I think there may be something to this assertion:
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. 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...
But I think it's more a matter of the impact Darwin had on theists, rather than on atheists.
First there was scientific acceptance of heliocentrism undermining religious doctrine, then Lyell and other geologists refuting Genesis (no recent creation, no global flood). But neither of these seemed to have the same impact on theists as Darwin's assertion that mankind was "just another animal", and not a special creation with a special (and active) relationship to a sentient and attentive creator.
In other words, it's not so much that Darwin provided some sort of enabling factor or firm foundation to atheists that they previously lacked. Rather, he incited among theists a stubborn and vociferous opposition, which still continues unabated and is fomenting ever more egregious denials against the ever more voluminous evidence for evolution.
As a consequence of theists forcing the issue, atheists have been compelled to be more outspoken about their position, not only to sustain rational skepticism and objective ethics (which have always been fundamental to atheism), but to protect and promote the scientific method itself, which had been an endeavor shared by (some) theists since the Enlightenment.
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."
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
