The Spanish Inquisition Game Show: Convert Or Die! (Christian Terrorism)

by Ben Hoffman
Advertisements

19 Comments to “The Spanish Inquisition Game Show: Convert Or Die! (Christian Terrorism)”

  1. Praise God that He and Christianity can handle everything you and your kind hurl at Him and it. God presides over each and every one of your type’s funerals.

    Let’s see// Friedrich Nietzsche said God is dead. But it is Nietzsche who is no longer around.

    I leave you with two verses, of course unless you delete them:

    “He who sits in the heavens laughs;
    the Lord holds them in derision.
    Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
    and terrify them in his fury, saying,
    “As for me, I have set my King
    on Zion, my holy hill.”” (Psalm 2:4-6 ESV)

    “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
    there is none who does good.”(Psalm 14:1 ESV)

    • Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
      ~ Steven Weinberg

    • Let’s see// Friedrich Nietzsche said God is dead. But it is Nietzsche who is no longer around.

      Hmmm..one actually wrote meaningful insightful philosophy and the other purportedly talked to people through burning bushes. More importantly Nietzsche actually existed while god most likely does not.

      The circular reasoning is really quite amusing. My magic book says that my sky-daddy exists…so it *must* be true.

      Also consider:

      I would choose LotR as my mythology of choice any day of the week. 🙂

      • Apologies in advance, as WP seems to have changed what you can embed into comments.

      • [while god most likely does not {exist).]

        So, you are an agnostic in the classical sense?

      • So, you are an agnostic in the classical sense?

        I have to go with the evidence. Given the current state of what is available it is most likely that god does not exist, but one cannot say with absolute certainty. Just as one cannot say, with absolute certainty that objects will continue to obey the laws of gravity tomorrow. Highly probable, but a guarantee?

        Nope.

      • Do you operate under the assumption that there is no evidence? And, do you have in mind the kind or type of evidence you would need to see to believe that God exists?

        BTW, I’m surely no scholar nor am I exceptionally bright. I do like, though, intelligent discussions like this. Or at least I think this so far is intelligent.

      • ben:Do you operate under the assumption that there is no evidence? And, do you have in mind the kind or type of evidence you would need to see to believe that God exists?

        I would have to be convinced that this syllogism does not apply anymore.

      • Help me out. It says,

        “If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.”

        How is this established?

      • And, my previous question still is there.

        [do you have in mind the kind or type of evidence you would need to see to believe that God exists?]

        The syllogism I don’t think fits into the category of evidence.

  2. LOL! Where did you find this? It’s HILARIOUS! I love the depressed Puritan the most.

    • I was searching for information about the Spanish Inquisition and stumbled on it.

      We watched a good movie the other night called Goya’s Ghosts about the Spanish artist Francisco Goya. Many of his drawings depicted the suffering inflicted by the church during the Spanish Inquisition.

  3. Said Rauf, “If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world,” Rauf said later. “…. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.”

    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says the reason he can’t move the Islamic center now is because of national security concerns, saying parts of the Muslim world would be violently inflamed at the news of the center’s relocation.

    “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack… (there’s) the danger of the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops,” he said.

    “If we do move,” Rauf continued, “it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence … .”

    “If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse,” the imam told CNN in his first televised interview since returning from a two-week State Department-sponsored cooperation tour of the Middle East.

    Build it or there will be more terrorism. Sounds like a threat to me…

  4. ben said:

    Help me out. It says,

    “If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.”

    How is this established?

    Well most conceptions of god are based on the idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Therefore god, if he was described above would not have to have ‘evil’ in the world he creates. Why would you do that if you had the power to make it not exist?

    That is the thrust of that line of the syllogism.

    • Here’s at least one of the problems with that first premise: the non-existence of evil does not logically follow from the goodness of God. You can’t prove that. It’s just a bare assertion.

      Nor is the moral obligation to prevent any and all evil from ever coming into existence part of the definition of perfect goodness. How would/could you know that?

      Last for this comment, and I’m sure you’ve been asked this before, how can you possibly define good and evil?

      I think the more logical statement is:

      “If a perfectly good god exists, then He has a good reason for the evil in the world.”

      • the non-existence of evil does not logically follow from the goodness of God. You can’t prove that

        So then we can strike out omnibenevolent, because such a being would not allow evil to exist. So if he/she thinks evil is okay then one would have to classify said being as malevolent.

        Say it is god’s plan or higher intentions really is not an argument just wishful theistic thinking as opposed to argumentation.

        how can you possibly define good and evil?

        As it has always been defined, from within the boundaries and values of our society/culture.

        “If a perfectly good god exists, then He has a good reason for the evil in the world.”

        This is not a argument, but apologetics. It begs the question then, what is exactly a good reason for allowing evil in the world.

      • [So then we can strike out omnibenevolent, because such a being would not allow evil to exist.]

        You have simply made another assertion with no proved basis.

        [As it has always been defined, from within the boundaries and values of our society/culture.]

        Always? In the US? In other countries? When leaders don’t kill their citizens? Or when they do?

        That is simply a moving target of an attempt at a definition of good and evil. No definition.

        [his is not a argument, but apologetics. It begs the question then, what is exactly a good reason for allowing evil in the world.]

        I disagree with your characterization, but you’re the one (and Epicurus maybe) brought this “if a perfectly good god exists” thing up. Assuming you can define good, let alone “perfectly good,” then my re-working is better. Because ih a perfectly good does indeed exist, since he is perfectly good in this “if” scenario, then since we know evil exists, he must have reasons for it. Now you’re still hanging out there b/c you still haven’t sufficiently defined evil/good because in your belief system you can’t. But that’s a different part of the argument.

  5. Another thought from the one-time atheist C. S. Lewis on the problem of evil that atheists have, i.e. where do you even get the notion of evil from?

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.”

  6. Arb:[So then we can strike out omnibenevolent, because such a being would not allow evil to exist.]

    ben: You have simply made another assertion with no proved basis.

    Erm…evil exists…that pretty much negates omnibenevolent right off the bat, no? That seems fairly straightforward to me.

    Always? In the US? In other countries? When leaders don’t kill their citizens? Or when they do?

    Cultures, that is each and every culture, has a set of rules by which it lives by. Certain similarities exist in successful cultures because those adopted norms make the culture successful. We do not see very many particularly aberrant cultures because the ones that adopted poor cultural practices died out.

    since he is perfectly good in this “if” scenario, then since we know evil exists, he must have reasons for it.

    But a perfectly good god would not have reasons for evil, why would he do that? What reasons are there for genocide, rape and torture? If you could stop all of those things by whim why would you not?

    So, if god cannot stop evil, he is not omnipotent.
    If he chooses not to stop evil, then he most certainly malevolent. So why believe in a monster?

    Now you’re still hanging out there b/c you still haven’t sufficiently defined evil/good because in your belief system you can’t.

    Good is what tends to benefit society while evil is what tends to tear society apart. The qualities specific qualities of good and evil are defined by the particular society in question and tend to change over time.

    Probably not defined well enough to your standards considering you are most likely waiting for an opportunity to say we need a sky-fairy to tell us what is absolutely right and wrong.

    Absolute morality is not necessary nor is it particularly just or practical, in practice I find it to be quite abhorrent. Absolute morals are the morals of zealotry, bigotry and violence and have little place in civilized society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: