Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 1 of 66 (600629)
01-15-2011 6:44 PM


quote:
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames. But Abraham said, Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us. (Luke 16:19-26)
This was the primary illustration of hell, as it originated in the Christian religion. For 1900 years, that is the hell that people believed--torment, agony, flames, all of it.
At the end of the 19th century, something happened. Darwin's theory allowed atheism to become a reasonable thing to believe. And atheists started to get prominent philosophers, authors and speakers to rattle the cages of Christianity. Considered the best orator of his time, the most prominent spokesman for the exclusive cause of anti-religion was Robert Ingersoll, and he took full advantage of the doctrine of hell, the primary weakness of the Christian religion. He wrote, "All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word--Hell." He wrote most eloquently in his book, Why I Am an Agnostic:
quote:
One Sunday I went with my brother to hear a Free Will Baptist preacher. He was a large man, dressed like a farmer, but he was an orator. He could paint a picture with words.
He took for his text the parable of "the rich man and Lazarus." He described Dives, the rich man -- his manner of life, the excesses in which he indulged, his extravagance, his riotous nights, his purple and fine linen, his feasts, his wines, and his beautiful women.
Then he described Lazarus, his poverty, his rags and wretchedness, his poor body eaten by disease, the crusts and crumbs he devoured, the dogs that pitied him. He pictured his lonely life, his friendless death.
Then, changing his tone of pity to one of triumph -- leaping from tears to the heights of exultation -- from defeat to victory -- he described the glorious company of angels, who with white and outspread wings carried the soul of the despised pauper to Paradise -- to the bosom of Abraham.
Then, changing his voice to one of scorn and loathing, he told of the rich man's death. He was in his palace, on his costly couch, the air heavy with perfume, the room filled with servants and physicians. His gold was worthless then. He could not buy another breath. He died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.
Then, assuming a dramatic attitude, putting his right hand to his ear, he whispered, "Hark! I hear the rich man's voice. What does he say? Hark! 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"
"Oh, my hearers, he has been making that request for more than eighteen hundred years. And millions of ages hence that wail will cross the gulf that lies between the saved and lost and still will be heard the cry: 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"
For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain -- appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror. Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true, I hate your God."
From that day I have had no fear, no doubt. For me, on that day, the flames of hell were quenched. From that day I have passionately hated every orthodox creed. That Sermon did some good.
Hell used to be a nightmarish way to gain converts. But, it became a nightmarish weakness in the Christian religion. Christians did not take this sort of criticism lying down. They responded. Some of them changed hell, and it became a destination that sinners could willingly choose. C.S. Lewis wrote in his 1940 book The Problem of Pain:
quote:
I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man "wishes" to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.
Hell, then, is not so much a place of inflicting torture, but it is a place that the damned souls willingly choose.
Though it may strongly contrast to the gospel parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it is a view that has become predominant among modern Christian evangelists and apologists. Besides the exegesis, it seems to solve the problem. How cruel can it be if the damned actually want it?
Peter Kreeft and Ronald Keith Tacelli wrote in Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions,
quote:
If hell is chosen freely, the problem then becomes not one of reconciling hell with God's love, but reconciling hell with human sanity. Who would freely prefer hell to heaven unless they were insane?
The answer is that all of us do at one time or another. Every sin reflects that preference. The skeptic objects that if he freely choose hell over heaven, we must be insane; the Christian replies that that is precisely what sin is: insanity, the deliberate refusal of joy and of truth.
Christians are divided about whether to interpret the fires of hell literally or metaphorically. Metaphorical fires are often preferred because it is difficult to imagine why even an insane person would choose the prolonged pain of fire.
In the widely-popular apologetic book, A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, the theologian J. P. Moreland is quoted as saying,
quote:
Make no mistake. Hell is punishment--but it's not a punishing. It's not torture. The punishment of hell is separation from God, bringing shame, anguish, and regret. And because we will have both body and soul in the resurrected state, the misery experienced can be both mental and physical. But the pain that's suffered will be due to the sorrow from the final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place. People in hell will deeply grieve all they've lost.
To Moreland, the fires of hell are merely metaphorical. He objects: how does it make sense for hell to be fiery and dark at the same time? So, many Christians have thrown away the old hell and adopted a new hell that is suitable for the rhetorical battles against secularism.
Of course, not all conservative Christians have jumped on this bandwagon. Matt Slick, of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, wrote:
quote:
Hell is a real place. It is not mere unconsciousness. It is not temporal. It is eternal torment. Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there. After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them? If it was temporal, they'd get out in a while. But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong.
Christian apologists fight against other Christian apologists about such problems more than against those on the outside. From the perspective of an opponent of Christianity, the rhetorical point of the problem of hell serves a good purpose. If the proponents of the orthodox hell win the debate, then Christianity is significantly weakened. The world will have more Robert Ingersolls. If the proponents of the choose-your-own-afterlife doctrine win the debate, then hell is less of a fearsome nightmarish thing used to manipulate children and frightened people into adherence. The world will have fewer Christian evangelists who employ the villainy of hell.
And that is why rhetoric matters.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-17-2011 9:45 AM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 6 by Iblis, posted 01-17-2011 3:44 PM ApostateAbe has not replied
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 01-17-2011 3:57 PM ApostateAbe has not replied
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 01-17-2011 4:18 PM ApostateAbe has not replied
 Message 36 by Iblis, posted 01-18-2011 7:46 PM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 2:14 AM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 02-04-2011 2:55 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 4 of 66 (600802)
01-17-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-17-2011 9:45 AM


Re: What the Hell?
The idea that non-believers choose hell really is a robust belief. Many times, I have observed atheists say that they would rather be in hell than be a slave to God for all eternity, though of course all of those times could have been hyperbole--with the orthodox view of hell, that conviction would be hard to imagine. To me, hell is a doctrinal element of a religion, which either helps the religion or hurts it, and that is how I make the best sense of it. Phat, do you have any thoughts about how rhetoric against hell affects the Christian doctrines of hell? I wrote this thread to show that rhetoric against religion really does matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-17-2011 9:45 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2011 1:28 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 10 of 66 (600908)
01-17-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluescat48
01-17-2011 6:02 PM


bluescat48 writes:
Thanks Rrhain, you beat me to the punch. I fully agree.
I would prefer not to dispute the point with Rrhain (I have argued with him vainly in the past), but I would be willing to do so with you. I have been puzzled by such an opinion, and I would love to get the reasons for such a perspective. Atheists did exist before Darwin, but they were not nearly as many, not nearly as well known, and not nearly as influential as until after Darwin. With the theory of evolution, there was no scientific reason left to believe in God, and biology was formerly a very big scientific reason. When Darwin's theory became established at the end of the 19th century as the only theory besides God to explain life, 100 years after Lyell had already explained the planet Earth without God, that is when we see a big historical shift toward atheism--Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Ingersoll--and each of them influenced a helluva lot of people with antipathy toward religion. That time is when we see the coining of the phrase, "agnostic," by a protege of Darwin. The philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote a book on the subject titled, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It really was a dangerous idea to religion. If you underestimate the influence of Darwin's theory on religion and philosophy, then I suggest that you find another way to explain the rise of atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2011 6:02 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2011 7:13 PM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 7:58 PM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 2:45 AM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-18-2011 3:10 AM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2011 12:43 AM ApostateAbe has replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 12 of 66 (600928)
01-17-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
01-17-2011 7:13 PM


bluescat48 writes:
I don't think there were any less than then now % wise, but like homosexuals in the 1950s, most Atheists back in Darwin's time were in the "Closet."
That's possible, of course. I try to go with the proposition that has the highest probability. Given that the theory of evolution provided a very scientifically evidenced and very scientifically authoritative reason to dismiss God as an explanation for the existence of life and humanity, it seems very probable that the theory of evolution increased the actual percentage of atheists rather than just bring them out of the closet.
A few years ago, a member of the Eagle Scouts was kicked out of the club because he did not believe in God. He explained in an interview what motivated his disbelief. He said that in high school he learned about the theory of evolution, and that removed reason to believe in God.
Is it more likely that he was simply in the closet until the theory of evolution gave him an excuse? I figure that, if it makes perfect sense to take people at their words, then it is better to do so.
There seems to be an activist motivation to separate the theory of evolution from atheism, because that would help to make the theory acceptable to a religiously diverse population. Well, OK, but I would draw the line on infringing on the actual reality. Yes, even if we have to agree at least in part with the daily political propaganda of creationists, which claims that the theory of evolution and atheism are intimately intertwined, it is better to be honest and reasonable--atheism as we know it really was allowed its place on the table by the theory of evolution.
Edited by ApostateAbe, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2011 7:13 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2011 12:01 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 14 of 66 (600930)
01-17-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
01-17-2011 7:58 PM


nwr writes:
ApostateAbe writes:
With the theory of evolution, there was no scientific reason left to believe in God, and biology was formerly a very big scientific reason.
Before the theory of evolution, there was already no scientific reason to believe in God.
Scientists tend to be skeptical. Those that believed in a God, mostly took a deistic like view of God - roughly, deism + Jesus. And they were probably full of doubt about the miracles.
The reason there there are more biologists than other scientists who become atheists, seems to be that biologists see first hand the cruelty of nature and find it difficult to square that with the Christian idea of a loving God.
Absolutely. Deism, or belief in God without belief in religion, was at least seemingly close to the predominant belief among philosophers and scientists. Where is deism, now? It was replaced by atheism, because there was no more reason left to believe in any sort of God at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 7:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:21 PM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 01-19-2011 2:19 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 16 of 66 (600937)
01-17-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
01-17-2011 8:21 PM


nwr writes:
ApostateAbe writes:
Absolutely. Deism, or belief in God without belief in religion, was at least seemingly close to the predominant belief among philosophers and scientists.
For most people, there aren't many important differences between deism and atheism.
ApostateAbe writes:
Where is deism, now? It was replaced by atheism, because there was no more reason left to believe in any sort of God at all.
But I doubt that evolution was important for that. I suspect that it has more to do other changes which have lead to a reduction in the social pressure against atheism.
You find it more probable, then, that even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were merely lying about their preference for deism over atheism to spare them from the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Whenever there are disputes about what was going on inside people's brains, there are people who say, "Nobody knows," but I really do find some positions to be exceptionally strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:21 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:44 PM ApostateAbe has replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 18 of 66 (600942)
01-17-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr
01-17-2011 8:44 PM


nwr writes:
ApostateAbe writes:
You find it more probable, then, that even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were merely lying about their preference for deism over atheism to spare them from the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity.
I would not accuse them of lying. Either deism or atheism avoids religious commitment. It doesn't make much of a difference as far as I can tell. I expect that they were influenced by social pressures, but so what? If I wear a shirt because of social pressures, does that make it a lie to wear a shirt?
OK, just to be clear, you find it more probable even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were pressured to keep out of atheism by the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Is that right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:44 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:59 PM ApostateAbe has replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 20 of 66 (600952)
01-17-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nwr
01-17-2011 8:59 PM


nwr writes:
ApostateAbe writes:
OK, just to be clear, you find it more probable even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were pressured to keep out of atheism by the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Is that right?
No, I am not suggesting that.
I am suggesting that they sensed implicit societal pressures, not that they were explicitly and specifically pressured.
OK, yeah, I think "pressured" covers both implicit pressure and explicit pressure. Anyway, bluescat48 thinks that there were a lot of atheists in the closet before Darwin. I think those people were generally telling the truth as they actually believed, and Darwin's theory caused an actual shift in belief in society about the existence of God, following from the shift in the best available explanation for life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 8:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 11:15 PM ApostateAbe has replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 22 of 66 (600964)
01-17-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
01-17-2011 11:15 PM


nwr writes:
ApostateAbe writes:
I think those people were generally telling the truth as they actually believed, and Darwin's theory caused an actual shift in belief in society about the existence of God, following from the shift in the best available explanation for life.
I'm not convinced that Darwin's theory made that much difference.
OK, I do find that belief odd, but it is not like I can do much about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 11:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 24 of 66 (600969)
01-17-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
01-17-2011 11:32 PM


Re: Also...
Coyote writes:
There was also the enlightenment a few decades earlier.
A lot of folks from that time on probably were closet atheists.
After Darwin more felt they could come out of the closet.
Possible, as always. It is difficult for me to understand how it is sensible to believe that an equal percentage of people could believe atheism, albeit secretly, given that there was no sensible way to explain life before the theory of evolution except for God. The old Watchmaker argument really was a very powerful argument. Life is complex, complex things require design, design requires a designer, all religious traditions identify a god as the designer, therefore God exists. That is an argument that secret atheists would have a very difficult time answering. David Hume did his best, but his argument is ambiguous and difficult to comprehend. Why not just believe that the theory of evolution really did cause the late 19th century rise in atheism? Is there a good reason why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 11:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 12:59 AM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2011 12:49 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 28 of 66 (601012)
01-18-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2011 2:45 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto a decade before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.
Yes, that's right, and his writings gained traction among thinkers, leaders and populations who oppressed religions decades after the Manifesto and after Darwin's theory was established.
Dr Adequate writes:
Nietzsche rejected Darwinism:
I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?
If you are going to quote someone to make a point, then it is essential to first make the best sense of that quote and fit it into the point that the author made. Nietzsche most certainly did not reject Darwinism, but it was the foundation of his entire philosophy! He writes that the school of Darwinian thought was thrown into doubt because the weak are prevailing within human society, and the Ubermensch is being repressed. He saw that as a huge problem, and he blamed religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 2:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 29 of 66 (601014)
01-18-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluescat48
01-18-2011 12:59 AM


Re: Also...
bluescat48 writes:
There is still no totally accepted theory of the beginning of life and evolution, only explains changes after that first life existed. Whats more not only Atheists, Agnostics & Deists accept evolution but many Theists accept the ToE. Explain how this can occur if Evolution and Atheism are directly related.
The theory of evolution is essential to atheism, but harmful to religion. Religion can merely accommodate the theory of evolution.
Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 12:59 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 3:04 PM ApostateAbe has replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 33 of 66 (601092)
01-18-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
01-18-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Also...
bluescat48 writes:
Why is it harmful to religion, unless you mean fundamentalism?
Whether there is a god, gods or no gods is irrelevant to the ToE.
Whether it is directed or not has no bearing on the ToE.
If a person want to imply that a god directed evolution so be it.
The point can also be said for other science disciplines particularly Physics, Chemistry & Geology that add to the coming out of Atheists or the conversion from theism to Deism, Agnosticism & Atheism.
Why is it harmful to religion, unless you mean fundamentalism? Sure, OK. Harmful to religious fundamentalism, good for atheism.
Whether there is a god, gods or no gods is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Absolutely. But, to look at the converse, the theory of evolution is extremely relevant to the question of whether or not gods exist, because gods are and have been very often and very widely used to explain life on Earth. The connection is very straightforward.
Whether it is directed or not has no bearing on the ToE. Absolutely. And, that is not an issue.
The point can also be said for other science disciplines particularly Physics, Chemistry & Geology that add to the coming out of Atheists or the conversion from theism to Deism, Agnosticism & Atheism. Yes, yes. Physics, chemistry and geology were big scientific hurdles to a purely naturalistic model of the universe, and biology was the biggest. The scientific theories of physics certainly helped, but they could just as easily play into the idea that God engineered a clockwork universe, which is what Newton proposed. The creation of life is central to religion, and it was a core philosophical argument for God. That is why the theory of evolution made such a big difference in belief. Maybe it had such an effect only because of the accumulation of all of the science that preceded it. Sure, I think that is an acceptable proposition.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 3:04 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 6:15 PM ApostateAbe has replied
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2011 1:02 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 35 of 66 (601115)
01-18-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluescat48
01-18-2011 6:15 PM


Re: Also...
bluescat48 writes:
Still how is it harmful to moderate theists?
Maybe it wasn't harmful to liberal religion. Maybe it even helped, I don't know. The point is about what happened to atheism.
bluescat48 writes:
Atheists make up a very small percentage of those who accept evolution.
OK.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2011 6:15 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 37 of 66 (601154)
01-18-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Iblis
01-18-2011 7:46 PM


Re: keeping score
Iblis writes:
So far, you have received four answers about hell, none of which you have responded to; two about the impact of rhetoric, your alleged point, neither of which you have gotten any use out of; and 15 posts responding to your categorization of evolution as historically enabling atheism, of which 14 disagreed and one was vaguely supportive. You have engaged the 14 in every post you have made since the OP.
Was this the thread you intended to be having?
That wasn't my initial intention, but, interestingly, a lot more people seem to be interested in what I have to say about how the theory of evolution allowed atheism to rise. That really is bad forum etiquette--hijacking my own thread like that and ignoring the people who actually stay on topic. It was shameless, but I do find it more interesting. Some people who sort of did stay on topic kinda missed the purpose of what I wrote, which may have been my fault because I wasn't clear. I don't really care about anyone's opinions of what hell is or how hell is justified. The purpose was to talk about the influence of rhetoric. There was someone in another thread who implied that I can't gain anything by criticizing Islam and the Koran, and I wrote this thread as an example of how such criticism can actually be productive. Arguing the theology of hell is something I have done endlessly in the past. It goes all kinds of bizarre directions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Iblis, posted 01-18-2011 7:46 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Iblis, posted 01-18-2011 11:42 PM ApostateAbe has not replied
 Message 47 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2011 2:17 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024