The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion

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.

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?

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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.

I'm not convinced that Darwin's theory made that much difference.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

OK, I do find that belief odd, but it is not like I can do much about it.

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.But don't forget there is still a huge stigma attached to being an atheist. Try to run for national office anywhere in the US as an atheist and you'll have a very difficult time of it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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?

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.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto a decade before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.Nietzsche rejected Darwinism: The reasons that turned Ingersoll from religion you have already quoted.Of Freud's religious opinions and, for that matter, his grasp of evolution, I know nothing.

I think there may be something to this assertion: 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.

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. 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.

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.

What makes you so sure?