There is a Heaven

[MajGenl.Meade]

Lo - what thestoat said about "no bearing on this thread" is accurate. Listing Christians killed by non-Christians is not a valid response to a list of heretics killed by Catholics.

[thestoat]

Utterly bizarre.

I said

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

You said

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

I provide evidence about heretics (atheists were considered heretics) but you wanted specific atheists. Out of interest, can you provide any evidence for your implied assertion that an atheist would have been treated differently from any other heretic (or is there another reason why my list of heretics was not s.uifficient for you)?
I give specific examples of atheists.

I ask if you agree about my point 1 (no, I didn't state explicitly "do you agree about point 1", but whenever I have asked "do you agree" it has always been in connection with my providing requested proof about point 1) and you assume a completely different question. I made 3 statements that led to my question on whether Newton was Christian. You stated the first was illogical - obviously I need to prove it is not illogical before points 2 and 3 could be considered. So, let's try again

1. There is substantial evidence that atheists and non believers were persecuted.

Do you now agree?

Incidentally,

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.

My point was merely that there was, for hundreds of years, a lot of persecution against people accused of being a heretic. Newton lived with that as a background. The list, though long, is nowhere near complete - most names were "unknowns" and anyway kept by the church. It seems to be hundreds of thousands were burned for herecy (not all atheists, of course) - and, crucially, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that an atheist would not have been considered a heretic (unless, as asked above, you can find one?).

"Heretics" are believers that the Roman church chose to kill. Not non-believers.

Can you back that up? I gave you an unbiassed definition of heretic that you chose to ignore.

Damn those pesky facts.

[thestoat]

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

I'm interested ... where does the logic break down?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm interested ... where does the logic break down?

I'm just putting this in quotes so it stands separate from what is below it. This is not a direct quote of a previous post

A syllogism must show that IF the first two premises are true, THEN the conclusion (third) MUST be true.

1. All X were tortured and killed
2. That would scare me because I'm an X
3. Therefore Newton may be a secret X

The first two do not prove that the 3rd must be true.

Try the argument this way:

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

Any supposition can be fitted into that, no matter how ridiculous, because the first two premises DO NOT make the conclusion true.

As to the other post, you stated atheists and non-believers. I objected to a good possibility that Newton was one of those two. I believe in the meaning of words and took you at yours. You then provided a list of heretics. I objected that this was not evidence for your stated argument. Heretic does not equal atheist. Heretic does not equal non-believer. You now have changed to emphasising "heretic".

Do you want to say that there was a good possibility that Newton was a heretic and change your first line to read "heretics"?

Otherwise I continue to reject your first premise because it says "atheists and non-believers" for which you have provided no relevant proof. In fact I think you've pretty much proved that atheists (if there were any) kept a low profile and didn't get burned. It was those loudmouths who insisted on being protestants and people like Joan of Arc who got bumped off for political reasons - as indeed so many were - they were the ones that got burned.

Some guy terminated 500 years before Newton isn't very threatening - nor are whatever goes on in France, Spain and Italy. (Did you read about that one lady on your orginal list who was finally executed by the Catholics for claiming that Joseph, Mary and Jesus all lived in the Congo? OK she did more than that but it was the final straw or perhaps the first)

You successfully proved that no heretics, atheists or non-believers were executed by burning in England during Newton's lifetime (and I think that's during the reigns of Charles II, George 1 and George 2 but I could be mistaken). The reason that Englishmen could breathe a lot less smoke in those days was because the Catholic faith was barred from the throne and never again allowed to conduct its vendettas against Anglicans and non-conformists. Also similar persecution of Catholics went out of fashion although prejudice did not

OTOH as you exampled by Shelley (a lot later than Newton), prejudice against atheists was quite strong, even to the point of of his losing his Oxford bags. Prejudice against Catholics and Jews was strong too. How about

1. Catholics were persecuted
2. I'd be scared if I was a catholic
3. Therefore Newton was possibly a catholic

Now let's look at some facts (you like those). Shelley wrote about atheism - and got what he expected. Newton wrote about the Bible - and er nothing happened.

And your theory (although you admitted to knowing nothing of the facts) is that Newton was possibly an atheist because he wrote about the Bible? And he would only have written about the Bible to convince people he wasn't an atheist (good possibility of being)? But now you want to say "heretic" instead of "atheist"? OK so how would Newton best avoid being called a heretic? My guess: not write or say a word about faith, the Bible or Christianity but just do what everyone else did.

Did you know at Cambridge he was supposed to be ordained to be on board - but he wouldn't be ordained (his choice) because of his unorthodox Christian beliefs? So he got the King to give him a special permission not to be ordained? Sounds like he was really scared there!

You are so losing this argument that I'm feeling like a guy with baseball bat and a baby seal

Meade

[thestoat]

Ah, Meade. You are funny - loving it. You make statements, have them refuted, ignore them and move on and then come out with "I'm winning, nah nah nah." Love it

Any supposition can be fitted into that, no matter how ridiculous, because the first two premises DO NOT make the conclusion true.

I see logic is not your strong point. Let's use your example, because I see this as the elephant in the room.

1. All X were tortured and killed
2. That would scare me because I'm an X
3. Therefore Newton may be a secret X

The first two do not prove that the 3rd must be true.

Actually, they do. Point 3 can be logically stated from 1 and 2. You are confusing probability and logic. Point 3 does not imply "Newton must be a secret X" - that would be incorrect. But point 3 states "Therefore Newton may be a secret X". That is absolutely logically correct.

Any supposition can be fitted into that, no matter how ridiculous

Of course! This is why I pondered the question. I have never stated that Newton WAS NOT Christian. I simply wondered. For example.

All fleas are small. X is small. Therefore X may be a flea. That is logically 100% sound. So when you state "It doesn't work - it's not logic." You are completely and utterly wrong. You talk about being annoyed by a disregard for logic yet you clearly fail to understand basic logic.

Note - this has nothing to do with probability. The first 2 statements absolutely DO make the 3rd true - for the very reason that they third statement uses the words "may be" and not "is". This is where your confusion lies.

Do you want to say that there was a good possibility that Newton was a heretic and change your first line to read "heretics

Either would be fine. Another point you fail to address is that a non believer or atheist was considered a heretic (contrary to your incorrect statement stating ""Heretics" are believers that the Roman church chose to kill. Not non-believers." - I gave an independent definition of heretic that you continue to chose to ignore - damn those pesky facts, eh?) Now, an atheist or non believer would have been branded a heretic - after asking you 3 times to provide evidence to the contrary, and having had that request 3 times ignored, I assume you cannot refute that.

You successfully proved that no heretics, atheists or non-believers were executed by burning in England during Newton's lifetime (and I think that's during the reigns of Charles II, George 1 and George 2 but I could be mistaken).

Ah, there goes your logic again. True, in your narrow statement I could find no name in some high level searches I did - but that does not prove it didn't happen. It merely proves I could find no record of in on the internet. In fact I did prove atheism was made unlawful when Newton was 7 - but, of course, you ignored that.

1. Catholics were persecuted
2. I'd be scared if I was a catholic
3. Therefore Newton was possibly a catholic

Yes, that is logically correct too. Maybe you are starting to get the hang of logic a little.

And your theory (although you admitted to knowing nothing of the facts) is that Newton was possibly an atheist because he wrote about the Bible? And he would only have written about the Bible to convince people he wasn't an atheist (good possibility of being)? But now you want to say "heretic" instead of "atheist"? OK so how would Newton best avoid being called a heretic? My guess: not write or say a word about faith, the Bible or Christianity but just do what everyone else did.

Since an atheist was a heretic I don't really see that it matters. It is ridiculous to try to argue a heretic might be burned at the stake but a non-believer or atheistic heretic would be treated differently, yet in trying to force a distinction you appear to suggest just that - without giving any reason for the distinction (in spite of my asking for this 3 times).

How about this ...

Espousing unorthodox views, however trivial, could result in death. In 1528 Patrick Hamilton was burned at St Andrews for holding heretical opinions, notably a denial of the freedom of the will. In 1546 Anne Askew was burned at Smithfield because of her beliefs about the Eucharist. In 1592 Henry Barrow and John Greenwood, who preached congregationalism, were hanged at Tyburn for "obstinately refusing to come to church". Their real crime seems to have been to advocate the separation of Church and State. Unitarians were executed in 1612 in London and Lichfield, and one in 1651 in Dumfries. William Prynne, a Puritan lawyer, published criticisms of Archbishop Laud. For this had his ears hacked off by the public hangman in 1633. Along with others he was charged again and tried by the Star Chamber in 1637. The others charged had their ears cropped, and as it was discovered that Prynne still had stumps left on the side of his head, these were severed too. He was also branded on the cheeks, and then imprisoned for life along with the others.

http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html

Let's summarize, shall we?

1. You incorrectly state

The first two do not prove that the 3rd must be true

, implying a complete lack of knowledge of logic on your party since they are logically 100% accurate
2. You incorrectly define the meaning of heretic, and ignore my definition. When asked for a source for your erroneous definition, you ignore the question
3. You try to twist herecy and atheism/non believers. I maintain that an atheist or non believer would have been considered a heretic and ask why they might not be treated the same as a heretic. You ignore the question
4. I mention the law against atheism, passed when Newton was 7. You ignore the point.

I suppose selective deafness is a problem with forums. Fortunately I can continue to quote your inconsistencies. Damn those facts.

Remember what I said.

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.

That is 100% incontrovertible (though you have tried). The first was a question. The second was about how I would have acted in those days.

[MajGenl.Meade]

All fleas are small. X is small. Therefore X may be a flea. That is logically 100% sound.

Indeed it is. However, that is not your syllogism at all. Your syllogism says this:

All fleas are small = [Atheists and non-believers were executed]
I am small = {As an atheist, I would have been scared of that]
Therefore Newton may have been a flea = {Therefore Newton may have been an atheist]

There is no valid connection between premise 2 and the conclusion 3. You have not argued or shown that Newton was scared as you would have been. The major term 'scared' is not distributed. instead you have 'atheist' appearing three times which is a logical fallacy. You could argue thusly:

Atheists would have been scared of execution
I am an atheist and would have been scared of that
Therefore if Newton was scared he may possibly have been an atheist

I guess I can't object to an "if" followed by a "may possibly". Of course, Newton may have been scared by a lot of other things and not a fear of being exposed as an atheist but once an argument is hedged about by enough ifs ands and buts it can satisfy requirements of logic and remain the nonsense that it is.

It would be valid (although incredibly dull and boring) if one could say (with some evidence of premise 2):

Atheists would have been scared of execution
Newton was scared
Therefore he may possibly have been an atheist

You could of course substitute "witches", "plotters against the king", "murderers", "horse thieves", etc etc for atheism and have a formally correct and valid argument that is still pathetic.

I did not define "heretic". Instead I made claims about your list. First you identified it as a list of heretics. I believe you. Second I stated without fear of contradiction that "heretic" does not equal atheist. So while all atheists are heretics, not all heretics are atheists. That is, there were many heresies - atheism would have been one.

But a very insignificant one compared to other heresies. Very very few people were atheist in Newton's time and before - almost all people (in Europe) were believers. Thousands held religious faith views that conflicted with the ruling Roman authority (all protestants did for example). Third I pointed out that the list was a list of people killed by the devices/means/standards of the Roman church, from which Newton had nothing to fear.

You first claim that atheists and unbelievers were persecuted and executed (in so many words - I'm not quoting verbatim). You provide a list that you identified as "heretics" as support. If they were beleivers but not atheists, your list is irrelevant and does not support your first premise. The burden of proof is on you to show what proportion were atheists versus believers. I do not have to prove your claim that any or all were atheists - you do

However, at random:
Thomas Cranmer - Archbishop of Canterbury. Burned for refusing to recognize the Pope's authority
Maria van Beckum - anabaptist. Anabaptism declared heresy by Rome
Giordano Bruno - Dominican monk. Executed by Rome for holding heretical beliefs (not for Copernicanism which was not a heresy)
Kimpa Vita - extremely unorthodox beliver in Kongo, executed under Roman church view of heresy
Dirk Vilems - anabaptists (see Maria above)
Gerard Segarelli - founder of the Apostolic Brethren
Thomas Bagley - priest and vicar; denied transubstantiation - heretic against the Roman church
Wendelmoet Claesdochter - executed for Lutheranism. Heretic according to Roman church
Aefgen Listincx - Anabaptist and prophet. Guess what - Roman church
George Wishart - protestant, Calvinish. Executed for denying Roman church dogma

Need I go on? This was truly a random selecton and there's not one atheist there. This does not prove that "no" atheists are in that list. Please understand I would not claim that atheists were not in danger of burning etc. But there were so few atheists! So few unbelievers.

Also I missed your description about atheism being declared illegal during Newton's lifetime - I just look through the posts again but couldn't find it. Obviously I missed it so please direct me.

Your final quotation in your latest post proves once again that believers suffered - not atheists or unbelievers. I think perhaps the 1612 incident was the one I mentioned - the last burning in England? Prynne is interesting; he actually lost his ears in 1634 (not 1633) because he wrote against female actors in plays at (sadly for him) the exact time that Charles 1's queen and ladies took part in a play at court. While in prison he wrote a letter accusing Bishop Laud of injustice and other nasty things against episcopy for which he lost the rest of his ears and got the branding in 1637. He got his own back by testifying at Laud's trial after the Restoration.

None of your examples have any relevance to the political, actual, religious situation under the reigns of Charles 2 and the Georges. I repeat my offer to accept this syllogism:

1. Over the 600 years before Newton wrote his books, many heretics suffered persecution
2. Newton was a heretic, believing that Jesus was not God
3. Therefore Newton's books do not mention that heresy

'safact.

Thanks
Meade

PS

[thestoat]

Meade, so many strawmen I am beginning to wonder if there is connection. You make up statements, have them refuted and then ignore them and carry blithely on in your own little world. You have shown that you have read the bible - seems to be the only book you have read. Seems you are completely out of your reckoning when not referring to a 1500 year old (or so) book.

All fleas are small = [Atheists and non-believers were executed]
I am small = {As an atheist, I would have been scared of that]
Therefore Newton may have been a flea = {Therefore Newton may have been an atheist]

There is no valid connection between premise 2 and the conclusion 3

The analogy with fleas was trying to explain basic logic to you. I was assuming some common sense, but I guess it isn't so common. The connection is human nature. Remember what I said - ooops - you've probably forgotten 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."

There is an implication that if I was scared, others might be too. I thought it was an obvious implication, especially as I even put "if I were he" suggesting the link, but I guess I was assuming an unrealistic level of intelligence and understanding.

I guess I can't object to an "if" followed by a "may possibly".

And yet you do.

I did not define "heretic".

D'oh - when you blatantly lie, at least be more subtle about it. You said : ""Heretics" are believers that the Roman church chose to kill. Not non-believers. " You also completely ignored my definition.

None of your examples have any relevance to the political, actual, religious situation under the reigns of Charles 2 and the Georges.

I have mentioned more than once that there is no reason to suspect an atheist or non believer would not have been considered a heretic. I asked more than once why you would believe otherwise. Just one of the many points you conveniently ignore.

As for the law,

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.

If you are out trying to club a seal, you forgot to bring the club, went to the wrong location and then forgot what a seal looks like.

[MajGenl.Meade]

stoat,

Well at least now I know what a seal looks like, in case I find a baseball bat! Thanks for clarifying that. Having failed to respond to any substantial issue, I'm not surprised at the hay in your hat!

Rules of logic A: Undistributed middle is the fallacy where the middle term is not distributed at least once. I do not see "you" or "being scared" distributed anywhere.

Now the flea example is fine and I said that was so (agreement on something):
1. Fleas are small
2. this is small
3. therefore this may be a flea

Notice how "this" in 2 and "this" in 3 are the same? Notice how "small" is distributed in 1 and 2 and "flea" in 1 and 3?

Rules of logic B: Terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises. "Therefore Newton may have been an atheist". Newton does not appear anywhere in the two premises. Invalid argument.

I contrasted your flea argument by substituting your logic - still using the flea as an illustration:

1. Fleas are small [equivalent to "Atheists were executed"]
2. I am small [equivalent to "I am an atheist and would have been scared]
3. therefore Newton may possibly be a flea [equivalent to "Newton may possibly have been an atheist]

A perfectly constructed syllogistic form but which is impermissible in logic. It adapts your flea example but follows exactly your Newton argument. There is no connection between premise 2 and the conclusion.

There may be a connection in your mind - if I was scared, other people might be scared too. You may be able to express a fourth line (although that would be a four-line error) and stick "Newton was scaredl" as #2 in the syllogism instead of yourself. If you don't make that connection, this IS YOUR ARGUMENT:

1. atheists were executed
2. I'd be scared
3. therefore Newton may be an atheist.

The point is that you being scared is not relevant to the speculation. You MUST prove e.g. that Newton was scared in order to reach a rational and legitimate conclusion that he MAY have been a . . . whatever may be valid in Premise 1.

I have mentioned more than once that there is no reason to suspect an atheist or non believer would not have been considered a heretic. I asked more than once why you would believe otherwise. Just one of the many points you conveniently ignore

Falsehood. I have more than once described heretics as not equal to atheists (that is, the two terms are NOT identical)- but that atheists are counted as heretics.

As to definition, I am indeed guilty of sloppy writing. I wanted that in reference to your list which consisted of heretics who were believers executed by the Roman Church for holding heretical beliefs contraty to the authorized (Roman) dogma. This should be clear when I descrbed that an atheist is always regarded as heretical. A heretic is not always an atheist. Here's what I said in syllogistic form:

1. some heretics are atheists
2. x is an atheist
3. therefore x is a heretic.

Check the distribution of terms again. x must appear in 2 and 3. heretic must appear in 1 and 3. Atheist must appear in 1 and 2.

Regarding this: "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." Yep, if you were frightened so might another atheist be frightened. Where is your proof that Newton was frightened? You are blind to the tacit assumption that he was an atheist and therefore had something to be scared of just as you would (this is concealed somewhat behind "I wonder") and therefore said that he was possibly not a believer. But this is a minor point (perhaps)

Let's summarise:

Your logic is faulty (check)
You claim to know nothing about Newton's beliefs or otherwise (check)
You claim that Google cannot help and then promptly Google to get some semblance of fact into a post (check) (granted maybe you went straight to Wikipedia)
You list executed heretics (all believers executed under RC rules) which fails to support your premise 1 about atheists being executed (check)
You list four atheists - only one in England during Newton's lifetime (lost his ears) but was safe under Charles II (your info full of errors of fact) (check)
Historical evidence is 100% that Newton was a believer (check)
Historical evidence is 0% that Newton was not a believer (check)
The Act of 1650 you refer to was annulled by Charles II whom Newton safely served (check)
The Act of 1650 was specifically aimed at believers (Ranters) who held "atheistic" opinions (check)
Newton had no fear of being labelled an atheist because he was a believer (check)
Newton avoided being labelled a heretic because of his belief that Jesus was not God (check)

Why don't you accept that last line and make whatever you like of it since it's historical fact and is much better as "truth" than your "he was possibly not a believer" which has er zero to commend it?

Aren't you given to ad hominem attacks!?

Regards
Meade

[loCAtek]

Granted gentlemen, persecution is not the issue, but how people respond to it. Throughout human history, some are swayed by political, religious, racist, sexist, national, popular or fashion pressure to deny their own preferences ...and some aren't.

Speaks volumes about social conformity, and not much about theology.

[thestoat]

Meade, you discuss the statement
1. atheists were executed
2. I'd be scared
3. therefore Newton may be an atheist.
And completely ignore my statement that I had assumed some intelligence in your reading (clearly absent). Let me restate it to help with your understanding
1. atheists were executed
2. As an atheist I'd be scared since I would fear execution
2a. Since humans often feel similarly in similar situations, therefore Newton may too have been scared of execution if he was an atheist
3. therefore Newton may be an atheist and hid it by pretending to be religious
For me, 2a is blindingly obvious - I am sorry. I didn't realise it needed to be explained.

Does this help you understand?

I have more than once described heretics as not equal to atheists (that is, the two terms are NOT identical)- but that atheists are counted as heretics.

You have said many times that heretics are not equal to atheists - but repeating something we both agree on as if it is a fundamental point is a bit silly. But until this statement you have NOT ONCE said that atheists are counted as heretics! I have said it several times and asked you why you might thing that is not true (else why moan when I produce a list of heretic executions?) but you have NOT ONCE stated it.In fact, one of my recent questions (that again went unanswered in your attempt to avoid anything you can't answer) was "I provide evidence about heretics (atheists were considered heretics) but you wanted specific atheists. Out of interest, can you provide any evidence for your implied assertion that an atheist would have been treated differently from any other heretic (or is there another reason why my list of heretics was not s.uifficient for you)?"

Regarding this: "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." Yep, if you were frightened so might another atheist be frightened. Where is your proof that Newton was frightened? You are blind to the tacit assumption that he was an atheist and therefore had something to be scared of just as you would (this is concealed somewhat behind "I wonder") and therefore said that he was possibly not a believer. But this is a minor point (perhaps)

Minor point????? That is the whole point!! I wonder if it is slowly beginning to sink in.You ask for my proof Newton was frightened. Completely invalid - again illustrating your lack of logic. Had I said
"Was he a believer? I don't think so. If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I'd say I was a believer too. He was scared."
Then asking for evidence of his fear would be entirely justified. And if I had that evidence I might have made that statement. But of course I have no evidence which is why I simply pointed out that he might not have been a believed. Not "wasn't" a believer. "Might not have been" a believer.

As for your summary -
1.on the logic thing, granted I may have had to clarify something, incorrectly assuming you would understand something I considered obvious, but my logic has been sound. Yours, on the other hand, as pointed out, is sorely lacking. However, maybe that was due to the lack of clarification - you have since shown a little better understanding of logic.
2.I do claim that and have always claimed that - hardly a clever point
3.Maybe you don't understand search (else why make such a fatuous statement). One day you might search and not find something. The next day, you search using different words (maybe thinking in a different way) and thus find stuff. Again, I would have thought that obvious.
4.Twisting and ignoring again. I thought you were beginning to understand but let me repeat the question you continue to ignore: can you provide any evidence for your implied assertion that an atheist would have been treated differently from any other heretic (or is there another reason why my list of heretics was not sufficient for you)?
5. See 4.
6 and 7. I do claim that and have always claimed that - hardly a clever point
8.Newton safely served him in retrospect. At the time he would not have known he would be safe. Kings were notoriously fickle then.
9. The act could be arbitrarily applied then. It was aimed at atheists. Newton had this for the first 7 years of his life. Would you gamble with your life?
10. You cannot guarantee he was a believer 100% because you were not him. There is always doubt. I was simply pointing that doubt out.
11.I don't see how he could have avoided being labelled as a heretic because of his belief that Jesus was not God, but I don't really see that as important.

As always though, Meade - fun chatting with ya

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK well I think we are not getting anywhere with this. I will post - you can reply if you want and I'll read it but that's as far as it can go.

But until this statement you have NOT ONCE said that atheists are counted as heretics!

Unfortunately I said it twice - once by implication and once in an outright statement which is quoted below.

Having pointed out that your list consisted of believers executed as heretics by the Roman church, I asked for evidence that anyone on that list was an atheist? Evidently not one was and my description of the heretics as believers executed by the Roman church showed the list had zero value in your contention about "atheists and unbelievers". You offered it as proof - not me. You're wrong - not me.

Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:43 am
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.

There I acknowleged 3 atheists executed by the Roman church and one who had his ears cut off by (gasp!) not the Roman church but the Anglican orthodoxy commanded by Parliament when no king was on the throne. If that's not a tacit acknowledgement that some atheists (and I didn't check to see if they really were - did you? Come to think of it, Unitarians at the time were not atheists) but.... if that's not the same as the fate of the heretics we were talking about I don't know what is. (And I should also acknowledge that though your list was one of RC depredations, the protestant churches had their own high time burning people although to a much lesser degree)

And here's the direct statement that proves your claim (above) is in error:

Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:39 am
I did not define "heretic". Instead I made claims about your list. First you identified it as a list of heretics. I believe you. Second I stated without fear of contradiction that "heretic" does not equal atheist. So while all atheists are heretics, not all heretics are atheists. That is, there were many heresies - atheism would have been one.

Now to your sillyjizm:

1. atheists were executed
2. As an atheist I'd be scared since I would fear execution
2a. Since humans often feel similarly in similar situations, therefore Newton may too have been scared of execution if he was an atheist
3. therefore Newton may be an atheist and hid it by pretending to be religious

Sorry - four terms are not permitted (rules of syllogistics I guess). Anyway 2a is a complete joke. Here you state a conclusion as a premise in 2a (that's what 'therefore' means) that Newton may have been scared IF he was an atheist. You simply repeat it in 3 as a "new" conclusion (therefore Newton may be an atheist). You at least are now open and honest about making two assumptions: Newton may have been scared and Newton may have been an atheist.

[A side comment: as a scared atheist in the time of Newton, would you have written lots of books faithfuly explaining the Bible? Or kept your mouth firmly closed? Just wondering. Perhaps a syllogism is in order? I'm just finding it hard to imagine a stone-cold atheist publicizing God. Not my natural reaction I'll admit]

YOU being scared or any other person being scared is totally without meaning unless and until it can be shown that NEWTON WAS SCARED. IF he was scared, then he may have been meeting one criteria for an atheist as you say - but there's no argument you make saying that he WAS scared. In fact you say this

"Had I said "Was he a believer? I don't think so. If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I'd say I was a believer too. He was scared." Then asking for evidence of his fear would be entirely justified"

True. But asking for evidence that Newton WAS scared is exactly what the statement "IF he was scared...." calls for! I'm asking you to back up your assetion that he may have been scared. What you have not done: first provide argument or evidence that he MAY HAVE BEEN SCARED in order to argue that he MAY HAVE been an atheist. What you have done: falsely assumed he MAY HAVE been an atheist in order to assume that he MAY HAVE been scared in order to prove that he MAY HAVE been an atheist! I don't think your comments about my understanding of logic are actually borne out.

But you could perhaps say (and I sure hope you can see the difference between your new-revised-improved-reenergized syllogism and this one):

1. Atheists were executed (although you've not proven that this was a common thing. In fact you've proved it to be very rare)
2. I would be scared of execution as an atheist
3. IF Newton was scared THEN he may have been an atheist

Now you've got a better form. Atheist in 1 and 3; scared in 2 and 3; execution in 1 and 2. I'm a bit doubtful about 'atheist' appearing in all terms but you know... if that syllogism keeps you happy, then right on bru! . But of course it says the same as this:

1. fruitbats are often killed by people
2. If I was a fruitbat I'd be scared
3. If Newton was scared he might have been a fruitbat.

Two accurate premises (as far as one can tell) with a dumb conclusion.

Out of interest, can you provide any evidence for your implied assertion that an atheist would have been treated differently from any other heretic

No need since there is no such implied assertion. Why would I acknowledge that you found 3 atheists executed before Newton was born and yet somehow assert (invisibly) they were not treated in the same way? My outrightly stated assertion is that in those days there were precious few "atheists" at all. You provide a list of executed people to prove atheists were executed - but it turns out that all of them were believers. Admitted I didn't check them all but I checked more than the zero you apparently looked at. I accept your list as disproving your claim. I reject it as having any relevance to "atheists and unbelievers" simply because it lists none of that class.

Chance that Newton was a believer 100%; chance that he was a heretic 100%; chance he was scared of losing his position 100%; chance he made sure his voluntary writings on God/Bible etc did not reveal his heresy 100%. Chance he was an atheist 0%.

8.Newton safely served him in retrospect. At the time he would not have known he would be safe. Kings were notoriously fickle then.
9. The act could be arbitrarily applied then. It was aimed at atheists. Newton had this for the first 7 years of his life. Would you gamble with your life?
10. You cannot guarantee he was a believer 100% because you were not him. There is always doubt. I was simply pointing that doubt out.
11.I don't see how he could have avoided being labelled as a heretic because of his belief that Jesus was not God, but I don't really see that as important

.

Good grief!
8. he wasn't safe. He held heretical views. He wrote to people he trusted on that subject. Presumably you will argue that he faked his private confessions of heresy to hide the fact that that he "may have been" an atheist. Subtle dude that Newton!

9. In his first 7 years Newton wasn't actually doing much heretting (how about that one sean?). All the acts of the parliament were rescinded because there had been no king to sign them. Charles II was not into burning atheists - I doubt he even knew a person could actually not believe in God. Maybe he did know. George 1 and George 2 may have had a clue. But Newton had nothing to fear apart from the heresy thing.

10. Yes I guarantee he was a believer 100%. Read his works (awfully dull); his letters; his motives. I guarantee he wasn't Norwegian - is there always doubt? You must have been a pain the class during History at school!

11. Let me see if I can understand at least this...... You don't think the factual Newton being factually a heretic and being factually scared of factual punishment is as important as: you thinking he may have written his books so he could fake being a believer and not be punished as an atheist?


It's just like whack-a-mole
Love
Meade

[thestoat]

You are wise to call a halt to this, Meade. As you say it is pointless to continue. From my perspective it was pointless to start - it was a throw away comment which, as you have pointed out, wasn't very interesting. I believe it is true that he might have been a non believer, since it is possible he wrote religious works as a cover for fear of persecution. Possible. Highly unlikely - but that ws the nature of my throw away comment.

I could go into argue mode and refute your comments and thus invite you to do the same, but you are right - there really isn't any point.

Mind you, if Newton were alive today - I wonder if he'd be an out and out atheist

[Big RR]

Nah, he'd probably be suing Nabisco for selling the fig cookies that bear his name.

[Crackpot]

Mind you, if Newton were alive today - I wonder if he'd be an out and out atheist

I'm guessing he'd be senile by now

[loCAtek]

Again this argument that a great scientist MUST be an atheist, still not demonstrated by Newton; he was an Arian. Arianism was considered a heresy by the RCC, but it is by no means a form of aethism;

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God as being a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians. The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father. This belief is grounded in John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."[3]

ThX Wki

Biographer Richard Westfall says: "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term.", that is, Newton did not believe that Jesus was God. Westfall adds, his views "remained unaltered until his death."[1]


...maybe this is best a new thread?

[Scooter]

Again this argument that a great scientist MUST be an atheist, ....

Which no one has been making.

[loCAtek]

It seems strongly implied.

Mind you, if Newton were alive today - I wonder if he'd be an out and out atheist

[/quote]

With my interest in science, thestoat even posted to me, that he wondered why I wasn't an atheist.

Going to find that quote, I'll be back to edit this post to add it...

[thestoat]

Lo, it was a joke honest. It is why I added the wink at the end of the statement

[loCAtek]

Oh poop, oh well, I couldn't find your quote anywayZ.

Just as well, I didn't start a new thread.

[Scooter]

It seems strongly implied.

Since he posted a study that showed 7% of scientists to be believers, he couldn't possibly be claiming that ALL scientists are atheists, could he?