Is Voltaire Unstoppable here?

[GrowingSmaller]

"Grinding down" can mean almost anything, so we need a definition of it please.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What s "Voltaires definition of an atheist" in any case. Did I miss it? Is he stipluating something unusual?

 

[quatona]

It's been a long time
Can nobody answer the argument presented in the last paragraph? The preceding paragraphs provide an excellent definition, so there's no equivocating; but surely other fallacies could be introduced with a little effort.

As it is presented there (and if I am not missing something), it is a non sequitur, in the first place.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Straw Voltaire.

If you want to discuss his argument, you're going to have to actually address his argument. He states that an atheist prince would want to kill him, as would atheist courtiers. This is not a straw man, this is what he actually says.

There is no reason for mentioning this if he wasn't saying that atheists (at least in politics) have an interest in murder. Or possibly, if we want to take what he said completely literally, that atheist princes want to physically grind down Voltaire. Regardless of how literal or metaphorical you take it, this is a strawman and a non sequitur, and it is his actual argument. If you continue to deny what you posted in the OP then I can only conclude you're here to flamebait and not to discuss.

 

[CTD]

If you want to discuss his argument, you're going to have to actually address his argument. He states that an atheist prince would want to kill him, as would atheist courtiers. This is not a straw man, this is what he actually says.

I can read. I do not equate an atheist prince in general with an atheist prince with an interest in killing Voltaire, as you do. You know this, yet you persist in straw manning.

I see three potential possibilities:
1. Prince with an interest in keeping Voltaire alive
2. Prince with an interest in grinding Voltaire
3. Indifferent Prince

Straw Voltaire claims only the second is possible; the real Voltaire addresses one without mentioning the other two. Perhaps the real Voltaire has overestimated the capacity of readers to figure out simple things?

Perhaps, then again, perhaps some underestimates.

There is no reason for mentioning this if he wasn't saying that atheists (at least in politics) have an interest in murder.

Why don't you calm down and try to compose something plausible at this point in the discussion?

Or possibly, if we want to take what he said completely literally, that atheist princes want to physically grind down Voltaire. Regardless of how literal or metaphorical you take it, this is a strawman and a non sequitur, and it is his actual argument. If you continue to deny what you posted in the OP then I can only conclude you're here to flamebait and not to discuss.

I'm prepared to wait. I doubt the clowning will cease.

Feel free to keep attacking his employment of the 'mortar'. If anyone takes away the idea he was just a nonsense-spouting idiot, no prophet of mine has been maligned.

 

[CTD]

I can read. I do not equate an atheist prince in general with an atheist prince with an interest in killing Voltaire, as you do. You know this, yet you persist in straw manning.

I see three potential possibilities:
1. Prince with an interest in keeping Voltaire alive
2. Prince with an interest in grinding Voltaire
3. Indifferent Prince

Straw Voltaire claims only the second is possible; the real Voltaire addresses one without mentioning the other two. Perhaps the real Voltaire has overestimated the capacity of readers to figure out simple things?

It won't hurt to clarify, for those unfamiliar with the straw man fallacy.

SithDoughnut is the one claiming the only possible situation is the second. Voltaire never made the claim.

Observe:
"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."

See? Voltaire does not insist all atheist princes would find it in their interest to grind him to powder. He only complains about one who would. Obviously Voltaire would feel quite safe if an atheist prince were dependent upon him to stay in power.

"All atheist princes must find it in their interest to grind Voltaire to powder" is simply not part of the argument. He only addresses a single prince who would.

Now SithDoughnut and others think they can convince you that's actually Voltaire's argument, when they are the ones saying it.

They persist.

Permit me to join you in chuckling at their chances of success.

Let me also request that you think back: did you have huge problems understanding Voltaire when you read the first post? If not, perhaps you aren't "elite".

 

[SithDoughnut]

See? Voltaire does not insist all atheist princes would find it in their interest to grind him to powder. He only complains about one who would. Obviously Voltaire would feel quite safe if an atheist prince were dependent upon him to stay in power.

If that were the case then there would be no comma. The comma sets up the subject as atheist princes, and then the information that follows describes said atheist princes. If Voltaire wanted to talk about powder grinding atheist princes specifically, he would have written "atheist prince who", not "atheist prince, who", because that would set up the entire line from "atheist" onwards as a subject, which is what you're claiming.

My point is better illustrated in the second claim, because there is no "an", which I'm going to assume is what has led to your confusion. Again, atheist courtiers as a whole is set up as the subject, and what follows after the comma is a description of them.

However, if what you say is what Voltaire actually intended on saying, then I'll go with it. In that case, the fact that the prince is an atheist is irrelevant. The focus is on avoiding princes who want to grind him to powder, not on atheists. The entire final paragraph, assuming that it says what you think it does, becomes a non sequitur. The only way this argument would make any logical sense (and I use "logical" very loosely) is if he was talking about all atheists, which you deny he is.

So, regardless of whether I am right or you are right, Voltaire's argument is a non sequitur. If I'm right, then it's also a strawman argument. Either way, the argument is weak.

 

[CTD]

However, if what you say is what Voltaire actually intended on saying, then I'll go with it. In that case, the fact that the prince is an atheist is irrelevant.

No it isn't. Voltaire's reasoning is rock-solid. A prince who meets the criteria he specified might have an interest in grinding him to powder, yet be stayed from committing such a sin - not by external human threat (for he is the prince!) but by internal concerns, as listed.

The atheist prince shall not be stayed by such. He believes he may sin freely.

I suspect you're not even paying attention to the definition. A prince who claimed to be an atheist, but still had doubts might yet be stayed. One who claimed to be a deist, yet had no actual belief in the deity, is going to grind to powder anyone he has an interest in grinding.

Voltaire omits any consideration of verbal claim, cutting straight through to the belief possessed. Lying is irrelevant, the disingenuous at a loss to hide from classification.

The focus is on avoiding princes who want to grind him to powder, not on atheists. The entire final paragraph, assuming that it says what you think it does, becomes a non sequitur.

Well assuming he wasn't talking about atheists when he was and whatever else it takes to get to your new nebulous straw version, I don't think such an interpretation is going to say anything when you're finished. I don't think it a coincidence either.

The only way this argument would make any logical sense (and I use "logical" very loosely) is if he was talking about all atheists, which you deny he is.

Huh? The only way to make sense is to warp it into nonsense? I understood it just fine the first time I read it. I have presented it to other audiences, and such nonsense was never advanced against it. Here obviously, desperation has inspired a fad.

So, regardless of whether I am right or you are right, Voltaire's argument is a non sequitur. If I'm right, then it's also a strawman argument. Either way, the argument is weak.

No. See under "I am right" we stick to Voltaire. Not straw Voltaire; not straw me. I don't need your words in my mouth, and we've all seen the results when they're inserted into Voltaire's.

 

[quatona]

Two simple, straightforward premises, and one rock solid conclusion.

I think it would be helpful if you´d sum up what you perceive as being the simple,straightforward and rock solid premises and conclusion (in a more simple and straightforward wording than Voltaire´s).
That way, anyone who wants to respond to you could be sure he´s addressing your interpretation, you wouldn´t have to deal with what you perceive as "straw Voltaire", and responders wouldn´t be exposed to what can easily be interpreted as concescendence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe that this is satire from Voltaire, and there isn't much of an argument present.

There are unfounded premises, such as "the only reason why one would not become a murderer is the threat of a really big, angry God" and "Christians would never even contemplate regicide". (LOL!)

Voltaire isn't that stupid, so I view this as satire.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

I believe that this is satire from Voltaire, and there isn't much of an argument present.

Please Darwin Please

There are unfounded premises, such as "the only reason why one would not become a murderer is the threat of a really big, angry God" and "Christians would never even contemplate regicide". (LOL!)

I don't see such premises. Mind pointing them out?

...In real Voltaire?

Voltaire isn't that stupid, so I view this as satire.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Voltaire can be mighty stupid when he puts his mind to it, perhaps even competitive. But in this example he does well.

Used to be scoffers would include some sound thinking, even make it the bulk of their spiel, to get folks to drop their guards.

Darwin, for example, included this on the frontispiece to his book
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is STATED, FIXED or SETTLED; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."Butler: "Analogy of Revealed Religion"

Wonderful, sound, thinking, nothing remotely similar to the text that followed, certainly the only profound insight to be found between the covers.

 

[CTD]

There are unfounded premises, such as "the only reason why one would not become a murderer is the threat of a really big, angry God" and "Christians would never even contemplate regicide". (LOL!)

These are some remarkably wild words to put in Voltaire's mouth. It looks like no aim was taken.

Voltaire was a classical Deist describing his classical Deist god ideas; he was no friend of Christianity, as 'most everyone knows. For him to say such a thing about Christians would be so out of character as to provoke extra scrutiny of the source.

Voltaire's god is not accurately described with terms such as "really big, angry". [a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger]

See?

I begin to suspect there's difficulty coming to terms with opposing non-God gods. After all, there's really not much apparent motive to hate any of them, or pay them any mind at all. The only God is the only God "worth" making an effort to oppose.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please Darwin Please

Excuse me? It's apparent to me that Voltaire isn't being serious. This isn't a stretch on my part. He's much brighter than the "argument" that he presents.

I don't see such premises. Mind pointing them out?

They are implicit premises. This is why I don't believe that he intends himself to be taken seriously. If he was presenting a serious argument, he would make all of the needed premises of his argument explicit, and defend them. He doesn't even attempt to do this. Therefore, satire.

Voltaire's god is not accurately described with terms such as "really big, angry". [a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger]

See?

"Supreme Being, creator, ruler" == "really big"

"rewarder, revenger" == "angry"

It's the spirit of the statement. His "argument" assumes that God is very powerful (really big) and inclined to take revenge against (angry with) murderers, or at least believers are supposed to think so to be frightened into not committing regicide.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

No it isn't. Voltaire's reasoning is rock-solid.

There isn't any reasoning, or if there is it is based upon ignorance. I'll just go forward with whatever you're saying, instead of the OP, because you're adding extra definitions in now.

It's still an non sequitur. History has demonstrated that theists are just as capable of murder and evil as anyone else. Belief in God, therefore, evidently stops neither of these. This is especially true in the case of the deistic god which Voltaire believed in.

Note: For those who want context to this argument, or just to read the rest of what he says about atheism, the OP's quote is an excerpt from the Dictionnaire Philosophique, translated here. It's like apologetic arguments haven't changed for centuries, no matter how many times they are shown to be based upon false premises.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Voltaire quotes:

An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.​

Clever tyrants are never punished.​

In this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.​

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.​

The man loved satire and witticisms. Read him in context, or at your peril!


eudaimonia,


Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

History has demonstrated that theists are just as capable of murder and evil as anyone else.

Exactly. Voltaire knows that his readers know this, therefore he isn't being serious, and doesn't expect his readers to take him seriously. It's all part of his French wit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

Exactly. Voltaire knows that his readers know this, therefore he isn't being serious, and doesn't expect his readers to take him seriously. It's all part of his French wit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Now that's impressive!

Even now that you know the source, you maintain your denial.

Now just for fun

Is this selective? Is the whole piece satire, or just the parts you don't like?

 

[CTD]

Is this to be the new trend in I wonder?

On YouTube, a Communist once claimed the following to have been sarcasm:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

But nobody else ever tackles it. That's the only attempt I've ever seen. Well, that an a bunch of name-calling, but calling me names doesn't count as addressing Jefferson's argument.

Now back to Voltaire and his rock-solid argument:

"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 Cæsar: 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

 

[CTD]

It's still an non sequitur. History has demonstrated that theists are just as capable of murder and evil as anyone else. Belief in God, therefore, evidently stops neither of these. This is especially true in the case of the deistic god which Voltaire believed in.

That's the inadvertent beauty of Voltaire's writing here. His definition doesn't allow you to classify Hitler as "a Christian", for it is obvious Hitler did not believe in a supreme being concerned with justice.

 

[qualitas occulta]

It appears that by CTD's definition, "unstoppable" equates to whoever can have whatever word last.

How sad.