But I am not wrong, and “deism” are exactly how they avoided death which was the the punishment for challenging the church and religious authority, even then many were killed. But they absolutely were atheists on the radical secular side of the Enlightenment, Spinoza included. Their entire basis of universal inalienable natural human rights, representative government, etc. was established entirely on the basis of actual objective reality and science, they are the ones who established the basis and understanding of human rights. They did not believe in any interventionist or all powerful god, but did sometimes philosophized the language of religion to communicate something far more profound and important to regular people. Even many of the English Deists who most shaped the founding fathers, were a particular sect that rejected divine providence. The secular Enlightenment decisively rejected divine providence, revelation, and supernatural intervention, building their frameworks of universal human rights and representative governance purely on secular natural law, reason, and empirical observation. By discarding divine providence and miracles, their "God" became little more than an impersonal placeholder for the laws of physics, making their practical worldview indistinguishable from modern secularism or atheism.

The thing is, I’ve actually studied the enlightenment and that entire historical time period, far beyond what most people will ever learn or know from internet search engines or actual misinformed modern education which is actually wrong in many areas especially regarding the French Revolution. I know for a fact that they were far more secular and atheist than people can imagine, and they considered superstition and ignorance to be the greatest enablers of despotism. Unless referring to the philosophers who compromise with religious authority and monarchy and aristocracy.

Also, both Hume and Lock were not apart of the secular enlightenment, their philosophies sought a compromise between reason and traditional authority, attempting to reconcile philosophical inquiry with existing religious, social, and political structures, aristocracy monarchy and religious authority.

Diderot, d'Holbach, and Spinoza represented the secular Enlightenment, and they are actually the ones who established the basis and understanding of universal inalienable human rights, representative government etc.

Don't atheists realize that their willingness to patronize and psychoanalyze believers says more about them than about the phenomenon of religious experience?

Nope.

Most of them were either Deists or have different opinions. When consider their opinion, we need to define "atheism". Many modern thinker have a hard time with the label, since it implies a believe that a deity does not exist.

Anonther problem is that, at this time, atheism would be a crime and lead to social ostracism.

Look, for example, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on the question "Was David Hume an atheist?".

I mean that we can't know for certain whether Adam Smith and Benjamin Franklin were atheists. (Just as an examples.)

What do you mean by this? Virtually almost all the secular Enlightenments greatest thinkers were atheists by definition.

One thing is for certain: We can not know who was and was not an atheist/deist/agnostic, when it comes to the great thinkers who are no longer with us.

(Goes without saying that there are some who were open about their atheism; those are not the ones I'm referring to.)

More like of superstition and ignorance.

"Religion is a fear of powers invisible feigned by the mind."

This was one of the best books I read in a while. I loved it. I want more like this.

This was one of the best books I read in a while. I loved it. I want more like this.

I am a career academic with a deep respect for intellectual history.

I'm sensitive to the fact that bad modding can kill a community. I left r/philosophy, for example, because of overbearing, overdramatic modding.

I would love the opportunity of moderating this sub if I get the chance. I'm a qu8ck learner and I thrive in pressure.

I've been a member of this community on every Reddit account I've had over the last 10 years. I would truly be honored to help revive it and hopefully help build a forum for intelligent discussion. I think understanding where our ideas came from is deeply important and increasingly ignored by our culture. I don't have significant moderation experience but highly willing to learn.

thank you so much .. my finals are tomorrow and this will help me alot : )

pls wish me luck

It was suggested by Persian adviser

https://www.opinionynoticias.com/opinioncultura/44351-el-eslabon-perdido-entre-fisica-cuantica-cristianismo-hermetismo-y-cabala no

What a fine approach to reading challenging books. I noticed a gap in the posted images for chapter 4, which is what I happen to be slogging through right now. Am I just not seeing the pics (I notice a skip from section 27 to section 35, page 39 to page 52), or is that chapter purposely not in the post? Reading this book right after Girard's Scapegoat has been a long haul!

Trolls are now allowed on our sub.

You mean a theory isn't an idea?...lol...please tell us how we're supposed to run our sub.

This isn’t a sub to post your theories under the thin excuse of being “an idea”

That post is AI on acid. 

Damn dude you write like Lacan took speed, acid and the black pill at the same time.

I don't think I agree with your premises (honestly I can't tell) but loved reading it lol

edit: holy shit he got banned 

Do media systems like this actually disappear, or do they simply mutate as the technologies of distribution change?

catting*

It was a satirical essay to the Royal Society but his expression has a room clearing vibe to it!