Is Voltaire Unstoppable here?

[CTD]

It's been a long time

"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

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.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What argument?

 

[SithDoughnut]

All I'm seeing is "I don't like atheists, so I'm going to invent a strawman argument about them all being immoral". Not really an argument, is it?

I agree, Voltaire is unstoppable here, because it is impossible to stop something that hasn't started moving yet.

 

[CTD]

All I'm seeing is "I don't like atheists, so I'm going to invent a strawman argument about them all being immoral". Not really an argument, is it?

Not really his argument, and neither did you even bother to take down your straw Voltaire. Pretty lazy variant you pull there.

 

[CTD]

What argument?

Ah, good to see someone beginning to take an interest in philosophy. You don't need a whole lot of formal instruction; you'll probably get the hang of how a lot of things go in no time at all. Whether we realize it or not, we all practice philosophy and science right off the bat as babies. It's mostly a matter of relearning what you already know.

Arguments consist of premises followed by a conclusion. Now which are you having difficulty locating, the premises or the conclusion?

 

[The Nihilist]

What's the source of this quote? Voltaire was a man prone to satire, and I'm not prepared to take a few out of context lines as comprehensive presentation of his views.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ah, good to see someone beginning to take an interest in philosophy. You don't need a whole lot of formal instruction; you'll probably get the hang of how a lot of things go in no time at all. Whether we realize it or not, we all practice philosophy and science right off the bat as babies. It's mostly a matter of relearning what you already know.

Arguments consist of premises followed by a conclusion. Now which are you having difficulty locating, the premises or the conclusion?

Actually you are right there is an argument (albeit apparently an enthymeme) there I misread that paragraph. I take issue with the idea that atheists are always unreliable aides or officials who seek to destroy the power of theists, especially in such a dramatic fatsion.For example deputy PM (britain) Nich Clegg is an atheist, but has not poisoned David Cameron or the Queen as far as we know, nor "ground them to powder".

 

[variant]

We could call this argument the unfounded derision argument.

Perhaps the appeal to unfounded stereotypes.

Or possibly the argument whereby Voltaire calls atheists unreasoning during an irrational screed against them.

In any case I don't buy his assertion that Atheists are just bad and irrational people, so the argument kind of implodes all on it's own.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Not really his argument, and neither did you even bother to take down your straw Voltaire. Pretty lazy variant you pull there.

I take it you haven't bothered reading your own argument. He assumes that atheists would want to kill him - that's a strawman, by the way.

Although The Nihilist's point is a good one; this could be pure satire and not an actual argument. It's something that Voltaire would have quite possibly done.

In short, still no legitimate argument to address. If you like us to address an argument based upon what Voltaire said, feel free to present it yourself.

 

[CTD]

Actually you are right there is an argument (albeit apparently an enthymeme) there I misread that paragraph. I take issue with the idea that atheists are always unreliable aides or officials who seek to destroy the power of theists, especially in such a dramatic fatsion.For example deputy PM (britain) Nich Clegg is an atheist, but has not poisoned David Cameron or the Queen as far as we know, nor "ground them to powder".

Do tell...

I take it you haven't bothered reading your own argument. He assumes that atheists would want to kill him - that's a strawman, by the way.

Although The Nihilist's point is a good one; this could be pure satire and not an actual argument. It's something that Voltaire would have quite possibly done.

In short, still no legitimate argument to address. If you like us to address an argument based upon what Voltaire said, feel free to present it yourself.

Straw Voltaire.

In any case I don't buy his assertion that Atheists are just bad and irrational people, so the argument kind of implodes all on it's own.

Straw here as well.

Had he said
"I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. "

You might have something. He did not.

"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. "

That's what he said. See the difference?

He has not said all atheists will find it in their interest to grind him to powder or poison them. This situations he addresses only refer to those circumstances - not all circumstances.

This really shouldn't be so difficult.

Let's review a stretch & see:

I take issue with the idea that atheists are always unreliable aides or officials who seek to destroy the power of theists, especially in such a dramatic fatsion.For example deputy PM (britain) Nich Clegg is an atheist, but has not poisoned David Cameron or the Queen as far as we know, nor "ground them to powder".

Okay, does the deputy PM have an interest in poisoning David Cameron or the Queen? Does the deputy PM have the means? If so, how should we expect to find out?

The interest element is omitted in all your straw Voltaires.

Set / subset. Some, none, one, all. These words have separate and distinct meanings, referring to separate and distinct concepts. Positing one, or a few specified examples is not the same as presupposing all.

 

[CTD]

Or possibly the argument whereby Voltaire calls atheists unreasoning during an irrational screed against them.

Is the man not entitled to observation?

Why do call "argument" that which is not, and call "non-argument" that which is?

 

[CTD]

Although The Nihilist's point is a good one; this could be pure satire and not an actual argument. It's something that Voltaire would have quite possibly done.

For the sake of your feelings, I shan't dispell your fantasy just yet.

It doesn't matter. Unless one subscribes to genetic fallacies, an argument is an argument; it may be valid regardless of its source.

Obviously if I were a genetic fallacist, I wouldn't be posting the words of this notorious prophet of atheism.

 

[The Nihilist]

I take it you haven't bothered reading your own argument. He assumes that atheists would want to kill him - that's a strawman, by the way.

Although The Nihilist's point is a good one; this could be pure satire and not an actual argument. It's something that Voltaire would have quite possibly done.

In short, still no legitimate argument to address. If you like us to address an argument based upon what Voltaire said, feel free to present it yourself.

I feel like it's been made clear that serious points won't be taken seriously. Honestly, I'm grateful. It's rare for someone to make that clear on the first page of a thread. I feel like like CTD has saved us a great deal of trouble.

 

[qualitas occulta]

Had he said
"I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. "

You might have something. He did not.

"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. "

That's what he said. See the difference?

He has not said all atheists will find it in their interest to grind him to powder or poison them. This situations he addresses only refer to those circumstances - not all circumstances.

Yes--those certain circumstances, which would include atheist princes and courtiers who would undeniably do so.

If he however said: "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", then one has, omitting the comma, room for an atheist prince who would not have it in their interest to do so.

You should, as has been said before, pay attention to your own words before you mince others'

Okay, does the deputy PM have an interest in poisoning David Cameron or the Queen? Does the deputy PM have the means? If so, how should we expect to find out?

Do you know what a mortar is? I believe you're taking it much too literally. To have someone "ground to powder in a mortar" is very clearly a figurative act of speech. I'm sure Voltaire couldn't have meant literally grinding someone in those tiny things meant for food, unless it was meant as a hyperbole, in which case, only supports the notion that it was satirical in nature.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Do tell...

Like they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are climing that the likes of Clegg will poison (or grind to nothing) the PM Cameron because Clegg is atheist, then you have to produce the evidence. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the abnormal claim. Beware of slander laws though.

 

[CTD]

Like they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are climing that the likes of Clegg will poison (or grind to nothing) the PM Cameron because Clegg is atheist, then you have to produce the evidence. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the abnormal claim. Beware of slander laws though.

I have not made the claim; it is of your own manufacture.

I see nobody attempting to address Voltaire's argument, and guess what? Really, you know what?

I am not surprised.

Two simple, straightforward premises, and one rock solid conclusion. All anyone can do is try to patch together a straw Voltaire. Ask yourself: "If I wandered in here, would I buy the straw version?" Okay, in your case maybe so. Maybe in other cases. Folks can indeed be inattentive. But then, having had it explained to you that it the superficial impression is in error, how could anyone persist in believing?

You'd all be much more convincing if you faced up to the real Voltaire, his actual words. It seems disrespectful to persist in misrepresenting him so. Doesn't qualify as "clever" either.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I thought he said an atheist would ether poison or grind down., therefore he would have to be converted to theism. I have pointed out an example of an atheist (Clegg) who apparently does neither - it is up to you to show he does.

 

[CTD]

I thought he said an atheist would ether poison or grind down., therefore he would have to be converted to theism. I have pointed out an example of an atheist (Clegg) who apparently does neither - it is up to you to show he does.

The old nobody-can-read game? That's all you've got?

You have not demonstrated that it is in Clegg's interest to poison anyone, or that he has opportunities. You have not even demonstrated that Clegg is an atheist according to Voltaire's definition. Only Clegg's actions can do that. That's the beauty of the definition.

Here's a thought - not sayin' I'll do it. How 'bout I start another thread for all the straw Voltaire garbage, so we can keep this one nice and brief?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So what exactly does "non-denominational" mean then?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I say it is not in Cleggs interests to poison the PM. He would probably end up in jail.