Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 20, 2023 11:26:37 GMT
FF "I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist." You said. I showed that, at least for some it was. You're welcome.
If you wanted to consider only modern times then the examples of the actions of modern theocracies still stand.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html
There is certainly hostility towards non-believers in the States, often deemed secularphobia:
www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists
See what I am doing here?
If only you would substantiate this claim it would hold some weight. But you never have.
It could just be that after Darwin there was an increasingly widely accepted, and entirely natural explanation for the progress of life on earth with the expectation that science would discover more about its origin. Deism certainly continued a decline originating from the rise of naturalism and materialism in the Enlightenment, with the writings of David Hume and Immanuel Kant raising questions about the ability of reason to address metaphysical questions.
Another point which, unfortunately for you, needs some evidence. I make that four or five now. Science has nothing to say about the existence of a supernatural cause as such matters are typically outside of its purview.
Six.
As carefully explained before, there is plenty of humour to be had in endless credulity, especially at some of the outlandish ideas of religion, and while I accept that a virgin birth is very, very unlikely even if possible, I am perfectly entitled to a good laugh at the idea of, in addition to that claim, a previous impregnation by a supernatural entity, as much as I am the idea of Scientologists' past lives lived in extra terrestrial cultures, or Ra carrying the sun cross the sky each day on his solar barque.
You went back further in time than I consider fair.
If you wanted to consider only modern times then the examples of the actions of modern theocracies still stand.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html
There is certainly hostility towards non-believers in the States, often deemed secularphobia:
www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists
See what I am doing here?
Its the case that some people did not like interventions in human business by possibly capricious gods whet
her you can see that or not. It is not important what they called themselves, but I am sure some of them called themselves Deists... after Darwin many people quit calling themselves Deists. Why not? The order of the universe was less challenged.
her you can see that or not. It is not important what they called themselves, but I am sure some of them called themselves Deists... after Darwin many people quit calling themselves Deists. Why not? The order of the universe was less challenged.
If only you would substantiate this claim it would hold some weight. But you never have.
It could just be that after Darwin there was an increasingly widely accepted, and entirely natural explanation for the progress of life on earth with the expectation that science would discover more about its origin. Deism certainly continued a decline originating from the rise of naturalism and materialism in the Enlightenment, with the writings of David Hume and Immanuel Kant raising questions about the ability of reason to address metaphysical questions.
What I found especially humorous is that much later science did get very crazy talking about multiverses and whatever in the lame hopes of denying there is a god [my emphasis].
Another point which, unfortunately for you, needs some evidence. I make that four or five now. Science has nothing to say about the existence of a supernatural cause as such matters are typically outside of its purview.
they ceased to care how disorderly things became as long as they could continue believing in science!
Six.
A minor point, you have not been excused for your maniacal laughter at people who believe it is at least possible that Mary was indeed a virgin. That you later clarified you believe the same thing is not sufficient apology.
As carefully explained before, there is plenty of humour to be had in endless credulity, especially at some of the outlandish ideas of religion, and while I accept that a virgin birth is very, very unlikely even if possible, I am perfectly entitled to a good laugh at the idea of, in addition to that claim, a previous impregnation by a supernatural entity, as much as I am the idea of Scientologists' past lives lived in extra terrestrial cultures, or Ra carrying the sun cross the sky each day on his solar barque.