Voltaire and God

Ross Dolan said:
"Atheism" means so many different things to different people...it should never be used as a self-descriptor. Everyone who wants to explain their take on the REALITY of existence...should do so using words...particularly when it come to the question, "Do no gods exist or is there at least one god?"

Frankly, it is my opinion that the answer from EVERYONE should be, "I do not know."

And it should be left at that.
Click to expand...

The Charvaka school of atheism in classical India did a very good job of explaining the elements of atheism, I think:

-Direct perception is the only means of establishing and accepting any truth
-What cannot be perceived and understood by the senses does not exist
-All that exists are the observable elements
-The ultimate good in life is pleasure; the only evil is pain
-Pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the sole purpose of human existence
-Religion is an invention of the strong and clever who prey on the weak.
 
Cypress said:
The Charvaka school of atheism in classical India did a very good job of explaining the elements of atheism, I think:

-Direct perception as the only means of establishing and accepting any truth
-What cannot be perceived and understood by the senses does not exist
-All that exists are the observable elements
-The ultimate good in life is pleasure; the only evil is pain
-Pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the sole purpose of human existence
-Religion is an invention of the strong and clever who prey on the weak.
Click to expand...
I would agree with none of that.
 
Hume said:
I would agree with none of that.
Click to expand...

Right, you posted that the universe has some sort of a collective intelligence or conciousness.

That seems like a religious claim to me.

Atheists, almost by definition, and almost universally, reject the concept of a transcendental or supernatural reality.
 
Cypress said:
Right, you posted that the universe has some sort of a collective intelligence or conciousness.

That seems like a religious claim to me.

Atheists, almost by definition, and almost universally, reject the concept of a transcendental or supernatural reality.
Click to expand...
Never said "collective intelligence" nor "consciousness."
 




Cypress said:
-What cannot be perceived and understood by the senses does not exist
Click to expand...

Thankfully we have moved well beyond that point.

Cypress said:
-All that exists are the observable elements
-The ultimate good in life is pleasure; the only evil is pain
Click to expand...

This is NOT part of modern atheism per se. But it most certainly is a reasonable position. I agree with Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus. That everyone seeks to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Not in a "go-go orgy" kind of way but in a more moderate and normal way. We seek to pursue those things which decrease our pain or increase our pleasure.

But, again, not really related to atheism per se.

Cypress said:
-Pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the sole purpose of human existence
Click to expand...

Again, atheism doesn't require any "purpose" for existence.

Cypress said:
-Religion is an invention of the strong and clever who prey on the weak.
Click to expand...

Religion is clearly NOT just invented to prey on the weak. But it is a VERY GOOD TOOL for that purpose. But then it's a great tool for doing immense good as well. It's a tool. It is nothing more. It is a tool we found in our own brains as we attempted to make sense of a universe we don't fully understand.

Once we decided that there were TRUTHS WHICH CANNOT BE QUESTIONED it was a hop-skip-and-a-jump over to using it for "control".
 
Ross Dolan said:
You really have to learn to read with comprehension, O.

I have not done what you seem to be suggesting I have.

The word "atheist" has so many different meanings to so many different people...that when one says "I am an atheist" it is impossible to be sure what that person means. If you consider that to be a denigration of your position...nothing I can do about it except to ask that you learn to read with comprehension.




When I grow tired of a discussion...I withdraw from that discussion.



It is much more than that. You seem to be very defensive today. If you are, by nature, a defensive person...this may not be the right forum for you.



You do not understand it. You just think you do.

I am not being a fucking asshole.

I am being annoying, I'll give you that. But you are asking for it.
Click to expand...

You have suggested I'm too stupid to understand my own point.

I am tired of that.
 
Hume said:
Never said "collective intelligence" nor "consciousness."
Click to expand...
You said the universe has an intelligence. That is collective by definition.

I don't care if you believe in a transcendental concept of universal intelligence.

But that doesn't make you an atheist. That probably just makes you someone who is angry at Christianity and who rejects of the god of Abraham.
 
Cypress said:
You said the universe has an intelligence. That is collective by definition.

I don't care if you believe in a transcendental concept of universal intelligence.

But that doesn't make you an atheist. That probably just makes you someone who is angry at Christianity and who rejects of the god of Abraham.
Click to expand...
You cannot debate.

You are like the Trump supporters who think opposition to him is emotional and not rational.
 
Cypress said:
Throughout his intellectual life, Voltaire wrestled with the problem of knowledge of God. A convinced deist, he believed with certainty that the design of the universe announced an intelligent Supreme Being who was the world’s author. Beyond that, however, his works on the issue reveal that Voltaire was tentative and uncertain about what we knew of this God, and he could not reconcile to his own satisfaction God’s existence, of which he was certain, with God’s providence. He found atheism a wholly untenable position, and when such ultimate disbelief began to be expressed by Parisian philosophes from 1770 on, Voltaire actively defended belief in God and assailed the atheists for both their errors and the danger they posed to the Enlightenment and its acceptance.

Voltaire was convinced that whatever we know about God, we know from nature alone, and he warred ceaselessly⎯if sometimes indirectly⎯against the claims of supernatural knowledge, including both scriptural revelation and private inspiration. Voltaire found self-contradiction in the belief that a universal God had revealed himself in particular fashion to this or that time and place. He saw all sectarian religions as a combination of corrupted natural knowledge and as human fabrication, serving, above all in his view, the interests of the world’s various clergy. His deism and anticlericalism were among the most fervent aspects of his work.



Source: Alan Charles Kors, University of Pennsylvania
Click to expand...

Is there a point here?
 
Hume said:
You do. All you say to any statement is that it is guessing. Sorry, that is not an argument, but the absence of one.
Click to expand...
You have got to stay away from overstating your case, Hume.

I do not limit my posts to just saying any statement is a guess.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Thankfully we have moved well beyond that point.



This is NOT part of modern atheism per se. But it most certainly is a reasonable position. I agree with Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus. That everyone seeks to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Not in a "go-go orgy" kind of way but in a more moderate and normal way. We seek to pursue those things which decrease our pain or increase our pleasure.

But, again, not really related to atheism per se.



Again, atheism doesn't require any "purpose" for existence.



Religion is clearly NOT just invented to prey on the weak. But it is a VERY GOOD TOOL for that purpose. But then it's a great tool for doing immense good as well. It's a tool. It is nothing more. It is a tool we found in our own brains as we attempted to make sense of a universe we don't fully understand.

Once we decided that there were TRUTHS WHICH CANNOT BE QUESTIONED it was a hop-skip-and-a-jump over to using it for "control".
Click to expand...

Pleasure in the philosophical sense does not mean hedonism, or anything close to it. That has always been a serious misunderstanding of Epicureanism.

Pleasure can take the form of personal self fulfillment, education, cultivating friendships, enjoying art and literature.

To the atheist, there is no greater purpose, higher meaning, or higher truth to existence. So obviously, personal fulfillment, aesthetic pleasures, friendships and relationships are what are going to constitute a flourishing life.
 
Cypress said:
The Charvaka school of atheism in classical India did a very good job of explaining the elements of atheism, I think:

-Direct perception is the only means of establishing and accepting any truth
-What cannot be perceived and understood by the senses does not exist
-All that exists are the observable elements
-The ultimate good in life is pleasure; the only evil is pain
-Pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the sole purpose of human existence
-Religion is an invention of the strong and clever who prey on the weak.
Click to expand...
One...not every person using the word "atheist" means that.

Two...some of it is bullshit. "What cannot be perceived and understood by the senses does not existzzzzz" for instance. There is probably lots and lots of stuff that human senses cannot detect...that does exist.
 
Cypress said:
Pleasure does not mean hedonism, or anything close to it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Cypress said:
Pleasure can take the form of personal self fulfillment, education, cultivating friendships, enjoying art and literature.
Click to expand...

And that is EXACTLY what I mean by the pleasure in the hedonistic calculus.

Cypress said:
To the atheist, there is not greater purpose, meaning, or higher truth to existence.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, again. To the atheist there is no purpose or meaning or higher truth to existence. There doesn't need to be. Now, again, I agree that humans (as all primates and probably all mammals) are "hedonists" per Bentham in that they seek to avoid pain and increase pleasure. But given that it is a universal drive it is more likely to be an innate effect.

Cypress said:
So obviously, personal fulfillment, aesthetic pleasures, friendships and relationships are what are going to constitute a flourishing life.
Click to expand...

And the atheist has all that available to them. And that "flourishing life" of which you speak is simply the avoidance of pain and increase of pleasure. That's why we do the things we enjoy and avoid the things that make us unhappy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top