that you are suggesting these are my words. Please find them since I cannot. If you cannot find then then please stop trying to quote me with words I never used.

Here are some words I did use - you seem to be ignoring these when I re-quote them. I'll try again

Was he a believer, I wonder? If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I think I'd say I was a believer too. Just sayin

Let me go through my reasoning one point at a time to see where we disagree.

1. There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted. Do you agree?
2. Under that threat I myself would have found it very tempting to pretend I was a believer
3. It is thus possible Newton would have found the same temptation.

Where do you start to disagree - point 1, 2 or 3?

[thestoat]

Throughout his life Galileo financially supported her (and the convent to an extent) and corresponded with her; many of these letters show what i see as the depth of his faith in god, despite his differences with the church of rome.

Quite possible bigRR - I am not sure if this was directed at me or not - of course my point was about Newton and not Galileo (though I guess there are parallels)

[Big RR]

It was directed in response to this post:

oCAtek wrote:
while Galileo's daughter became a nun! So, if he was an atheist, it didn't affect her none.


Well,

1. I didn't mention her daughter
2. You do realise that lots of women became nuns in those times. It was simply the expected thing - either marry or become a nun. It wasn't a big deal then

If I missed something, apologies.

[thestoat]

If I missed something, apologies.

No worries bigRR My original comment was about Newton, who was born after Galileo had died and thus might have been affected by his treatment at the hands of the church, who branded him a heretic. There is a parallel since, as I said to Meade, living in such an oppressive time I would have been tempted to say I was Christian, whether or not I really was, just to stay away from torture, pain and death. And I would probably have written what a thoroughly decent chap god was too, just to stay safe. Mind you - I am a complete coward when it comes to the threat of pain

[MajGenl.Meade]

Now, if you are now claiming that there is no connection whatever between your claim of "high possibility"

Come on then, I'll play. Where do i mention "high possibility" in this thread - since you mention this in quotes I feel it logical that you are suggesting these are my words. Please find them since I cannot. If you cannot find then then please stop trying to quote me with words I never used.

Here are some words I did use - you seem to be ignoring these when I re-quote them. I'll try again

Was he a believer, I wonder? If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I think I'd say I was a believer too. Just sayin

Let me go through my reasoning one point at a time to see where we disagree.

1. There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted. Do you agree?
2. Under that threat I myself would have found it very tempting to pretend I was a believer
3. It is thus possible Newton would have found the same temptation.

Where do you start to disagree - point 1, 2 or 3?

Mea culpa - you said "good possibility" and I misquoted as "high possibility". I suppose nit-picking is all that's left once substance leaves the house?

That is a bogus syllogism and is false logic; it is not rational. #1 I don't agree without seeing your substantial evidence re atheists please. For your unsubstantiated theory opposed to all scientific historical evidence you first (silently) assume that Newton was an unbeliever, so that you can circularly assert that it was possible that as an unbeliever he would have succumbed to some fear that applies to you. #2 what are you doing in this syllogism? #3 is a rubbish conclusion because 1 and 2 are not valid

Newton was a believer who voluntarily published ream upon ream of discourses on the OT - that is the 100% evidence. He didn't have to publish anything at all; it was not required and in fact his beliefs sailed pretty close to the wind of heresy (had he published his opinion that Jesus was not God he would indeed have expected retaliation and history would have been different). I cannot argue with unsubstantiated speculations which are 180 degrees contrary to historical facts and evidence

It's odd that I don't really get exercised about opposition to Christianity but blatant disregard for history, facts, logic and rationality just get up my nose. Apologies for being really upset about this

Meade

[loCAtek]

Well, I think this statement follows the belief that scientific study trumps religious indoctrination; regardless that indoctrination is not ineradicable, be it religious or secular/atheist.

I must say Lo that I found that sentence a little odd. You do realise that 'secular' and 'atheist' are completely different things don't you?

That's why the slash; it means and/or.

[The Hen]

The slash is also used to avoid taking a position in a naming controversy, allowing the juxtaposition of both names without stating a preference. An example is the designation "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac"

[loCAtek]

Galileo remained a Catholic after the trials;

GALILEO GALILEI
When Galileo went to Rome to defend his position, he was officially cautioned neither to hold nor to defend the Copernican ideas. And Galileo, good Catholic that he was (and remained), agreed.

Throughout, Galileo maintained that the purpose of scripture is not to teach natural philosophy and that issues of faith and issues of science should be kept separate and should be settled on different grounds. He quoted Tertullian approvingly: "We conclude that God is known first through nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." He also cited Cardinal Cesare Baronius, a contemporary, who had quipped, "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

...

Galileo's trial in 1633 marked the beginning of what has since become a cliché—namely, the idea that science and religion must inevitably be in conflict. Also, Galileo is often seen as science's first martyr in the perennial battle between the church and the spirit of free inquiry. There is no question that the church took a wrong position (contrary to its own tradition in such matters as established by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas); this much was acknowledged by a statement made by John Paul II in 1979, and it was underscored by the Vatican's publication, in 1984, of all documents from its archives relating to Galileo's trial. However, a considerable amount of blame for Galileo's persecution must also fall on the philosophers. Indeed, the decree of sentence issued by the Holy Office was signed by only seven of the ten cardinal-judges.

Unlike innumerable martyrs who have accepted torture or even death for the sake of their convictions, Galileo chose, most unheroically, to abjure his beliefs. (The myth that he, on leaving the tribunal, stamped his foot and said, "Yet it [i.e., the earth] does move," was invented by Giuseppe Baretti in 1757 and has no basis in fact.*) Galileo's sentence was then commuted; there was no formal imprisonment. He was allowed to move back to his country estate near Florence, where he resumed his writing. His Discourses concerning Two New Sciences, regarded by many as his greatest scientific contribution, was published in 1638.

*His actual quote;

Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei

[Sean]

Very true Hen. It is also used to denote things which are interchangeable.

If you meant it to mean what you said Lo, you should have written "be it religious, secular or atheist".

The way you wrote it gives it a completely different meaning.

[loCAtek]

Yet, I didn't use two slashes but one; because I didn't mean 'religious, secular or atheist'.

[The Hen]

It doesn't matter if it was one two or three slashes Lo. My point still stands. You should have been more careful in order to get the meaning you wanted across.

[loCAtek]

if the meaning got across, it didn't matter the slashes....

If it didn't, I hope it has by now.

However I am not the point;

Galileo remained a Catholic after the trials;

GALILEO GALILEI
When Galileo went to Rome to defend his position, he was officially cautioned neither to hold nor to defend the Copernican ideas. And Galileo, good Catholic that he was (and remained), agreed.

Throughout, Galileo maintained that the purpose of scripture is not to teach natural philosophy and that issues of faith and issues of science should be kept separate and should be settled on different grounds. He quoted Tertullian approvingly: "We conclude that God is known first through nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." He also cited Cardinal Cesare Baronius, a contemporary, who had quipped, "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

...

Galileo's trial in 1633 marked the beginning of what has since become a cliché—namely, the idea that science and religion must inevitably be in conflict. Also, Galileo is often seen as science's first martyr in the perennial battle between the church and the spirit of free inquiry. There is no question that the church took a wrong position (contrary to its own tradition in such matters as established by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas); this much was acknowledged by a statement made by John Paul II in 1979, and it was underscored by the Vatican's publication, in 1984, of all documents from its archives relating to Galileo's trial. However, a considerable amount of blame for Galileo's persecution must also fall on the philosophers. Indeed, the decree of sentence issued by the Holy Office was signed by only seven of the ten cardinal-judges.

Unlike innumerable martyrs who have accepted torture or even death for the sake of their convictions, Galileo chose, most unheroically, to abjure his beliefs. (The myth that he, on leaving the tribunal, stamped his foot and said, "Yet it [i.e., the earth] does move," was invented by Giuseppe Baretti in 1757 and has no basis in fact.*) Galileo's sentence was then commuted; there was no formal imprisonment. He was allowed to move back to his country estate near Florence, where he resumed his writing. His Discourses concerning Two New Sciences, regarded by many as his greatest scientific contribution, was published in 1638.

*His actual quote;

Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei

[loCAtek]

Her mother is an atheist;




...but Colton says her paintings depict him the best.

[thestoat]

Mea culpa - you said "good possibility" and I misquoted as "high possibility". I suppose nit-picking is all that's left once substance leaves the house?

G'ah - maybe this is a language thing, but to me there is a HUGE difference between good possibility and high possibility. For me, the former means the possibility is definitely there - definitely real. The latter - again for me - suggests high probability. At least now I understand the confusion

you first (silently) assume that Newton was an unbeliever

Oh for crying out loud STOP IT! I have assumed NOTHING OF THE SORT. Once again - I SAID "Was he a believer, I wonder?" That is a question - there is even a "?" at the end to give a hint. Please, please, please understand this fundamental point.

Now, if you can stop putting words in my mouth and stop making up meaning that were certainly NOT in my words then we can continue.

Let me start with point 1.

There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted. Do you agree?

You do not agree. That's fine - let me expand.

Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

I think - again, you may disagree - that atheism falls under that.
Here is a List of people burned as heretics. Note I am just talking about burnings here. So here are some *facts* about *history* - please state where you disagree with this. Then we can continue


Ramihrdus of Cambrai (1076 or 1077) (lynched)
Peter of Bruys († 1130) (lynched)
Gerard Segarelli († 1300)
Fra Dolcino († 1307)
Sister Margherita († 1307)
Brother Longino († 1307)
Marguerite Porete († 1310)
Botulf Botulfsson († 1311), the only known heretic executed in Sweden
Jacques de Molay (1243–1314), burned after conviction by a tribunal under the control of King Philip IV of France.
Guilhèm Belibasta († 1321), last Cathar
Francesco da Pistoia († 1337)
Lorenzo Gherardi († 1337)
Bartolomeo Greco († 1337)
Bartolomeo da Bucciano († 1337)
Antonio Bevilacqua († 1337)
William Sawtre († 1401)
John Badby († 1410)
Jan Hus (1371–1415), impenitent/unrepentant heretic
Jerome of Prague (1365–1416), relapsed heretic
St. Joan of Arc (1412–1431), relapsed heretic
Thomas Bagley († 1431)
Pavel Kravař († 1433)
Girolamo Savonarola († 1498)
Joshua Weißöck (1488–1498)
Jean Vallière († 1523)
Hendrik Voes († 1523), 1st martyr in the Seventeen Provinces
Jan van Essen († 1523), 1st martyr in the Seventeen Provinces
Jan de Bakker († 1525), 1st martyr in the Northern Netherlands
Wendelmoet Claesdochter († 1527), 1st Dutch woman burned as heretic
Michael Sattler († 1527)
Patrick Hamilton († 1528)
Balthasar Hubmaier (1485–1528), relapsed heretic
George Blaurock (1491–1529)
Hans Langegger († 1529)
Giovanni Milanese († 1530)
Richard Bayfield († 1531)
James Bainham († 1532)
William Tyndale (1490–1536)
John Frith (1503–1533)
Jakob Hutter († 1536)
Aefgen Listincx (d. 1538)
Anneke Esaiasdochter (d. 1539)
Francisco de San Roman († 1540)
Giandomenico dell' Aquila († 1542)
Maria van Beckum (d. 1544)
Ursula van Beckum (d. 1544)
George Wishart (1513–1546)
John Rogers († 1555)
Rowland Taylor († 1555)
John Hooper († 1555)
Robert Ferrar († 1555)
Patrick Pakingham († 1555)
Hugh Latimer (1485–1555), relapsed heretic
Nicholas Ridley (1500–1555)
Bartolomeo Hector († 1555)
Paolo Rappi († 1555)
Vernon Giovanni († 1555)
Labori Antonio († 1555)
John Bradford († 1555)
Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), relapsed heretic
Pomponio Angerio († 1556)
Nicola Sartonio († 1557)
Thomas von Imbroich († 1558) (beheaded)
Fra Goffredo Varaglia († 1558)
Gisberto di Milanuccio († 1558)
Francesco Cartone († 1558)
Antonio di Colella († 1559)
Antonio Gesualdi († 1559)
Giacomo Bonello († 1560)
Mermetto Savoiardo († 1560)
Dionigi di Cola († 1560)
Gian Pascali di Cuneo († 1560)
Bernardino Conte († 1560)
Giorgio Olivetto († 1567)
Luca di Faenza († 1568)
Thomas Szük (1522–1568)
Bartolomeo Bartoccio († 1569)
Dirk Willems († 1569)
Fra Arnaldo di Santo Zeno († 1570)
Alessandro di Giacomo († 1574)
Benedetto Thomaria († 1574)
Diego Lopez († 1583)
Gabriello Henriquez († 1583)
Borro of Arezzo († 1583)
Ludovico Moro († 1583)
Pietro Benato († 1585)
Francesco Gambonelli († 1594)
Marcantonio Valena († 1594)
Giovanni Antonio da Verona († 1599)
Fra Celestino († 1599)
Giordano Bruno (1548–1600)
Maurizio Rinaldi († 1600)
Bartolomeo Coppino († 1601)
Kimpa Vita (1684–1706)
Maria Barbara Carillo (1625–1721)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks for the understanding of "good" / "high" - I follow.

That is a bogus syllogism and is false logic; it is not rational. #1 I don't agree without seeing your substantial evidence re atheists please. For your unsubstantiated theory opposed to all scientific historical evidence you first (silently) assume that Newton was an unbeliever, so that you can circularly assert that it was possible that as an unbeliever he would have succumbed to some fear that applies to you. #2 what are you doing in this syllogism? #3 is a rubbish conclusion because 1 and 2 are not valid

No I will not stop it. Your syllogism assumes (silently as I said above; I never quoted you as saying it explicitly) that Newton was a non-believer.

Because: If he was assumed to be a believer, then your first proposition would not apply to him at all and the argument goes no further.

It would only be of any value if Newton is assumed to be an atheist or non-believer and your syllogism is an effort to explain why history has no record of it. In fact, I should have noticed that #3 assumes even more obviously that Newton was an atheist/n-b because otherwise he would have no need to fear consequences that you as an atheist would justifiably fear.

1. There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted. Do you agree?
2. Under that threat I myself would have found it very tempting to pretend I was a believer
3. It is thus possible Newton would have found the same temptation.

Thank you for the list of believers who were persecuted by various churches. I'm old and short-sighted and couldn't find an atheist or a non-believer in the list. Highlighter? Plus you are mostly off by 100-200 years. All that persecution was long before Newton was even born and he did not live under the threat of being burned or even executed. (The last in England was 1612; some thirty years before he was born). Also your list reflects Catholic actions. Newton came of age in the reigns of George 1 and 2 who were not Catholic - both being "Defender of the Faith" - i.e. the Anglican church faith. He had nothing to fear but fear itself.

Is your position now changed to state that there's a good possibility Newton was a heretic but avoided letting on? (You'd be right. He was and he didn't let on). Your syllogism can then be cleaned up to read:

1. There is substantial evidence that heretical believers might lose their jobs and preferments
2. Denying that Jesus is the Son of God was regarded as heresy
3. Newton kept private his belief that Jesus is not the Son of God in order to avoid losing his job (I think the syllogism is still a problem but not nearly as much)

It's a bit of a waste of time though because history tells us #3 just as it tells us that as a committed believer in God Newton wrote much about theology and the Bible and was highly regarded by all.

Meade

[thestoat]

Well if you continue to misquote me and completely ignore all my quotes where I state that I do not know and am merely wondering then there is nothing I can do to stop you - but I thought you were above such petty lies.

Because: If he was assumed to be a believer, then your first proposition would not apply to him at all and the argument goes no further.

Wrong. I wonder if he might not have been a believer because of the threats to heretics, perceived or otherwise.

It would only be of any value if Newton is assumed to be an atheist or non-believer and your syllogism is an effort to explain why history has no record of it

Wrong again. My "syllogism" simply explains why he might have been an atheist of non believer and chose to hide it. As I said, had I have lived in that time I would have chosen to hide it.

Plus you are mostly off by 100-200 years

"Mostly off"? What a ridiculous thing to say. I list people who were burned at the stake between 1077 and 1721. It was clearly going on when Newton was around. That was the whole point of the list - something that seems to have escaped your notice. They were burned for herecy. An atheist would certainly be classed as a heretic. What is so difficult to understand about that? Or do you think an atheist would be treated differently to another heretic? Perhaps they'd have got a slap on the wrist and sent home without supper for being naughty? If you want a specific atheist then check out Vanini (http://words.fromoldbooks.org/Chalmers- ... anini.html). Following a prolonged trail, he was sentenced to death as an atheist. But it wasn’t enough just to take his life. The pope ordered his tongue be cut out so he couldn’t speak another word about his heretical ideas. In 1619, he was strangled at the stake and burned.

In fact, look at this one

During the nineteenth century, British atheists, though few in number, were subject to discriminatory practices.[12] Those unwilling to swear Christian oaths during judicial proceedings were unable to give evidence in court to obtain justice until the discrimination was ended by Acts passed in 1869 and 1870.[12] In addition, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley was expelled from the University of Oxford and denied custody of his two children after publishing a pamphlet on The Necessity of Atheism.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... t_atheists
So the discrimination continued long after Newton.

Hmm. Want another? Try Étienne Dolet. He was " branded as a relapsed atheist by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne. On 3 August 1546 (his 37th birthday), he was strangled and burned in the Place Maubert". Or how about Kazimierz Łyszczyński, who was accused, tried, and executed for atheism in 1689.

Or - let's consider Philip the "Fair". He tortured and killed many Templars for atheism. "The torture that the Templars endured was extreme and ghastly. Bernard de Vado was tortured by fire so badly that bones in his feet burnt off. This extreme treatment produced quick confessions which Philip used to his advantage. He sent transcripts of them to Clement �after the pope had sent him a letter discussing his indignation at the French king because he had arrested monks subject to no one other than the pope himself. In the letter Clement asked Philip to turn over the Templars and all their possessions to two cardinals, Berenger de Fredole and Etienne de Suissi. But Philip used the confessions (brought about by torture) as evidence, to show the pope the Templars were guilty and thus the cardinals were not required."
http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk/templars.htm

I don't agree without seeing your substantial evidence re atheists please

I wonder if you now agree?

[thestoat]

Just seen a piece about Tommaso Campanella, " Accused of supporting atomist and atheist doctrines, he was condemned in 1595 “on grave suspicion of heresy” and forced to make a formal public abjuration" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/campanella/

In fact - they even passed a law against it ...

9 August 1650 Act against several atheistic, blasphemous and execrable opinions derogatory to the honour of God, and destructive to human society.

Newton would have been 7. Not much fun being an atheist in those times.

[loCAtek]

Gee, and how many Christians were fed to the lions?


Wiki

Contents
[hide]

* 1 Antiquity
o 1.1 Persecution of Christians in the New Testament
o 1.2 Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire
+ 1.2.1 Persecution under Nero, 64-68 AD
+ 1.2.2 Persecution from the 2nd century to Constantine
+ 1.2.3 The Great Persecution
o 1.3 Persecutions of early Christians outside the Roman Empire
* 2 Persecution of Christians during the Middle Ages
o 2.1 Persecution of Christians in the early and medieval Caliphates
o 2.2 Medieval Christian persecution of heresy
* 3 Early Modern period (1500 to 1815)
o 3.1 Reformation
+ 3.1.1 Anti-Catholic
+ 3.1.2 Anti-Eastern Orthodox
+ 3.1.3 Anti-Protestant
+ 3.1.4 Persecution of the Anabaptists
o 3.2 China
o 3.3 Japan
o 3.4 India
o 3.5 French Revolution
* 4 Modern era (1815 to 1989)
o 4.1 Ottoman Empire
o 4.2 Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries
o 4.3 19th and 20th century Mexico
o 4.4 Anti-Mormonism
o 4.5 Madagascar
o 4.6 Spain during the Spanish Civil War
o 4.7 Nazi Germany
o 4.8 Franco's Spain
* 5 Current situation (1989 to present)
o 5.1 Muslim world
+ 5.1.1 Republic of Turkey
# 5.1.1.1 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
+ 5.1.2 Algeria
+ 5.1.3 Indonesia
+ 5.1.4 Iraq
+ 5.1.5 Lebanon
+ 5.1.6 Sudan
+ 5.1.7 Pakistan
+ 5.1.8 Egypt
+ 5.1.9 Saudi Arabia
+ 5.1.10 Other countries with large Muslim populations
# 5.1.10.1 Iran
# 5.1.10.2 Nigeria
# 5.1.10.3 India
# 5.1.10.4 Philippines
# 5.1.10.5 Indonesia
# 5.1.10.6 Afghanistan
# 5.1.10.7 Kosovo
# 5.1.10.8 Malaysia
# 5.1.10.9 Lebanon
# 5.1.10.10 Yemen
# 5.1.10.11 Somalia
o 5.2 Hindu extremism in India
o 5.3 People's Republic of China
o 5.4 North Korea
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 Sources
* 9 External links

Juss sayin'

[thestoat]

Lo, you are absolutely right. But that post needs to go no the "Christians and persecution - were they or were they not?" Thread.

My list was there because I had said "There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted. Do you agree?" and Meade replied with "#1 I don't agree without seeing your substantial evidence re atheists please". He continued saying that he got annoyed when there was a disregard for history and facts - seems the historical gap was in his own knowledge, but I await his response.

I do know Christians were victimised 2000 years ago - and there is probably evidence that this has continued to happen in various parts of the world to this day. But that has no bearing on this thread.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well if you continue to misquote me and completely ignore all my quotes where I state that I do not know and am merely wondering then there is nothing I can do to stop you - but I thought you were above such petty lies.

I misquoted you once - good vs high. I am aware that you do not know. All arguments "assume" something. It does not mean that you BELIEVE the thing assumed; it means that for the purpose of an argument a certain thing is assumed. A syllogism must show that if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion (third) must be true.

1. All X were tortured
2. That would scare me because I'm an X
3. Therefore Arnold may be an X

It doesn't work - it's not logic. The form is correct but the argument is invalid, regardless of Newton.

In his case, every shred of evidence shows he was a believer. Not one shred of evidence indicates otherwise. So is there a good possibility he was Jewish?

1. All Jews were discriminated against
2. I'd be scared if I was a Jew
3. Therefore Newton may have been Jewish

Anything can be fitted into that, no matter how ridiculous. And you said "Atheists and non-believers". You didn't bring "heretic" into the equation until I pointed out your list did not show "atheists and non-beievers". "Heretics" are believers that the Roman church chose to kill. Not non-believers.

I said your list was "mostly" off by 100-200 years. I was using his age when he wrote his major works on the Bible as the standard. Using his DOB I should have said "mostly 50-200". Out of 97 given examples only 2 were during Newton's lifetime. And that's being generous since I don't consider the 11th century to be remotely citable.

I think you have now identified four atheists - three of whom were executed 50-500 years before Newton's birth. All four were persecuted by the Catholic church in countries that were not-England. England was not a Catholic country and the last burning there was before Newton was born. He had nothing to fear from the Roman church. Had he been Spanish, your argument might have some slight traction although even then it would be invalid.

Shelley was expelled from the University of Oxford (and not at all burned at the stake) for atheism. I myself pointed out that Newton actually did suppress his heretical belief that Jesus was not God because he feared for his job(s) - at Cambridge and the Royal Mint. I gave that to you on a plate so you could acknowledge he was a believer but you would still have some grounds to decry the suppression of ideas.

I wonder if you now agree?

No I don't agree that "Newton may have been an atheist or non-believer". For reasons given above.

Meade