What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)

[charlie sc]

I've been to more churches(10 - 20 times), synagogues(20 - 40+ was in dumb Jewish school) and mosques(1 - 2 times, don't ask) than any atheist institutions(0)

 

[Augustus]

Well yes. Quite a few of the 18th century English Deists also had the divine providence/non-intervening deity non-sequitur. I'm not really sure that they weren't simply retaining the notion of 'divine benevolence' for political/cultural reasons - after all, it wasn't very long before their time that heresy was punishable by death - and certainly denying God any role at all in human affairs was still dicing with the death of one's political career in those days.

I'd say it was more for philosophical reasons than out of fear.

While many people today see the Enlightenment as a 'rejection' of Christian influences, this isn't historically accurate. Providence was a key feature in the Enlightenment philosophy of figures such as John Locke and Adam Smith.

Providential Deism therefore allowed people to reject Christian dogma without losing the intellectual foundations of the philosophical tradition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not really sure that they weren't simply retaining the notion of 'divine benevolence' for political/cultural reasons

That's a good point, and may explain why the American Declaration of Independence makes a case for revolution against what is experienced as an unjust king being divinely sanctioned when their Bible clearly and distinctly commands them to submit to kings as God's hand-picked agent on earth.

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

Jefferson probably understood that the revolutionaries were proposing something that could be regarded as rebellion not just against a king, but also against the god that seated him in his throne and commanded his subjects to submit to the king's will.

As with so much of secular humanism and Enlightenment values, this represents a rejection of Christian values, as did the idea of a secular state, of people as citizens with autonomy and guaranteed personal rights rather than subjects, the idea of rational ethics replacing received moral systems, rational skepticism and empiricism replacing a sterile, faith-based approach to understanding the workings of nature, teaching only science in public schools rather than creationism, and the like.

But in 1776, it was probably important to suggest a creator sanctioning revolution against an unjust king.

And the struggle continues through to today. I'm most familiar with the American situation, where there is a continual tug-of-war between secular humanist values such as tolerance for homosexuals and transgendered people, keeping safe and legal abortion available, permitting same-sex marriage, conducting stem cell research, permitting assisted suicide, and the religious opposition to all of these things.

 

[Augustus]

As with so much of secular humanism and Enlightenment values, this represents a rejection of Christian values, as did the idea of a secular state, of people as citizens with autonomy and guaranteed personal rights rather than subjects, the idea of rational ethics replacing received moral systems, rational skepticism and empiricism replacing a sterile, faith-based approach to understanding the workings of nature, teaching only science in public schools rather than creationism, and the like.

Rational scientific enquiry, the idea of a secular state, individual rights, etc. did not magically appear out of a vacuum as people 'rejected' Christian values.

You seem to think 'Christian values' are best represented by modern US fundamentalist Protestantism, also the myth that The Enlightenment represented a radical break from the past rather than being a continuation of long term trends in European philosophy, theology and natural philosophy that began in the Middle Ages.

For example:

The tract Defensor pacis (The Defender of Peace) laid the foundations of modern doctrines of sovereignty. It was written by Marsilius of Padua (Italian: Marsilio da Padova), an Italian medieval scholar. It appeared in 1324 and provoked a storm of controversy that lasted through the century. The context of the work lies in the political struggle between Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor and Pope John XXII. The treatise is vehemently anticlerical. Marsilius' work was censured by Pope Benedict XII and Pope Clement VI.

Defensor pacis extends the tradition of Dante's De Monarchia separating the secular State from religious authority. It affirmed the sovereignty of the people and civil law and sought to greatly limit the power of the Papacy, which he viewed as the "cause of the trouble which prevails among men" and which he characterized as a "fictitious" power. He proposed the seizure of church property by civil authority and the elimination of tithes. In his view, the Papacy would retain only an honorary pre-eminence without any authority to interpret the scriptures or define dogma.

Defensor pacis - Wikipedia

In Defensor pacis, Marsilius sought to demonstrate, by arguments from reason (in Dictio I of the text) and by argument from authority (in Dictio II) the independence of the Holy Roman Empire from the Papacy and the emptiness of the prerogatives alleged to have been usurped by the Roman pontiffs. A number of Marsilius's views were declared to be heretical by Pope John XXII in 1327.[4]

Most of Defensor pacis is devoted to theology. Relying heavily on Scripture, Marsilius seeks to show that Jesus did not claim to possess any temporal power and that he did not intend his church to exercise any.[5] On the contrary, Scripture teaches that the church should be thoroughly subordinate to the state in both secular and spiritual matters. All authority in the church lies with the whole body of the faithful, the secular ruler who acts as the people's representative, and general councils called by the secular ruler.[6] Some of Marsilius's arguments on these themes had a marked influence during the Reformation.[7]

Today, Marsilius's Defensor pacis is best remembered not for its theology but for its political philosophy and legal theory. Marsilius agrees with Aristotle that the purpose of government is the rational fulfillment of humans' natural desire for a "sufficient life".[8] However, he goes beyond Aristotle in embracing a form of republicanism that views the people as the only legitimate source of political authority. Sovereignty lies with the people, and the people should elect, correct, and, if necessary, depose its political leaders.[7] Democracy, Marsilius argues, is the best form of government because it tends to produce the wisest laws, protects the common benefit, promotes "sufficiency of life", and produces laws that are most likely to be obeyed.[9]

Marsilius of Padua - Wikipedia

 

[siti]

Providential Deism therefore allowed people to reject Christian dogma without losing the intellectual foundations of the philosophical tradition...

...and votes.

 

[LuisDantas]

To this day, it is nearly impossible for a politician to elect himself while being openly atheistic.

I can only guess how much more true it was in the 18th century.

 

[rrobs]

Always one of my favourite questions, because it simply ignores the question of "what was happening to people before they were born?"

Think about it: what were you experiencing when Cleopatra ruled Egypt, or when the Crusades were going on, or the year you father met your mother? Was it good, was it bad … or was it anything at all?

Mark Twain once wrote, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

The problem is, I think, that most people -- once they have experienced existence -- cannot fathom their own non-existence. And yet, for the vast majority of the time since the universe began, that's all they had.

Apologies to @It Aint Necessarily So who already said the same thing, with far fewer words.

Scripturally, you are absolutely right. Up to a point at least.

Whereas most Christians (probably most people in general) think that once they die they either go to heaven or hell. That is at odds with the scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 9:10,

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.​

So you do agree with that part of the scriptures. But there's more to it, at least according to the scriptures.

The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection, actually two resurrections. All the people that have ever lived and died will be resurrected and that's when they will face judgment. Those resurrected in the first resurrection will be given eternal life in a new heavens and new earth where there will be no more negativity, sickness, hate, war, death, etc.

The second resurrection and judgment will see some go to the same paradise and others will simply go back to being dead. People burning in hell is not scriptural, I think that idea began when the churches wanted more members/money. Although I'm not the one who will be judging, I suspect the vast majority of people who ever lived will get the eternal life in paradise. After all, most people are pretty decent folks. God will judge by what's in their hearts, unlike people who like to judge by appearance. But even for those who go back to being dead, it won't be that bad I suppose. Mark Twain understood that. Good quote. I like it.

The burning lake of fire mentioned in Revelation is for Satan and the devil spirits. That is precisely why there will be no negativity in the new heavens and new earth. They are the reason for all negativity in the present universe, so once their gone it will be nothing but love.

Now the big advantage of accepting Christ as one's Lord and savior, is that they will face neither of those resurrections. The scriptures declare they have already been judged and found righteous. They don't get that by doing good works, but they get it by work of Jesus Christ. So far, he is the only one resurrected. However, the scriptures plainly declare that those who believe in him, were resurrected at the same time he was. Obviously, it doesn't look that way to us, but that's the way God sees at and I for one am not inclined to argue.

I could give you all the scriptural references that support what I've said if you care to see them. Let me know.

Take care...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Scripturally, you are absolutely right. Up to a point at least.

Whereas most Christians (probably most people in general) think that once they die they either go to heaven or hell. That is at odds with the scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 9:10,

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.​

So you do agree with that part of the scriptures. But there's more to it, at least according to the scriptures.

The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection, actually two resurrections. All the people that have ever lived and died will be resurrected and that's when they will face judgment. Those resurrected in the first resurrection will be given eternal life in a new heavens and new earth where there will be no more negativity, sickness, hate, war, death, etc.

The second resurrection and judgment will see some go to the same paradise and others will simply go back to being dead. People burning in hell is not scriptural, I think that idea began when the churches wanted more members/money. Although I'm not the one who will be judging, I suspect the vast majority of people who ever lived will get the eternal life in paradise. After all, most people are pretty decent folks. God will judge by what's in their hearts, unlike people who like to judge by appearance. But even for those who go back to being dead, it won't be that bad I suppose. Mark Twain understood that. Good quote. I like it.

The burning lake of fire mentioned in Revelation is for Satan and the devil spirits. That is precisely why there will be no negativity in the new heavens and new earth. They are the reason for all negativity in the present universe, so once their gone it will be nothing but love.

Now the big advantage of accepting Christ as one's Lord and savior, is that they will face neither of those resurrections. The scriptures declare they have already been judged and found righteous. They don't get that by doing good works, but they get it by work of Jesus Christ. So far, he is the only one resurrected. However, the scriptures plainly declare that those who believe in him, were resurrected at the same time he was. Obviously, it doesn't look that way to us, but that's the way God sees at and I for one am not inclined to argue.

I could give you all the scriptural references that support what I've said if you care to see them. Let me know.

Take care...

No need for scriptural references...I am familiar. Though please remember, I'm familiar as a reader, but not as a believer.

I find it interesting, however, that you contrast two different scriptures, Ecclesiastes and Revelation, which shouldn't, in my view, coexist in the same universe, let alone the same book, the Bible. (By the way, Ecclesiastes is my favourite book in the Bible, and I'm proud to say it was also Abe Lincoln's. Revelation is my least favourite, with Job as second worst for how it portrays God and actually squeezes a sort of grudging apology out of Him. I never forget that getting more children may cheer Job up, but doesn't do much for the first lot, who all remain -- completely unfairly -- quite dead.)

I will be honest with you, I think a lot of what I find incoherent about the Christian religion stems exactly from this inability to see that books like Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are so fundamentally contradictory to those like Job and Revelation.

As to resurrection (or resurrections, no matter how many), obviously these are outside of my belief or ken, and make utterly zero sense in the context of what I know about life, consciousness, science and nature. And I'll go further and say that resurrection makes no sense even from a philosophical viewpoint. It is as if one is implying that we are a mere pupa, like caterpillars, created to see how well we eat the cabbage, how well we avoid the robin, and whether we thus become butterflies. Really, what could be the point?

 

[siti]

The burning lake of fire mentioned in Revelation is for Satan and the devil spirits.

People burning in hell is not scriptural, I think that idea began when the churches wanted more members/money.

"And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" - Revelation 20:15

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8

So no, not really, "the churches" didn't just make it up as a money-spinner - they just took advantage of was written in scripture. You can argue that its symbolic or figurative language of you like, but you can't pretend it isn't there.

 

[rrobs]

"And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" - Revelation 20:15

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8

So no, not really, "the churches" didn't just make it up as a money-spinner - they just took advantage of was written in scripture. You can argue that its symbolic or figurative language of you like, but you can't pretend it isn't there.

You are absolutely right. Those found wanting will experience the second death. I was trying to keep things simple. I guess I went overboard!

What happens to someone who gets cast into the lake of fire? While many believe that they burn for eternity in agony, reason and logic, and more importantly, the scriptures themselves, would dictate that they die. That's just what Revelation 21:8 says. The second death is also mentioned in the second chapter of Revelation.

Revelation 2:11,

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.
​

Dead people don't feel anything, as per Ecclesiastes and other verses that say the dead "know nothing." Like Schultz in Hogan's Heros.

​

On another note; I shouldn't have made the comment about the churches. That wasn't very kind of me.

​

​

 

[siti]

What happens to someone who gets cast into the lake of fire? While many believe that they burn for eternity in agony, reason and logic, and more importantly, the scriptures themselves, would dictate that they die.

Unless you base your understanding on Isaiah rather than Ecclesiates...

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." - Isaiah 66:24

I think somebody already mentioned that the scriptures are contradictory...so its quite easy to see why the "dead know not anything" bit applies to the period between the "first" death and the resurrection but clearly before being cast into the "lake of fire". Seeing it that way resolves the contradiction and retains the possibility of a literal interpretation. On the other hand, one could see the whole bit about the "lake of fire" and the Isaiah thing as symbolically representing the "spiritual condition" of those who reject the message of "salvation". And then it doesn't have to make perfect sense - it just has to prompt people to seriously consider their spiritual well-being.

 

[rrobs]

Unless you base your understanding on Isaiah rather than Ecclesiates...

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." - Isaiah 66:24

I think somebody already mentioned that the scriptures are contradictory...so its quite easy to see why the "dead know not anything" bit applies to the period between the "first" death and the resurrection but clearly before being cast into the "lake of fire". Seeing it that way resolves the contradiction and retains the possibility of a literal interpretation. On the other hand, one could see the whole bit about the "lake of fire" and the Isaiah thing as symbolically representing the "spiritual condition" of those who reject the message of "salvation". And then it doesn't have to make perfect sense - it just has to prompt people to seriously consider their spiritual well-being.

Good scripture. Thanks for bringing it up.

Isaiah doesn't say that the person is alive and conscious. It says that the worms and fire will not stop consuming their carcass and that it will be an abhorrent site. A carcass is a dead person. There is no indication that God changed anything He previously said about dead people.

 

[Augustus]

...and votes.

Because if you were going to lie in order to get votes, it made so much sense to pretend to be a slightly different kind of deist...

What about the non-politicians?

 

[rrobs]

No need for scriptural references...I am familiar. Though please remember, I'm familiar as a reader, but not as a believer.

I find it interesting, however, that you contrast two different scriptures, Ecclesiastes and Revelation, which shouldn't, in my view, coexist in the same universe, let alone the same book, the Bible. (By the way, Ecclesiastes is my favourite book in the Bible, and I'm proud to say it was also Abe Lincoln's. Revelation is my least favourite, with Job as second worst for how it portrays God and actually squeezes a sort of grudging apology out of Him. I never forget that getting more children may cheer Job up, but doesn't do much for the first lot, who all remain -- completely unfairly -- quite dead.)

I will be honest with you, I think a lot of what I find incoherent about the Christian religion stems exactly from this inability to see that books like Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are so fundamentally contradictory to those like Job and Revelation.

As to resurrection (or resurrections, no matter how many), obviously these are outside of my belief or ken, and make utterly zero sense in the context of what I know about life, consciousness, science and nature. And I'll go further and say that resurrection makes no sense even from a philosophical viewpoint. It is as if one is implying that we are a mere pupa, like caterpillars, created to see how well we eat the cabbage, how well we avoid the robin, and whether we thus become butterflies. Really, what could be the point?

Interesting view of Revelation. I see it as the final fulfillment of all the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament. He promised them their own land, a kingdom where all their needs would be completely met, a paradise if you will. But when the king (Jesus) came to do all of that the leaders had him killed. They didn't count on him rising from the dead though. In any case, one of the last things Jesus said was that he'd be back and finish the job once and for all.

He came the first time as a sheep led to the slaughter. There were good reasons for that, which I won't go into right now. In any case, the next time he comes here he will come as King of Kings and Lord or Lords. That is book of Revelation and other books of the OT. He will eliminate the devil (the source of all ills in this world) and finally set up the promised kingdom in a brand new earth. This one, with all it's shortcomings (thanks to Adam's disobedience) will be destroyed and God will create the new one. That one will be perfection to the nth degree. That's a quick and dirty tour of the entire Bible (Minus the period between Jesus' first and second coming, another story altogether. Has to do with the sheep led to slaughter part).

Now if that is true, what's so bad about it? Sounds like pie ala mode to me!

Take care...

 

[Woberts]

It means to not be an idiot, and to think for yourself.
(depending on who you ask)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Interesting view of Revelation. I see it as the final fulfillment of all the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament. He promised them their own land, a kingdom where all their needs would be completely met, a paradise if you will. But when the king (Jesus) came to do all of that the leaders had him killed. They didn't count on him rising from the dead though. In any case, one of the last things Jesus said was that he'd be back and finish the job once and for all.

He came the first time as a sheep led to the slaughter. There were good reasons for that, which I won't go into right now. In any case, the next time he comes here he will come as King of Kings and Lord or Lords. That is book of Revelation and other books of the OT. He will eliminate the devil (the source of all ills in this world) and finally set up the promised kingdom in a brand new earth. This one, with all it's shortcomings (thanks to Adam's disobedience) will be destroyed and God will create the new one. That one will be perfection to the nth degree. That's a quick and dirty tour of the entire Bible (Minus the period between Jesus' first and second coming, another story altogether. Has to do with the sheep led to slaughter part).

Now if that is true, what's so bad about it? Sounds like pie ala mode to me!

Take care...

Of course, all that you wrote is a very good guide to why I am not a believer. It is just so full of the inexplicable.

First, a promise by the "only deity" to only one small part of mankind?
Second, "the leaders had him (Jesus) killed" and "there were good reasons for that" can only mean that an omniscient and omnipotent God set it up to happen exactly that way.
Third, to say that all of the "shortcomings" of this world are "thanks to Adam's disobedience" and at the same time lay "all the ills of this world" at the feet of the devil doesn't make sense.

I like a good fantasy story as much as anyone, but at the very least, they have to make some kind of coherent, internal sense, or it's just another badly written story. Which is how I see the story you tell.

 

[rrobs]

Of course, all that you wrote is a very good guide to why I am not a believer. It is just so full of the inexplicable.

First, a promise by the "only deity" to only one small part of mankind?
Second, "the leaders had him (Jesus) killed" and "there were good reasons for that" can only mean that an omniscient and omnipotent God set it up to happen exactly that way.
Third, to say that all of the "shortcomings" of this world are "thanks to Adam's disobedience" and at the same time lay "all the ills of this world" at the feet of the devil doesn't make sense.

I like a good fantasy story as much as anyone, but at the very least, they have to make some kind of coherent, internal sense, or it's just another badly written story. Which is how I see the story you tell.

Good thoughts. Can you explain existence, emotions, wars, sickness, happiness, and the myriad other things that make up reality in any way that could not be taken as inexplicable?

I'll address all your points with simple Bible verses. I think they will show something different than what you said. Let's see;

1Tim 2:4,

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
​

I don't think it would be "my interpretation" to say this negates your first proposition that God is racist. It's what it says to anybody who reads it without ignoring the normal usage of words and grammar.

Regarding your second point, I must first ask you to check your premise. What makes you so sure the present state of the world is God's cup of tea?

When God first created the world He called it all "good." The word "good" is the Hebrew word "tov" which is much better understood as meaning good, not in a moral or ethical sense, but more like "functional." In the original creation everything functioned in such a way that mankind would enjoy a very idyllic life. There were no wars, sickness, hunger, homelessness, etc. That was what God wanted.

A huge part of what God considered functional was that people had free will. He did not see fit to make them robots or puppet, completely under His control. The so called apple tree is actually called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The word evil is the Hebrew word "ra" and, being the opposite of good (functional) meant dysfunctional. God said don't mess with that knowledge. It'll just end up killing you. Not any different than any good parent telling their child not to stick their hand in the fire.

What was the serpent? Ever hear the phrase, 'that guy's a real snake in the grass?" It's a figure of speech meant to call the hearer's attention the the fact that the guy is real sneaky and does not have your best interest at heart.

Well such a man convinced Adam and Eve to disobey God and check out the knowledge of good (functional) and evil (dysfunctional). Remember up till that point, the only thing they knew was that which was functional, that which worked entirely to their benefit. In fact the guy told them that if they did learn evil along with good, they would become Gods themselves. They could have listened to God, who told them it would kill them, or the slick guy who told them they would become God. They chose to come to this knowledge of evil. Not God's idea. It was their idea.

Turns out God was right. Not only would dysfunction end up killing them, it would make their remaining existence somewhat less enjoyable than it had been. They would have to work like dogs just to survive. Whereas the garden yielded a ready supply of food without fail and without much work on their part, they would now work substandard soil that may or may not yield a bountiful supply of food. Again, I must emphasize, it was Adam's idea to make things that way, not God's

You can easily see all of that in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Anyway, I've clearly strayed form my intent to, "address all your points with simple Bible verses." I haven't even started on why it was necessary for a man (Jesus) to be born and, unlike Adam, to obey to the letter what God told him to do, even voluntary offering himself to die, but, trust me, the scriptures are all about explaining that very thing, but I can hardly cover the entire scope of the scriptures here. I'm sure that's a relief to you.

Life is more complicated than can be stated in a few verses. It takes an accurate knowledge of the entire scope of the scriptures. One would need to devote oneself to the task before coming to any real understanding of what the scriptures say. I dare say that while everybody seems to "know" the Bible, few have actually read it (let alone studied it like a student studies history or science for their college diploma) without the clutter of preconceived ideas which come from somewhere other than the actual scriptures. Mostly tradition I suppose.

Clearly, the world is somewhat functional and somewhat dysfunctional. To what would you attribute such a state of affairs that sounds any less of a fantasy then that which I've endeavored to convey?

Take care...

 

[siti]

Because if you were going to lie in order to get votes, it made so much sense to pretend to be a slightly different kind of deist...

I didn't say "lie" and I have no idea what you mean by "different kind of Deist"...Jefferson's religious outlook is - probably, maybe, perhaps - most accurately described as a kind of "Christian Deism" - he regarded the teachings of Jesus as a sound exposition of moral teaching and seems to have been convinced (as were most people in the early 19th century) that the universe had a divine creator and lawgiver. But he also described himself at various times as a "deist", a "Unitarian", a "sect by myself" and a "materialist" - and also specifically asked people he wrote to about his religious beliefs not to make them public. And whilst he did indeed invoke the notions of divine providence and divine justice in public speeches, in his private communications, he encouraged free rational investigation and recommended that his correspondent (his nephew in the case I am quoting from) not shrink back from questioning "with boldness even the existence of a God..." and "not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

But I do think it is fair to say that Jefferson was less than 100% candid about his religious beliefs in public - and he certainly attended an Epsicopalian Church despite his denial of the trinity and other key Christian doctrines. Why do you suppose he did that? Genuine religious devotion - or was he just doing what was expected of a high ranking politician in 19th century America in order not to offend the electorate?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good thoughts. Can you explain existence, emotions, wars, sickness, happiness, and the myriad other things that make up reality in any way that could not be taken as inexplicable?

This could take some time...

Existence, well there's the first problem, but it really comes down to "that which is." And I think I'll return to an old trope of mine, which is that "nothing is impossible." I mean this in exactly the opposite way to which most people take it. I mean, precisely, that it is impossible that there is no existence at all, and I include in that any notion of gods...because gods that do not exist (and are therefore nothing) do not create.

It's hard to show how important this thought is. Think of it this way...if nothing existed, literally nothing, then no gods existed to cause something. And if something could exist, why would you suppose that would have to be a conscious, intelligent entity with a plan?

I will take up emotions next, because this is a fascinating topic. Emotions are the output from the algorithms that make up living systems...some of which are merely physical, some of which, in sentient beings, are felt and extend into consciousness. All living things are in very large part algorithms...programs running to solve all the many complex problems that life encounters. They have evolved, because surviving to produce offspring means that they worked, and get passed on. Photosensitive cells on plants send messages to stems that cause turning towards the sun. A complex set of signals in a female's brain, reacting to the presence of a particular male, trigger algorithms that suggest likely success in producing offspring … and express themselves in emotion, in heightened sensitivity, in more willingness to (you know) ... Our brains don't produce output like computers do, with reams of paper, but with simple feeling. But those simple feelings are in fact the output of all the multitude of algorithms that make us what we are.

Sickness needs no explanation in a universe that contains anything more than one life form. It is simply the contest between one and the other, and who wins depends on any number of things, some of which are controllable, most of which are not.

I'll stop here, because it's late, but I'll try to address the rest of your post tomorrow or so.

 

[Augustus]

But I do think it is fair to say that Jefferson was less than 100% candid about his religious beliefs in public - and he certainly attended an Epsicopalian Church despite his denial of the trinity and other key Christian doctrines. Why do you suppose he did that? Genuine religious devotion - or was he just doing what was expected of a high ranking politician in 19th century America in order not to offend the electorate?

It makes sense that one would seek to remain outwardly Christian, but I don't see why one would court votes by adopting a providential deistic belief system. If you were interested in votes you presented your Christian face.

Providential deism, which was really just deism back then, wasn't simply a cloak for atheism, it was a belief system with philosophical consequences.

I didn't say "lie" and I have no idea what you mean by "different kind of Deist"...Jefferson's religious outlook is - probably, maybe, perhaps - most accurately described as a kind of "Christian Deism" - he regarded the teachings of Jesus as a sound exposition of moral teaching and seems to have been convinced (as were most people in the early 19th century) that the universe had a divine creator and lawgiver. But he also described himself at various times as a "deist", a "Unitarian", a "sect by myself" and a "materialist" - and also specifically asked people he wrote to about his religious beliefs not to make them public. And whilst he did indeed invoke the notions of divine providence and divine justice in public speeches, in his private communications, he encouraged free rational investigation and recommended that his correspondent (his nephew in the case I am quoting from) not shrink back from questioning "with boldness even the existence of a God..." and "not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

Enlightenment deism, formulated an important philosophical axiom, that humans were created with reason which was the ultimate guide to to living the 'good life', rather than say following your passions or self-interest.

It was mainly an offshoot of liberal Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, as you describe with Jefferson. It rejected the theological/miraculous aspects and that God would intervene to fix things and laid the responsibility on humans to create a good society via the application of reason 'in accordance to the creator's will'.

Secular Humanism basically developed out of this tradition, just went one step further (although implicitly retains the providential aspect via the idea of progress')