|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. Well I agree with you. It certainly had an effect on my theism. While I was maturing, one of the last strongholds for needing a religious explanation was the whole "Missing Link" deal. Just how the hell did humans come about was a great gap for god to fit in. Once that gap was closed, atheism was easier to embrace. For the record, I'm not an atheist anymore. As far as the topic goes, From the OP:
And that is why rhetoric matters. I think you made a good case why rhetoric matters and I couldn't find much to disagree with in the OP. I was interesting though, so thanks for posting it. I'm not sure where the discussion should go... I guess if you have any questions then fire away!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
Why is it harmful to religion, unless you mean fundamentalism? Sure, OK. Harmful to religious fundamentalism, good for atheism.
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Still how is it harmful to moderate theists?
Atheists make up a very small percentage of those who accept evolution. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Maybe it wasn't harmful to liberal religion. Maybe it even helped, I don't know. The point is about what happened to atheism.
Still how is it harmful to moderate theists?bluescat48 writes: OK.
Atheists make up a very small percentage of those who accept evolution. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4223 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Iblis writes:
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.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4223 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
ignoring the people who actually stay on topic. There were only the two though, other than a half-clause from me in passing, and we all simply agreed. So no loss there.
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. No, you were clear. The four of us who responded on the doctrine of hell didn't expect to engage you, just to cover the subject for anyone who might be interested. You had already said the impact of rhetoric was your actual point. But I wonder where the fundies are. There are still plenty of churches out there whose pulpits haven't adopted any new-fangled science fiction hell-aint-hot ideas. They preach on the fire, they still preach "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and make no apologies about it. So, true believers, I know you are out there. What do you think about rhetoric and hell? Edited by Iblis, : add link Edited by Iblis, : fixed link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Otto Tellick writes: Allow me to summarize the point: There are some people who think that anti-religious rhetoric makes no change at all. I say, yes it does, and here is how: the moral objections about hell have weakened the Christian religion among those who propose that hell is a place of fiery punishment, and it has caused a morally agreeable religion to emerge of Christians who propose that hell really isn't all that bad.
Still, the topic seems to be centered on the concept of hell, and I don't see any relevant relation between that and Darwin's theory. As for the describing these different notions of hell as simply being different "rhetoric", I suspect that some theists would view that as a misstatement, because for them, it's a matter of foundational dogma, such that you can't be a "true Christian" (or "true Muslim") if you don't accept the "correct" notion. I even suspect there are some who call themselves Christian and don't actually believe or accept any notion of hell. Go figure... I personally agree that it's ultimately a matter of rhetoric, since all assertions about the Christian notion of "life after death" are based on nothing more than speculations about various dreams and made-up stories. But apart from acknowledging the fact that religion is ultimately just an artifact of human language and cognitive patterns, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by talking about "how rhetoric changes religion."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes:
quote: Then you're going to have to make your comments where I can't see them and reply to them. If you don't like your claims being subjected to scrutiny, then perhaps you shouldn't post them in a place that invites such examination.
quote: Which, of course, is completely unsubstantiated. Or have you forgotten about a rather famous man called "Socrates." He got himself killed for his atheism. The problem, of course, is knowing exactly what it would take to convince you that your attitude is incorrect. Do you simply need a list of famous atheists? For crying out loud, the "problem of evil" goes all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, at least, as Epicurus is listed as coming up with the phrasing we have heard: Whence cometh evil? If god wants to prevent it but cannot, then he is impotent. If he can but chooses not to, then he is malevolent. But if he can prevent it and wants to, then where on earth does evil come from? Have you forgotten about William of Ockham, from whom we get the infamous razor? Machiavelli, Rabelais, da Vinci? While the French Revolution was about a lot of things, one of them was an overthrow of religious influence. Have you forgotten about Schopenhauer? How many atheists do you need to be reminded about before it occurs to you that perhaps your claim is not based upon any evidence?
quote: Incorrect. First, you ignore the reality behind the development of evolutionary theory. Darwin didn't discover evolution. What he did was come up with a mechanism for how it happens. Evolution had been discussed and debated for many years before Darwin published. And let's not forget, he waited more than a decade to publish his Origin of Species and that only because Wallace was going to beat him to it. Second, you ignore all the other reasons people had for not believing in god. Simply from a philosophical viewpoint, the idea of theism has had problems. Again, the "problem of evil" goes back more than two millennia. There's a reason that Jefferson rewrote the New Testament: It wasn't because of evolution. The Neo-Classic period was filled with deists and others who denied the divinity of god or at the very least the active involvement of such in life on this planet. There's a reason that the clockwork universe was the dominant paradigm of the 18th Century.
quote: And thus showing you haven't actually studied this topic at all if you think they're the only ones who had anything of any significance to say about atheism. Again, do you simply need a list of names? What is it going to take to convince you?
quote: What about simple philosophy? It's been good enough for all the other atheists. What's so special about any one piece of scientific inquiry?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes:
quote: So what did Darwin do that Newton couldn't? The universe is even more complex and he reduced it to a few laws.
quote: Because it isn't true. Isn't that the best reason? There are too many atheists from before the time of evolution to conclude that evolution had anything to do with it. What's it going to take to convince you? How many atheists must we name?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:quote: All the atheists from before the development of evolutionary theory. Same question to you: What would it take to convince you? Do you just need a list of names?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes:
quote: Incorrect. Or are you saying the Catholic Church doesn't think god exists? Or that the connection isn't straightforward? Yes, the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation for how life diversified on this planet. So if one of the biggest religions on the planet doesn't seem to have a problem with it, why do you insist that it is a problem?
quote: Which completely ignores the entire 18th Century. Yeah, Newton was a religious whackadoodle, but it is because of his development of the clockwork universe (building upon the work of Galileo...another person who wasn't that enamored on the whole god thing) that we even have a scientific revolution in the first place.
quote: Incorrect. It is only central to some religions.
quote: Except it didn't. Atheism didn't have any surge after the publication of Origin of Species and there were too many atheists from the millennia before its publication to justify such a claim. What is it going to take to convince you? So far, a lot of the people you've mentioned were from before Darwin. What does that tell you about your investigation into your claim?
quote: No, it isn't. Again, there were simply too many atheists from before the scientific revolution. Religion and the existence of god have always had their detractors, have always had philosophical arguments against them.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
If anyone thinks that Rrhain makes any serious points, then I will respond. I would otherwise like to refrain from arguing with him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: Read: "I can't defend my claim." Look, I asked you nicely what it would take for you to consider the possibility that you were wrong. Is there nothing that would cause you to reconsider? No amount of evidence would be sufficient? Time to put up or shut up. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025