Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Even now that you know the source, you maintain your denial.
Is this selective? Is the whole piece satire, or just the parts you don't like?
My goal in a thread is to have the last on-topic, meaningful word.It appears that by CTD's definition, "unstoppable" equates to whoever can have whatever word last.
How sad.
You chose that sidetrack - not I.That's nice, if irrelevant.
How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?Voltaire's argument remains a non sequitur, and possible satire (the Philosophical Dictionary contains a number of examples). Belief in a God does not stop people from murdering.
Someone just got done claiming he did. Was it you? I'm too lazy to scroll.What is it about knowing the source that means that I must take Voltaire completely at face value? I know his love of wit and satire. I also know that he would want to at least appear to be anti-atheist in order to keep his head from being chopped off for his "liberal" exercise of political speech.
Now, if you really think that Voltaire should be taken with a completely straight face, what he writes is horrible apologetics. He doesn't even try to argue that all people who believe in a vengeful God that has a rung of Hell prepared for murderers will never commit regicide.
It isn't the parts I "don't like" that make me think satire, but the parts where he doesn't even attempt to make a solid argument.
If it's not satire, it's just wit that probably goes right over the heads of people who are likely to chop his head off.
eudaimonia,
Mark
How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?
Here's a suggestion: review the thread and you should get tons of chuckles. How many dozens of clever jokes have gone right over my little non-atheist peon head, of course I cannot say. But you'll see them, surely.
The same way one knows everyone knows lots of things: Common experience.How does Voltaire?How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?
Whether he intended to or not, Voltaire has anticipated you.There are plenty of theist murderers.
"Deeply engraved"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
I decline.You never actually listed the two premises and the conclusion in any kind of formal way. For the sake of clarity, would you mind posting precisely what the two premises are, what the conclusion is, and the deductions that one uses to proceed from the premises to the conclusion?
Given our collective inability to construct Voltaire's meaning from the text provided, I'm hoping that your explication will allow us to move past ambiguities and strawmen and proceed in a formal, systematic way.
Regards,
Oh? That wasn't elitism? Forgive me if I did not recognize it as satire.Here's a suggestion, actually make an argument instead of insults.Sorry - forgot to compliment you on your elitism there. Nice job!If it's not satire, it's just wit that probably goes right over the heads of people who are likely to chop his head off.
Here's a suggestion: review the thread and you should get tons of chuckles. How many dozens of clever jokes have gone right over my little non-atheist peon head, of course I cannot say. But you'll see them, surely.
More satire?I've been completely honest with you about Voltaire and my reasons for not taking his argument seriously. I've explained my reasons why his "argument" falls flat for me, and why I don't think that he was being completely serious in presenting an argument.
Fantasy and history are not the same thing. What concern is it of mine the extent to which you're willing to imagine things in order to puff up your arrogance?I'm also completely serious that I don't think that Voltaire was seriously criticizing atheists, but was doing this only half-heartedly, with his usual French wit, in order to deflect charges that he might have been an atheist himself, and to draw heat away from his Deism. And, yes, I think he does manage to trick some people into thinking that he's making a strong argument. If that is "elitist", so be it.
Prove you wrong? You need to start your own thread, and the burden of proving your fantasy shall be your own. "Instead, he really meant x" is not the default starting interpretation of any text - not even that of a known liar.If you have a problem with my interpretation of Voltaire, perhaps you should explain in your own words what you think Voltaire's argument is and why you think it is so strong. Prove me wrong.
eudaimonia,
Mark
The same way one knows everyone knows lots of things: Common experience.
Surely a theist might hold his beliefs lightly and let them slip on occasion. Voltaire calls for more:
"Deeply engraved"
I'm sure Muslim terrorists have very deeply engraved beliefs; you'd have to in order to kill yourself.
Watch, folks, watch for the switchWhich is how I know that belief is God does not stop murder.
And he presents no evidence or solid reasoning as to why this should be considered true. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have very deeply engraved beliefs; you'd have to in order to kill yourself. Voltaire's "argument" is an unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of reality. You can proclaim he is "unstoppable" if you want, but that just makes you as wrong as him.
Still workin' the straw, I see.There's no reason to think that only belief in a vengeful God that punishes murderers is required to encourage people to see the folly in murder.
Now the issue has changed to whether or not it prevents all murders.
For those who haven't already closed the case, and may be just breezing through, I suggest a full review of the passage. See whether or not Muslim terrorists in any way alter the validity of the argument.
Voltaire said: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.
Is that what he said?Voltaire's argument is that theism will stop the desire to murder.
Whew - had me going thereReality shows us otherwise.
Atheism is not a deterrent.Not at all. It's the same subject, just phrased differently. I didn't want to write it out in full again, and I thought that you'd be capable of working out the context of my arguments. I'll state out the subject in full, so you know what I am referring to in future:
The subject is the effect that (a)theism has on the desire to kill people and subsequent murders. My argument is that it has little to no effect at all, and theism certainly does not stop people from murdering, or wanting to.
Is that what he said?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?