0
   

Why so little attention?

 
 
CTD
 
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:13 pm
"The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.

The ambitious, the sensual, have hardly time for reasoning, and for embracing a bad system; they have other things to do than comparing Lucretius with Socrates. That is how things go among us.

That was not how things went with the Roman senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous, who ruined the republic. Epicureanism existed under the emperors: the atheists of the senate had been rebels in the time of Sylla and C├Žsar: under Augustus and Tiberius they were atheist slaves.

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. " - Voltaire

Now that last paragraph is nothing other than a rock-solid, logically-compelling argument. There are two premises nobody might honestly dispute followed by a conclusion which logically follows them.

Why then does this argument receive virtually no attention?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,433 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:25 pm
@CTD,
Quote:
Voltaire wrote:
I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.


Now that last paragraph is nothing other than a rock-solid, logically-compelling argument. There are two premises nobody might honestly dispute followed by a conclusion which logically follows them.


Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Neither of those premises is substatiated, they're just ipse dixit. He does not explain why an atheist monarch would find it in his interest to have him ground to dust in a mortar (a dubious proposition on the face of it, given the water content of a human body). Nor does he explain why it would be in the interest of courtiers to poison an atheist monarch. You have just swallowed his unsubstantiated premises uncritically. I suspectt he's extrapolating from organized religions in Europe in the centuries before him, who took a lively glee in slaughtering one another--but who had come to realize that it was in no one's interst by 1648 at the latest, two generations before Voltaire was born.

If you truly consider that to have "rock-solid," i wonder if you'd be interested some lake front property i have in Florida.

CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:33 pm
@Setanta,
So many words, but wasted. It all could have been avoided, had you understood the term 'if'.

Voltaire does not need to explain the reasons behind motives. Nobody does. People who know logic, or even those who simply think for themselves understand that there is no requirement in logic that motives need to be explained.

If the atheist prince finds it in his interest to grind Voltaire to power, Voltaire is certain he will be ground to powder. Simple, undeniable. The premise stands, and your misconceived dodge falls.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:45 pm
That last sentence, first clause, ought to have read "have been."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:48 pm
@CTD,
First, Voltaire doesn't say "if," you do. Second, it's also bullshit that one needn't understand motives--to establish his propositions, he would be obliged to demonstrate the premises by explaining the motive.

If that's what passes for logic at your house, i also have a bridge, slightly used, at a good discount. Cash, no checks.

This is a waste of time--buh-bye.
CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 05:12 pm
@Setanta,
The concept of 'if'-ness is present in both premises, silly. Both are contingent, and obvious about being so. Perhaps someone "elite" enough to read competently will be happening along?

Perhaps they already have ...and realize the futility of disputing? Thanks to all who decline to waste people's time with irrelevant and non-responsive garbage.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 05:30 pm
I must say, with all due respect: "You don't know wtf you are talking about."
CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 05:58 pm
@edgarblythe,
Rolling Eyes That's effective


...but not as you intend. People ain't stupid. They know the difference between addressing an argument and insulting. Well, most do. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 06:32 pm
There's a wonderful irony in this joker complaining bout insults.
CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 06:43 pm
@Setanta,
I am amused by those who believe in the magic rule:
Employ the term 'irony' = unstoppable automatic instant win
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 06:55 pm
In the original quote re atheist princes and courtiers, replace the word "atheist" with "Christian" and the statements still hold absolutely true, as history has proven repeatedly over the centuries. No difference at all in politics whether one is atheist or religious. You screwed this one up, Voltaire.
CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 07:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
In the original quote re atheist princes and courtiers, replace the word "atheist" with "Christian" and the statements still hold absolutely true, as history has proven repeatedly over the centuries. No difference at all in politics whether one is atheist or religious. You screwed this one up, Voltaire.


Wrong. Horrible failure, seeing as I provided the fuller context, from which we understand Voltaire's definition of 'atheist'.

When a God-fearing man finds it in his interest to grind Voltaire to powder - not some stooge atheist calling himself "Christian" disingenuously, mind you - the man will consider seriously whether or not he should disobey his creator.

Voltaire's anticipated your junk before you were even born. I'm no fan, but he's got you here. I suggest folks try and pay a little attention and/or quit thinking that pretending not to pay attention is a "clever" and sure-fire tactic.

Again, for the slow & inattentive, Voltaire disqualifies those who only SAY they worship some god or another. His criteria? Review and see. It's all there right in front of your eyes!
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 11:29 pm
Voltaire is saying that only when you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him will you be moral. Which is utter nonsense. Look at history. People repeatedly convince themselves that they are carrying out god's work and his will and do the most awful things in his name. Consider the Inquisition, the 30 Year's War, the Crusades, The Islamic conquest, the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, the closely-argued religious justification for slavery in the US and apartheid in South Africa--all done by deeply religious assholes. You're wrong. He's wrong.
CTD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 11:36 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Voltaire is saying that only when you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him will you be moral.

No he is not. Voltaire's own words are there; no need trying to put others into his mouth.

Quote:
Which is utter nonsense. Look at history. People repeatedly convince themselves that they are carrying out god's work and his will and do the most awful things in his name. Consider the Inquisition, the 30 Year's War, the Crusades, The Islamic conquest, the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, the closely-argued religious justification for slavery in the US and apartheid in South Africa--all done by deeply religious assholes. You're wrong. He's wrong.

Your follow-up does not even match the words you chose to put in his mouth!

Voltaire has not said, and YOU FORGOT TO SAY "When you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him you will be moral." Placement of the term 'will' makes a big difference there. Can you take no pride in practicing your "art"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why so little attention?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 12:04:33