@HarryCH Biddnosts don’t usually believe in God, so doesn’t that mean they are atheists anyway ?
I’ve generally heard “nontheistic” used to describe those Buddhist schools that lack an affirmative belief in God. As I understand it, in those schools of Buddhism, which don’t comprise all Buddhists, it’s not so much an assertion that there is no God as it is the existence or non-existence of God being considered irrelevant and perhaps unknowable.
In Western terms, perhaps it might be thought of as those schools of Buddhism allowing for something along the lines of deism but not theism.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
I'm not so convinced that Luther and Calvin marked as clean a break with what went before. It's not for nothing they are referred to as 'Magisterial Reformers.'
I in no way intended to imply that Luther or Calvin were responsible for "secularism". I referenced the two books I have read as examples of fairly early examples of changing views.
I in no way implied that that was the end of the matter, either.
The appalling carnage of the Thirty Years' War, among others, led to the rise of classical liberalism, the idea that people had certain liberties that were beyond state control. Foremost among these was religious liberty. So in that sense the rise of secularism and the idea that God is optional (in the sense that people now had options in the kind of God they believed in) is indirectly the result of Protestantism, albeit in the sense of a negative reaction to the Wars of Religion that accompanied its rise.
Modern 'free-thinking', individualism and Western forms of atheism derive from the turmoil of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the religious wars of the 17th century and a corresponding reaction to all of that.
I think this view fails to take into account the distinctly different attitudes to authority found in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, which reflect to a significant extent their distinct histories. Which is also relevant to this:
Fair comments, although I think these things are probably more complex than meets the eye in all Christian traditions.
There have been a number of occasions in Orthodox history when 'the people' overturned decisions reached by the hierarchy.
There have also been occasions when the Papacy has acted very differently than one might expect.
I’m not knowledgable about this, but is there really a measurable difference for people living in Calvin’s Geneva versus those living under the Prince-Archbishops in Salzburg in terms of authority? In one the authority lay with Calvin and his mates, in the other it lay with Paris of Lodron and his ancestors.
There were some differences, but neither had an idea of individual liberty or a zone privacy free from state interference, which is the central tenet of classical liberalism. Early Protestant thought on secular authority put limits on secular authorities to prevent them from trespassing on God's domain. They didn't really put much thought on the state trespassing on the domain of its citizens/subjects, largely because the idea of such a domain was alien to them.
So in terms of the people living in Calvin's Geneva there wasn't much of a difference from the various surrounding Catholic principalities. If anything Calvin was even more eager to execute heretics, because what's the point of breaking with Rome if you're not going to be more "moral" than them?
So in terms of the people living in Calvin's Geneva there wasn't much of a difference from the various surrounding Catholic principalities. If anything Calvin was even more eager to execute heretics, because what's the point of breaking with Rome if you're not going to be more "moral" than them?
Not to suggest that any execution of heretics ever was or is acceptable—it wasn’t and it isn’t—but I’m not sure on what basis we can really say who was “more eager.” It’s enough, I think, that they were all too eager. I’m particularly sceptical that such an assessment can be made on the basis of one execution, however wrong that execution was.
I am led to wonder if there are many atheists who were formerly Buddhists or Muslims or Sikhs or Hindus or adherents of other non-Christian religions. (Maybe I just don't hear about them.)
We might hear more about them in countries with freedom of religion, but which still have majority religions other than Christianity.
So in terms of the people living in Calvin's Geneva there wasn't much of a difference from the various surrounding Catholic principalities. If anything Calvin was even more eager to execute heretics, because what's the point of breaking with Rome if you're not going to be more "moral" than them?
Not to suggest that any execution of heretics ever was or is acceptable—it wasn’t and it isn’t—but I’m not sure on what basis we can really say who was “more eager.” It’s enough, I think, that they were all too eager. I’m particularly sceptical that such an assessment can be made on the basis of one execution, however wrong that execution was.
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest. Of course, heresy trials of big name academics are a low n event, so maybe the set doesn't have a good enough p-value to draw conclusions.
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest.
Which might support a claim of more eagerness to execute academics. Maybe. But nothing more then that, I don’t think.
I apologise for being a bit slow, but over breakfast it occurred to me that we have been talking as if secularism perfectly overlaps with atheism. Which isn’t really the case. A state government for a population which is mostly atheist could be described as secular, but I’m not sure it is a given that a state government where most people are religious wouldn’t be.
I’m not sure there is or ever has been a population that is “organically” atheist, there is always a significant minority who are religious. Whereas in populations where there is a dominant religious majority, being an atheist is quite a dangerous thing to declare.
I'm not sure there's much to be gained by comparing Calvin's Geneva say, to the forcible conversion of Jews and Muslims in 16th century Spain or the excesses of whacky Anabaptists in Munster.
I think what we can say is what's already been said, that in none of these instances, whether Protestant or Catholic, there wasn't any conception of a private sphere in a contemporary liberal sense.
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest.
Which might support a claim of more eagerness to execute academics. Maybe. But nothing more then that, I don’t think.
Again, I’m not any kind of expert on Calvin’s Geneva and one would have to make a careful study of the sources to come to a conclusion.
However, I think it is clear that Calvin’s Geneva had legal and judicial punishments beyond capital punishment. In fact, it sounds like quite a punitive society where people were regularly punished for breaking strict religious rules.
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that @KoF. I think the issue is whether it was any 'worse' in Geneva than anywhere else at that time.
Well no not really, we were discussing the assertion that the Protestant reformation led to secularism. I brought in the comparison between early Protestant regimes and the Catholic ones simply to suggest that neither were particularly secular by any sensible definition.
People are very attached to their religious convictions ...
Isn't this a consequence of the changes that occurred? To be attached to something, you have to be able to see it as being personal and individual.
No. People were strongly devoted to their religious beliefs even before the Reformation. Try Googling “the Crusades” for an example.
OK - let's see what we can find...
The Crusades were a series of invasions of the Middle East by Europeans in the name of Christianity. They went on, periodically, for centuries. They resulted in a shift in the identity of Latin Christianity, great financial benefits to certain parts of Europe, and many instances of horrific carnage. The Crusades serve as one of the iconic points of transition from the early Middle Ages to the “high” or mature Middle Ages, in which the the localized, barter-based economy of Europe transitioned toward a more dynamic commercial economic system.
...
Much of the impulse of the Crusades came from the fact that Urban II offered unlimited penance to the crusaders, meaning that anyone who took part in the crusade would have all of their sins absolved; furthermore, pilgrims were now allowed to be armed. Thus, the Crusades were the first armed Christian pilgrimage, and in fact, the first “official” Christian holy war in the history of the religion. In addition to the promise of salvation, and equally important to many of the knights who flocked to the crusading banner, was the promise of loot (and, again, Urban’s speech explicitly promised the crusaders wealth and land). Many of the crusaders were minor lords or landless knights, men who had few prospects back home but now had the chance to make something of themselves in the name of liberating the Holy Land. Thus, most crusaders combined ambition and greed with genuine Christian piety.
So, another deeply shameful atrocity from the annals of Christendom. Invoked as an illustration of strong religious devotion to which we presumably can all relate.
Given that the reason Servetus was in Geneva at all is that he didn't think anywhere in Roman Catholic Europe was safe, I don't think you can treat him as evidence for the superior safety of Roman Catholic Europe.
(A bit odd to single out Galileo as the only academic persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church as if Cranmer doesn't count. Nor are Servetus and Galileo exactly parallel: Unitarianism was known to be considered heretical, while no official body prior to Galileo's trial had declared that cosmology was a matter of faith.)
...Well no not really, we were discussing the assertion that the Protestant reformation led to secularism. I brought in the comparison between early Protestant regimes and the Catholic ones simply to suggest that neither were particularly secular by any sensible definition.
I would expect it to take a while for changes to societal attitudes to authority, in the light of Reformed teaching, to feed through to systems of government (in contrast to the identity of those governing).
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that @KoF. I think the issue is whether it was any 'worse' in Geneva than anywhere else at that time.
Well no not really, we were discussing the assertion that the Protestant reformation led to secularism.
That may be what you were discussing. If you look at the quotes I included in my posts as well as what I said, you’ll see that I was responding to the specific claim that “Calvin was even more eager [than Rome] to execute heretics,” not commenting on the much broader assertion of whether the Reformation led to secularism, nor to legal punishments generally in Geneva.
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that @KoF. I think the issue is whether it was any 'worse' in Geneva than anywhere else at that time.
Well no not really, we were discussing the assertion that the Protestant reformation led to secularism. I brought in the comparison between early Protestant regimes and the Catholic ones simply to suggest that neither were particularly secular by any sensible definition.
Nobody is saying they were.
As has been noted recently, what is being suggested is that the Protestant Reformation contributed to the conditions that enabled secularism to evolve.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
I am led to wonder if there are many atheists who were formerly Buddhists or Muslims or Sikhs or Hindus or adherents of other non-Christian religions. (Maybe I just don't hear about them.)
I think my son-in-law might be an atheist Hindu but I have found it impossible so far to disentangle religious practice and cultural practice. For example, when they moved into their house, his mother did a blessing ceremony and I've no idea whether that was a religious or cultural ceremony. Respect for parents / grandparents* is very important culturally, which may mute open atheism.
* Parenrs-in-laws are also treated with respect! I cannot recommend having one of your offspring marrying into a Hindu family strongly enough! Our son-in-law is a blessing to us.
By monotheistic we seem to mean Abrahamic. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the same God, they come from Abraham.
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
Sorry to double post. Yes I believe that Jesus didn’t change the law of the Jews so it can still stand. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don’t need to follow it. That is also in the background of talks with atheists.
By monotheistic we seem to mean Abrahamic. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the same God, they come from Abraham.
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
This I don’t understand. It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
Sikhism is a monotheistic religion but nobody tries to claim that it is the same deity as the one that other monotheistic religions believe in.
For me, the concepts I’ve read from different monotheistic religions about God make no sense and leave too many questions hanging.
For example. The universe is massive, one could imagine a Slartibartfast type deity creating planets. But that doesn’t approach the complexity of the entire universe. So on which scale of magnitude is this God you speak of operating?
Sorry to double post. Yes I believe that Jesus didn’t change the law of the Jews so it can still stand. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don’t need to follow it. That is also in the background of talks with atheists.
Why would an atheist be interested in the minutiae of the relationship towards various groups of people of a God who he doesn't think exists?
There’s a whole thing that religious people mean when they say law that I simply don’t accept. They seem to think it has the same weight as talking about the laws of physics.
I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
The atheist also knows there's no way you can know this to be true in an objective sense. It's your chosen belief without evidence. Right?
The atheist should also know there's no way they can know it to be untrue in an objective sense. It's their chosen belief logically incapable of proof by evidence. Right?
I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
The atheist also knows there's no way you can know this to be true in an objective sense. It's your chosen belief without evidence. Right?
The atheist should also know there's no way they can know it to be untrue in an objective sense. It's their chosen belief logically incapable of proof by evidence. Right?
Yes. Atheists make that distinction all of the time. Atheism isn't an affirmation that there is no god. It's a denial that the evidence put forward by religion to claim there is a god is inadequate and unconvincing. The faithful like/need to make this false equivalency, but it's inaccurate.
Sikhism is a monotheistic religion but nobody tries to claim that it is the same deity as the one that other monotheistic religions believe in.
If nobody tries to claim that then nobody is quite correct imho
Quite apart from the philosophical question here, there's a story about the founder of Sikhism going on pilgrimage to Mecca.
What I mean is that Sikhism as I understand it developed from a syncretic mixture of Islam (probably Sufi) and Hinduism. It has as good a claim to be worshipping the same God as Muslims, and therefore Jews and Christians, as Baha'i does.
There’s a whole thing that religious people mean when they say law that I simply don’t accept. They seem to think it has the same weight as talking about the laws of physics.
I did make it clear I meant the Jewish law. Jesus was Jewish
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest.
Which might support a claim of more eagerness to execute academics. Maybe. But nothing more then that, I don’t think.
Again, I’m not any kind of expert on Calvin’s Geneva and one would have to make a careful study of the sources to come to a conclusion.
However, I think it is clear that Calvin’s Geneva had legal and judicial punishments beyond capital punishment. In fact, it sounds like quite a punitive society where people were regularly punished for breaking strict religious rules.
Whenever I read about the past I sit their wondering how it was that our forebears seemed to be so cruel and casual about inflicting that cruelty. I mean, even where we still have capital punishment in the modern world there's generally a consensus about it being quick and painless; back then they went out of their way to think about how they could make executions lingering and painful. Then there's the everyday beating, flogging, whipping...
Did people really never say "hang on - is this purposely inflicted suffering really a good idea?!?"?
Sorry to double post. Yes I believe that Jesus didn’t change the law of the Jews so it can still stand. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don’t need to follow it. That is also in the background of talks with atheists.
Why would an atheist be interested in the minutiae of the relationship towards various groups of people of a God who he doesn't think exists?
Sorry to double post. Yes I believe that Jesus didn’t change the law of the Jews so it can still stand. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don’t need to follow it. That is also in the background of talks with atheists.
Why would an atheist be interested in the minutiae of the relationship towards various groups of people of a God who he doesn't think exists?
Anthropology?
I dunno, that didn't feel like the context. Why would you be specifically talking to atheists about anthropology?
Sorry to double post. Yes I believe that Jesus didn’t change the law of the Jews so it can still stand. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don’t need to follow it. That is also in the background of talks with atheists.
Why would an atheist be interested in the minutiae of the relationship towards various groups of people of a God who he doesn't think exists?
Anthropology?
I dunno, that didn't feel like the context. Why would you be specifically talking to atheists about anthropology?
No no. You're an anthropologist studying atheists. As subjects.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
By monotheistic we seem to mean Abrahamic. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the same God, they come from Abraham.
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
I’m going to be tedious again, as I was on another thread or three, and say that even if you or I believe we know Christianity to be true, it’s very, very unhelpful when trying to have a discussion with people who don’t agree with that to say “I know.” If one says “I believe,” it helps discussion a lot more. If you say “I know,” even if you believe you know, it can come across as arrogant and aggressive, if you’re trying to have a conversation between equal parties who disagree.
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest.
Which might support a claim of more eagerness to execute academics. Maybe. But nothing more then that, I don’t think.
Again, I’m not any kind of expert on Calvin’s Geneva and one would have to make a careful study of the sources to come to a conclusion.
However, I think it is clear that Calvin’s Geneva had legal and judicial punishments beyond capital punishment. In fact, it sounds like quite a punitive society where people were regularly punished for breaking strict religious rules.
Whenever I read about the past I sit their wondering how it was that our forebears seemed to be so cruel and casual about inflicting that cruelty. I mean, even where we still have capital punishment in the modern world there's generally a consensus about it being quick and painless; back then they went out of their way to think about how they could make executions lingering and painful. Then there's the everyday beating, flogging, whipping...
Did people really never say "hang on - is this purposely inflicted suffering really a good idea?!?"?
As I understand it, the whole idea of “an eye for an eye” was to go no further in punishment than the crime itself, rather than extravagant cruelties beyond that.
I know the Quakers advocated milder treatment in general from the beginning:
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
By monotheistic we seem to mean Abrahamic. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the same God, they come from Abraham.
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
I’m going to be tedious again, as I was on another thread or three, and say that even if you or I believe we know Christianity to be true, it’s very, very unhelpful when trying to have a discussion with people who don’t agree with that to say “I know.” If one says “I believe,” it helps discussion a lot more. If you say “I know,” even if you believe you know, it can come across as arrogant and aggressive, if you’re trying to have a conversation between equal parties who disagree.
Pardon me, but where has the person you’ve quoted used “know” in this way? As far as I can see, they are simply saying that by believing A they’re not believing B and any atheist discussion partner accepts that.
Given that you’ve extensively said your piece about this “know” thing, it would be nice if you stopped using the scattergun approach to keep repeating it at every opportunity. In my opinion.
The problem i have with declaring that all monotheists with the same god (though some get things wrong about him) is that the one God of the Bible has a very definite personality, an overwhelming one, even. He doesn’t strike me as being interchangeable with, say, the god of Islam. Throw that God (the Bible one) into the mix and suddenly the static theorized one god models just don’t cut it. Like having a bunch of black and white portraits and then you get one in color.m—in video, even.
Comments
In Western terms, perhaps it might be thought of as those schools of Buddhism allowing for something along the lines of deism but not theism.
I in no way implied that that was the end of the matter, either.
Fair comments, although I think these things are probably more complex than meets the eye in all Christian traditions.
There have been a number of occasions in Orthodox history when 'the people' overturned decisions reached by the hierarchy.
There have also been occasions when the Papacy has acted very differently than one might expect.
But yes, fair points we need to factor in.
@Kendel, fair enough.
No. People were strongly devoted to their religious beliefs even before the Reformation. Try Googling “the Crusades” for an example.
There were some differences, but neither had an idea of individual liberty or a zone privacy free from state interference, which is the central tenet of classical liberalism. Early Protestant thought on secular authority put limits on secular authorities to prevent them from trespassing on God's domain. They didn't really put much thought on the state trespassing on the domain of its citizens/subjects, largely because the idea of such a domain was alien to them.
So in terms of the people living in Calvin's Geneva there wasn't much of a difference from the various surrounding Catholic principalities. If anything Calvin was even more eager to execute heretics, because what's the point of breaking with Rome if you're not going to be more "moral" than them?
We might hear more about them in countries with freedom of religion, but which still have majority religions other than Christianity.
It probably made no difference when it came to ordinary people, but in terms of willingness to punish big name academics, Servetus got executed while his rough contemporary Galileo got house arrest. Of course, heresy trials of big name academics are a low n event, so maybe the set doesn't have a good enough p-value to draw conclusions.
I’m not sure there is or ever has been a population that is “organically” atheist, there is always a significant minority who are religious. Whereas in populations where there is a dominant religious majority, being an atheist is quite a dangerous thing to declare.
I'm not sure there's much to be gained by comparing Calvin's Geneva say, to the forcible conversion of Jews and Muslims in 16th century Spain or the excesses of whacky Anabaptists in Munster.
I think what we can say is what's already been said, that in none of these instances, whether Protestant or Catholic, there wasn't any conception of a private sphere in a contemporary liberal sense.
Again, I’m not any kind of expert on Calvin’s Geneva and one would have to make a careful study of the sources to come to a conclusion.
However, I think it is clear that Calvin’s Geneva had legal and judicial punishments beyond capital punishment. In fact, it sounds like quite a punitive society where people were regularly punished for breaking strict religious rules.
Here’s a study going into this in much more detail:
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/316/oa_monograph/chapter/2762348
The questions atheists cannot answer are the same ones that theists cannot answer. The non-answers, or explanations, are different.
Well no not really, we were discussing the assertion that the Protestant reformation led to secularism. I brought in the comparison between early Protestant regimes and the Catholic ones simply to suggest that neither were particularly secular by any sensible definition.
Creative Commons attribution:
(A bit odd to single out Galileo as the only academic persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church as if Cranmer doesn't count. Nor are Servetus and Galileo exactly parallel: Unitarianism was known to be considered heretical, while no official body prior to Galileo's trial had declared that cosmology was a matter of faith.)
This is what I tend to think. It gets more complicated (frustrating?) when fundamentalism in in play.
Nobody is saying they were.
As has been noted recently, what is being suggested is that the Protestant Reformation contributed to the conditions that enabled secularism to evolve.
That process didn't happen overnight.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
I think my son-in-law might be an atheist Hindu but I have found it impossible so far to disentangle religious practice and cultural practice. For example, when they moved into their house, his mother did a blessing ceremony and I've no idea whether that was a religious or cultural ceremony. Respect for parents / grandparents* is very important culturally, which may mute open atheism.
* Parenrs-in-laws are also treated with respect!
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
The atheist also knows there's no way you can know this to be true in an objective sense. It's your chosen belief without evidence. Right?
This I don’t understand. It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
Sikhism is a monotheistic religion but nobody tries to claim that it is the same deity as the one that other monotheistic religions believe in.
For example. The universe is massive, one could imagine a Slartibartfast type deity creating planets. But that doesn’t approach the complexity of the entire universe. So on which scale of magnitude is this God you speak of operating?
Why would an atheist be interested in the minutiae of the relationship towards various groups of people of a God who he doesn't think exists?
The atheist should also know there's no way they can know it to be untrue in an objective sense. It's their chosen belief logically incapable of proof by evidence. Right?
Yes. Atheists make that distinction all of the time. Atheism isn't an affirmation that there is no god. It's a denial that the evidence put forward by religion to claim there is a god is inadequate and unconvincing. The faithful like/need to make this false equivalency, but it's inaccurate.
Quite apart from the philosophical question here, there's a story about the founder of Sikhism going on pilgrimage to Mecca.
I did make it clear I meant the Jewish law. Jesus was Jewish
Whenever I read about the past I sit their wondering how it was that our forebears seemed to be so cruel and casual about inflicting that cruelty. I mean, even where we still have capital punishment in the modern world there's generally a consensus about it being quick and painless; back then they went out of their way to think about how they could make executions lingering and painful. Then there's the everyday beating, flogging, whipping...
Did people really never say "hang on - is this purposely inflicted suffering really a good idea?!?"?
Anthropology?
And some Christians assert transubstantiation. That doesn't mean Christianity as a whole is transubstantionalist.
I dunno, that didn't feel like the context. Why would you be specifically talking to atheists about anthropology?
No no. You're an anthropologist studying atheists. As subjects.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I’m going to be tedious again, as I was on another thread or three, and say that even if you or I believe we know Christianity to be true, it’s very, very unhelpful when trying to have a discussion with people who don’t agree with that to say “I know.” If one says “I believe,” it helps discussion a lot more. If you say “I know,” even if you believe you know, it can come across as arrogant and aggressive, if you’re trying to have a conversation between equal parties who disagree.
As I understand it, the whole idea of “an eye for an eye” was to go no further in punishment than the crime itself, rather than extravagant cruelties beyond that.
I know the Quakers advocated milder treatment in general from the beginning:
https://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/110/Influential-Quakers-in-Crime-and-Justice-in-the-early-days#:~:text=should be done.-,',and the provision of work.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Pardon me, but where has the person you’ve quoted used “know” in this way? As far as I can see, they are simply saying that by believing A they’re not believing B and any atheist discussion partner accepts that.
Given that you’ve extensively said your piece about this “know” thing, it would be nice if you stopped using the scattergun approach to keep repeating it at every opportunity. In my opinion.