tovarij

I am trying to prove to my friend that atheism is not a fundamentally evil thing. He likes pointing to soviet communism as proof, because they were atheists.

To contradict him I tried to show that the inquisition committed similar atrocities. But, he doesn't believe me. He says the inquisition wasn't that bad, that they didn't kill many people, that they were much more humane than what secular authorities were doing at the time, he seemed to deny that they tortured people.

I couldn't say anything in return because I don't know how to prove that the inquisition did those things. I don't have credible sources.

Can you help? Are there good sources? Accunts from back then would be the best. Are there such things?

Doug Shaver

How would that contradict the assertion that atheism is fundamentally evil?

The most you could do with that argument is prove that Christianity is equally evil.

patchy

Let's cut to the chase: Your friend sounds like one of those retards who will be unpersuaded by rational arguments you present him with, with or without an assist from us.

For starters, the evils done in Soviet Russia were not done in the name of atheism. The excesses of violence and inequity that resulted from that corrupt system are an indictment of totalitarianism, not atheism.

The abuses were carried out largely (but not solely) by people who would have done the same things they did if they had been devout theists. They did terrible things, and they happened (mostly) to have been atheists.

Point out to your friend that Hitler was a Christian, as were the overwhelming majority of Nazis. They did terrible things, and they happened (mostly) to have been Christians.

Anybody who could even say the Inquisition "wasn't that bad" might be beyond rational hope. There's probably nothing that you could link him to or tell him that would get past his preconceived notion that Christianity doesn't have its own exceedingly dark and twisted little history.

Toto

This thread can give you some background: Did "secular" governments enforce the Inquisition?

Your friend is relying on the historical fact that the Inquisition at times did not torture people - it just turned them over to the king to have them tortured.

BGMA

Note that this is not a claim that all Atheists are moral people. Atheists are people, just as are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of all other religions. Within any population there are good people and bad people, and the bad often use their belief system to oppress others. Stalin, an avowed Atheist, killed millions. He was clearly immoral and evil, without the regard for his fellow man that a Good and Moral Atheist has. He used Atheism as a tool, much as other evil people throughout history have used religion. Hitler and Torquemada professed Christianity, but their actions in no way followed the teachings of Jesus. They used religion as a way to control others and as a justification for their horrendous acts.

(from the Book of Morality)

-----

What we will term a “negative testimonial” is the argument that the most evil people in the world were Atheists, therefore Atheism must be evil. The most common citations for Atheism are Stalin and Hitler. While it is true that Stalin was an Atheist, Hitler was not. Hitler professed Christianity all his life, and his troops wore belt buckles that said “god with us” in German. Is Christianity to be considered evil for the actions of its adherents such as Hitler and Torquemada, the torturer of the Spanish Inquisition? Certainly not, most Christians (just as most people) are good and moral. So why should Atheists be considered evil for the actions of Stalin?

Moreover, communism itself is often erroneously described as a result of Atheism, because 20th century communists chose to explicitly encode Atheism into their political philosophy as a way to break the power of the church. But they have misunderstood cause and effect. Atheism did not cause communism, and the Good and Moral Atheist would certainly be opposed to any authoritarian regime. Such a regime would violate the most basic tenets of the Good and Moral Atheist, being neither free nor life-valuing.

The phrase “godless communist” is a historical relic of the 1950s, and today it is an insult to the Atheists who love freedom, democracy, and self-determination. Atheists are Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives and moderates. If an old historical link between Atheism and communism is justifiable from an evangelical Christian point of view, why don’t we use the phrase “torturing Christian” since Hitler and Torquemada adhered to that religion? Or, if the resulting government explicitly defines the goodness of the values of the founders of that government, why don’t the evangelical Christians throw away their biblical literalism and adhere to the Deism and Skepticism of the founders of the United States of America?

Propagating such linkages is a result of inferior reasoning, a mistaking of cause and effect. Communism used Atheism as a tool to increase their power, much as Hitler used Christianity. Such poor usages should not reflect directly on Atheism and Christianity, instead we should hold both creeds accountable on their own.

(from the Book of Arguments)


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

Skeptical

Like someone said, all you can show by your train of argument is that Christians have committed atrocities too.

However, if that is what you want to do, have your friend browse to here:

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org

The Malleus Maleficarum, "hammer of witches", was THE book used by Church inquisitors on how to identify witches and then torture them to get them to confess. First published in 1486, it was a guidebook to the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of woman and children.

The history is all there for the reading. Tell your friend to do a search on the site through the text for "torture", he'll be reading all night.

Allow me to give a few quotes from the site:

"At the time of the writing of The Malleus Maleficarum, there were many voices within the Christian community (scholars and theologians) who doubted the existence of witches and largely regarded such belief as mere superstition. The authors of the Malleus addressed those voices in no uncertain terms, stating: “Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.” The immediate, and lasting, popularity of the Malleus essentially silenced those voices. It made very real the threat of one being branded a heretic, simply by virtue of one's questioning of the existence of witches and, thus, the validity of the Inquisition."

AND

"It must be noted that during the Inquisition, few, if any, real, verifiable, witches were ever discovered or tried. Often the very accusation was enough to see one branded a witch, tried by the Inquisitors' Court, and burned alive at the stake. Estimates of the death toll during the Inquisition worldwide range from 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 (over its 250 year long course); either is a chilling number when one realizes that nearly all of the accused were women, and consisted primarily of outcasts and other suspicious persons. Old women. Midwives. Jews. Poets. Gypsies. Anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pieous Christians were suspect, and easily branded "Witch".

AND Finally

"The Malleus Maleficarum is one of the most blood-soaked works in human history,in that its very existence reinforced and validated Catholic beliefs which led to the prosecution, torture, and murder, of tens of thousands of innocent people."

You can read the gory details on the site, the text of the book is all there.

Astreja

My understanding is that the figure of 9 million victims of the Burning Times is not accurate. However, historical records from such sources as the Church itself confirm that the deaths were at least in the range 30,000-50,000.

But even one death is two too many.

andrewcriddle

If there is to be a useful discussion, it is probably necessary to distinguish between abuses carried out (often sincerely) in the name of Christianity and abuses perpetrated by the Inquisition in the narrow sense.

(I'm using Inquisition and Inquisitorial to refers to courts and procedures set up under Papal licence to deal with heresy and other problems. It is true but irrelevant that Roman Law secular courts on the European continent are formally Inquisitorial in procedure compared to common law secular courts in England and later the USA.)

For example of the 50-70 thousand people executed for witchcraft in Europe between say 1400 and 1700 the majority were not dealt with by the Inquisition at all (I am NOT referring to the fact that victims of the Inquisition were relapsed to the secular power rather than executed by the Inquisition itself. Most capital convictions for witchcraft occurred in non-Inquisitorial courts. Often in courts representing bigoted German Prince-Bishops but non-Inquisitorial courts none the less.)

Similarly the killings of Protestants in England by Queen Mary did not involve the Inquisition at all.

Andrew Criddle

Skeptical

The bottom line is that whether the inquisitors were responsible for burning a "witch" or some other authority was responsible is quite irrelevant. So-called "secular" courts were torturing, convicting and burning "witches" based on policies and procedures developed from the Christian religious obsession with witches and their destruction. ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live")

Whether the court was called "secular" because not directly underneath the inquisitorial court system or whether the prosecutors and judges were or were not inquisitors in a technical sense is to my mind a distinction without a difference.

tovarij

I got a book called "Inquisitorial Inquiries: Brief Lives of Secret Jews and Other Heretics (or via: amazon.co.uk)" edited and translated by Kagan and Dyer

Anyone heard of it? Is it credible?