Was Jesus' father a Roman soldier named Pantera?

[Shiranu]

If a woman drowns her child in a bathtub, who should go to prison? The water or the bathtub?

If a man shoots his wife with a gun, who should be punished? The gun or the man?

[Shiranu]

And yet the enlightenment itself was spurred on by shedding the religiosity of the Dark Ages.

The Enlightenment was in large part a response to the French "Wars of Religion" - that is to say, the French mass persecution of religious and ethnic minorities + political institutions that did not pay taxes to the crown or HRE such as the Knights Templar; as you said, it had been fueled by the violence of the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance as the Papal Authority, HRE and the French Crown asserted it's dominance over thousands of various fiefdoms that had been only nominally paying lip service for the past several centuries.

Men like Rosseau, Thomas Hobbes, Descartes and several more of the Swiss and French Enlightened Thinkers both heavily cited and were outright born or raised into a very turbulent Protestant upbringing; Rosseau's families were French Reformers forced into hiding in Switzerland during the Wars of Religion (he would convert back to Calvinism in his later life) and Descartes was raised and educated in Protestant-majority Poitou, where he would study at a Jesuit university.

Sir Issac Newton's Christianity is well document, and his theological works are more numerous than his scientific works; and that's not even getting into the alchemy that these men often practiced - alchemy deeply rooted in esotericism of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Babylonian, Egyptian, Platonic and other assorted indigenous witchcrafts that early scientists practiced.

And essentially every one of the Enlightened Thinkers advocated for a society that was tolerant of all faiths - or lack thereof; not a society where the theological or political beliefs of one group would be asserted upon any other - after all, they had literally just lived through a hundred years of the French Crown and Catholic Church doing exactly that to many of their own family. 

Anti-theism to the Enlightened philosopher and scientist alike would likely be nearly as reprehensible as the monarchical abuses of power and religious fanaticism they themselves witnessed first hand - both as theists themselves and as humanists.

[Hydra009]

rampant scientific progress has brought us to the edge of complete extinction

I feel like there are some other very important factors also at play which were left out.

It's not scientific progress ---> extinction

It's more like scientific progress ---> rampant over-exploitation ---> ecological degradation and/or war ---> corruption/stalled reforms ---> ??? (possible extinction)

[Hydra009]

Anti-theism to the Enlightened philosopher and scientist alike would likely be nearly as reprehensible as the monarchical abuses of power and religious fanaticism they themselves witnessed first hand - both as theists themselves and as humanists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

Off the top of my head.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I feel like there are some other very important factors also at play which were left out.

It's not scientific progress ---> extinction

It's more like scientific progress ---> rampant over-exploitation ---> ecological degradation and/or war ---> corruption/stalled reforms ---> ??? (possible extinction)

Given that the end-users of science are fucking idiots there's no other way this would go. BUT it would be that way if the "science" was just a better way of killing each other.

[Shiranu]

I feel like there are some other very important factors also at play which were left out.

It's not scientific progress ---> extinction

It's more like scientific progress ---> rampant over-exploitation ---> ecological degradation and/or war ---> corruption/stalled reforms ---> ??? (possible extinction)

That over-exploitation would not be possible without unchecked scientific progress; the fruits of that progress inherently crave *more* by their very natures. Their entire design principle dictates it.

 Even "clean" energy requires a dirtier means of generation - it's possible science can still fix that mistake, but I'm not holding my breath on it; at least not for the masses like us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

Off the top of my head.

Per your link...

The deistic Voltaire, denying authorship of the work, made known his aversion to d'Holbach's philosophy, writing that "[the work] is entirely opposed to my principles. This book leads to an atheistic philosophy that I detest."

This is a view I would wager money on that Voltaire's fellow deists such as Franklin & Paine might share; or Christians like Rousseau or Newton.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for them, but I just truly do not see a group who were largely composed of theists being particularly favorable to an anti-theist ideology.

[Cassia]

To argue that somehow religion contributed to science and to other obviously secular and humanist endeavors, when the church and compliant governments ruled with the iron fist is a meaningless conclusion to me. Who knows what the brilliant minds really thought, as persecution for atheism would snuff out their life's work or themselves?

The christian persecution complex is laughable. Slaughtering Jews and Muslims for centuries. How many inter-faith wars have christians had? And of course, Jews are killing Muslims and Muslims are killing Jews today. How enlightened. Seems like banging one's head against a wall or kneeling in a certain direction does little good. Call it cultural, sure. That's wonderful. Sitting in a church droning the same chants and incantations for centuries is so inspiring.

This is 2023 yet look how we run in this supposedly secular country. Can you even imagine the uproar about a law that prohibits a Baptist from holding office?
Arkansas
Article 19, Section 1
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
Maryland
Article 37
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
Mississippi
Article 14, Section 265
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."
North Carolina
Article 6, Section 8
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[115]
South Carolina
Article 17, Section 4
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Tennessee
Article 9, Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[117]
Texas
Article 1, Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

[aitm]

The vast majority of humans are useless, and incapable of survival if left to their own devices. We have to be shown how. The first person who weaved a basket was a genius. But all she had to do was show the others how to do it.
 
People don't know how to use a hammer until shown. We have forgotten so much due to technology and simple improvements in even farming, we have become dependent on a food supply and most would die of starvation simply because we do not teach that the forests and fields have an abundance of edible highly nutritious plants that our ancestors ate all the time. Absolutely free! Dandelions, edible and nutritious, cattails, the whole plant is edible, tons of weeds are completely edible, nutritious, tasty and...most of all, completely free.

There are at least 400 common plants, weeds and tubers, unknown to todays people because we have become accustomed to being served our food and we willingly pay for the convenience of delivery.

Humans are led by a few, they need that, they cannot think for themselves, survive by themselves, hell they depend on being told what to do, what is right and wrong. Religion filled the void of ignorance by simply replacing one ignorance with another but this one had guidance, an all important ingredient to keeping the masses in line, alive, and even better, willing to do the work of the churches main plan, mass indoctrination, make the leaders wealthy and powerful and keep the masses stupid. Highly successful, and now we can't even think for ourselves about something so obviously insane that common sense is now recognized as believing in the absurd as the default of knowledge. Egads.

[Shiranu]

To argue that somehow religion contributed to science and to other obviously secular and humanist endeavors, when the church and compliant governments ruled with the iron fist is a meaningless conclusion to me.

Once again, the reason it seems so "meaningless" to you is because it comes from an incomplete view of history; an incomplete view of history written by the very same church that oppressed and the kingdoms/nation states that evolved from those kingdoms and wanted legitimacy to continue ruling over it's vassals.

Europe leading up to the Enlightenment was fractured into literally thousands of minor dukes, counts, lords and other minor fiefdoms; on top of that you had free cities across Western Europe and the North Atlantic - free cities that often practiced various forms of democracy and even some early communist systems.

On top of that you had guilds and orders which owned and operated villages and mills; for example, just in Loudun in the 1570s-1690s (my area of study) the Knights Templar owned 42 buildings in the town and a handful of mills, mines and production villages; villages and workers that the Knights Templar "ruled" over with 4 bailiffs that enforced laws passed by the 4 city leaders and 72 elected community men - and townsfolk/peasants that they didn't extract taxes from.

This is a story repeated across those thousands of minor rulerships; life could be horrible, but it also could be - in all frankness - better than life today. It all depended on how rural you were, what the natural terrain around you was, or how much wealth your city had and if it could defy the king's wishes: and it's the world that the Enlightenment was born from - outliers aside.

[Shiranu]

To be frank, the fact that this is even an argument shows that the humanism of the Enlightenment died ages ago; the "Post-Modern" movement of science is a spit in the face to everything the majority of the enlightened thinkers advocated - ideology over reality, and if reality conflicts with ideology then we just erase reality and make a new one.

[Hydra009]

That over-exploitation would not be possible without unchecked scientific progress; the fruits of that progress inherently crave *more* by their very natures. Their entire design principle dictates it.

The very fact that concrete was invented doesn't necessitate that the Earth be covered in parking lots.  You are conflating the acquisition of knowledge with its implementation.  Over-exploitation was a deliberate choice, and not one decided by scientists themselves.  The main problem isn't science - it's the people calling the shots.  Specifically, economic/political systems that demand over-exploitation.

Even "clean" energy requires a dirtier means of generation

This statement bizarrely expects me to take your word for it when I know for a fact that this is untrue.  It's simply a fact that solar energy (or hydro or wind) is less dirty than coal.  That's pretty much the point.

This is a view I would wager money on that Voltaire's fellow deists such as Franklin & Paine might share; or Christians like Rousseau or Newton.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for them, but I just truly do not see a group who were largely composed of theists being particularly favorable to an anti-theist ideology.

You're right, they were not.  But you claimed that anti-theism would be some reprehensible, nearly unthinkable thing to an Enlightenment philosopher, yet I have provided an example of one who not only did not see antitheism as reprehensible, but championed it himself (a risky move, given attitudes then).  The claim is thus falsified.

And here's an interesting food for thought about Deism during the Enlightenment.  We forget sometimes that pre-Enlightenment Europe was not a bastion of religious tolerance or freedom of belief.  Outright atheism often carried a death sentence and certainly there were also extra-judicial pressures on people to keep the faith.

So it is rather convenient that new thinkers emerged that were critical of the conventional organized religion, did not congregate at church like nearly everyone else, espoused the virtues of reason and pushed bold reforms (for the time), especially in disentangling church from state.  Some, like Paine, vehemently disagreed with Christianity.  Jefferson famous literally cut out the miracles out of the Bible.  See where I'm going with this?

The orthodox people at the time certainly suspected so and said as much on polemics against deism.  Of course, the deists of that time swore publicly that they did in fact believe in a God, just not a personal God, and that was enough to save them from any religious mobs.  And I must also take them at their word.  But I do wonder at the sorts of things they might've said in private - or in public, if they were allowed to talk completely freely.  I also wonder about such things today.  I cannot prove anything of course, but I strongly suspect that people's truly honest thoughts are much less in line with orthodoxy than what they profess.

[Cassia]

To be frank, the fact that this is even an argument shows that the humanism of the Enlightenment died ages ago; the "Post-Modern" movement of science is a spit in the face to everything the majority of the enlightened thinkers advocated - ideology over reality, and if reality conflicts with ideology then we just erase reality and make a new one.

The Enlightenment was a necessary stepping-stone to get away from the religious mind poisoning. It is not the undeniable ultimate goal of secular humanism which favors no religion, culture or race when charting morality or aspirations for a better life. It does not require some fake, supernatural, authoritarian, morality dictator.

You can see they were headed there, looking at the so-called Jefferson Bible as an example. A reframed Jesus, an enlightened man and not the iron-age slave of god.

....cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine

We "learn" to believe a particular sect's scriptures and diatribes only because of the geo-political time and place we were born. Well, that was my very first clue. The Yanomami tribe living on the meandering rivers on the border between Brazil and Venezuela have no use or need to be subjugated by the folklore of ancient Mesopotamia.

[Shiranu]

The Enlightenment was a necessary stepping-stone to get away from the religious mind poisoning.

And yet it's most influential names were all deeply spiritual and religious men - yet again, the idea that men who held to a deep place of conviction in their faith would also hold anti-religious views is just insane to me.

I understand where you and others are coming from, but the simple truth is that the idea that the Enlightenment was an "anti-religious" movement died out in historical circles decades ago; it simply is not accurate to the historical truth nor the ideals expressed by leading Enlightenment thinkers, and it unfortunately fuels modern anti-theism with a noxious mix of historical illiteracy and ideological orthodoxy.

John Locke -

" "The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its Author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure, all sincere; nothing too much; nothing wanting!" "

Voltaire -

The moral man who seeks a support point in virtue must admit the existence of a Being as fair as He is supreme. So God is necessary to the world in every way, and we can say together with the author of the Epistle to the scribbler of a vulgar book on the Three Impostors, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him".

Jean-Jacques Rosseau -

I perceive God everywhere in His works. I sense Him in me; I see Him all around me.  When my reason is afloat, my faith cannot long remain in suspense, and I believe in God as firmly as in any other truth whatever.

Immanuel Kant -

"Pure religious faith alone can found a universal church; for only [such] rational faith can be believed in and shared by everyone ... Yet, by reason of a peculiar weakness of human nature, pure faith can never be relied on as much as it deserves, that is, a church cannot be established on it alone."

Adam Smith -

"We may admire the wisdom and goodness of God even in the weakness and folly of man."

Thomas Hobbes -

[size=-1]Whether men will or not, they must be subject always to the Divine Power. By denying the existence or providence of God, men may shake off their ease, but not their yoke.[/size]

Faith is a gift of God, which man can neither give nor take away by promise of rewards or menace of torture.

Issac Newton -

He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.

I have provided multiple historical contexts, direct quotation from contemporary figures being directly references; if the anti-theist ideology is more important than reality, that is yall's business - but to continue to hold onto the post-modern belief that the Enlightenment was largely a anti-theistic movement, or that anti-theism was even remotely "the norm" of the thinkers, is to intentionally hold onto false history just to maintain ideological "truth" and is frankly uncomfortable to see when one goes as far to troll for that ideology earlier.

It's pathetic when theists do it, and it's perhaps more-so when the "rational, holier-than-thou" atheist does it as well.