Were Sartre,Camus,Neitzsche right?

[billpuntonsghost]

[inspector]

L’enfer, c’est les autres.

[billpuntonsghost]

Take a look at the video,inspector?

[Siderite]

Given the starting point you have I doubt it has anything useful other than to confirm the conclusion you hold. Life is too short for the same old debating points, so I will give it a miss.

[billpuntonsghost]

IF you did watch it ,it shows someone with your “worldview “of life, and the discussion is very interesting.

[Siderite]

You make the mistaken assumption that I haven’t come across such debates before. Your dogmatic approach doesn’t entice me into watching it, as I suspect it’s just seen as good by you since it fits your worldview. I would rather watch other stuff than your kind of fundamentalism.

[Deereyme66]

As an ex good student of continental philosophy, I’m prepared to have a look at the video next week and tell you what I think bpg. From the outset, I will say it’s not a case of being right or wrong, the philosophers cited posited theories and weren’t claiming absolute truth. Anyway, get back to you.

[billpuntonsghost]

Thanks Deereyme66.

[Deereyme66]

Haven’t forgot about this bpg. Only just watched the video. Not a simple answer, a simple right or wrong and I have an issue with how this Frank Turek geezer has presented it. So I need more time to consider and give a lengthier response. Needs a bit of unravelling IMO

[billpuntonsghost]

Always realised you give a great deal of thought to the meaning of life.
If you think we are just going to end up as “worm food”,why bother responding?
Just live you life,be merry until the light switch is switched off.
What’s the point wasting your life on pointless drivel?
You know there’s more to life than that,though.

[Fifty Pence]

Is there “more to life” for all species, or just the species that wrote the book?

[Northumbiron]

As the great philosopher Bjork once said:

[billpuntonsghost]

Haven’t forgotten about this,Deeryme66??

[Deereyme66]

Yes. Watched it. Made some mental notes and forgot to reply. Ultimately I think it’s too simplistic to suggest Sartre, Camus and Nietszche were either right or wrong. All have different takes on ‘absurdity’ which aren’t merely about Christian objective meaning and a rejection of it. Camus and the myth of Sisyphus is the real focal point for the notion of ‘absurdity’, though both he and Nietzsche were influenced by Kiekegaard and his notion of overcoming it by taking a ‘leap of faith’, as I recall. Sartre, I haven’t much time for academically (poor man’s Heidegger) though his literary stuff I like, particularly Nausea. Bit of a poser really. The bottom line for me is that they attempt to describe the human condition / psyche so questioning whether they’re right or wrong is a misnomer to me. Like a lot of phililosophers, I can relate to and appreciate elements of their thinking. I wouldn’t stridently suggest any are right or wrong. Certainly don’t think Nietzsche was right about an ‘ubermensche’ for instance but think he had something critiquing the invention of good and evil and seeing beyond that-influeced culture for over 100 years that. Marvelous.

[billpuntonsghost]

To be quite honest D66 your reply to the video is nonsensical. Your knowledge of great philosophers is not in doubt, Kierkegaard ( leap of faith) Sartre (existence precedes essence) Camus (absurdism) etc but the video wasn’t answered.

[billpuntonsghost]

Your response to the questions posed by Turek weren’t answered with any sort of clarity. I think you understood the video and hopefully it will give you some thought. Once again thanks for watching it.

[Deereyme66]

Not nonsense at all. I’ve answered your question and picked up on the point in the video that you focused on. I’m not going start debating the rest of Turek’s pro Christian warblings.

[Deereyme66]

Got sidetracked çooking earlier. Was going to add that it sounds to me like you don’t like my answer to your question as it doesn’t engage in the way you want, which I assume would be saying things and making claims that you could try and trip me up on. I don’t think you appreciate that someone, from the outset, could take issue with the posed question and what this Turek guy is attempting to argue bpg, so I’d suggest you’re branding my post as ‘nonsensical’, when the reality was I watched the video with an increasing frown as it progressed. I wished someone would stop him yapping and take him to task over every flaw in his argument. Quite easy for him to railroad that student in a hushed lecture room surrounded by other students, and bordered on academic bullying.

[billpuntonsghost]

Your post aug 15 6.23pm.
“Not a simple answer right or wrong and I have an issue with how this geezer Frank Turek has presented it.So I need more time to consider and give a lengthier response,needs a bit of unravelling IMO.”
You certainly answered the title of the thread.
You didn’t answer the video in any way on an intellectual level.the to and fro of the video,please give the objections to the questions asked,and how you would have responded.

[billpuntonsghost]

“I wish someone would stop him yapping and take him to task over every flaw in his argument”.
I agree with Frank Turek ,that’s why I posted the video.Please feel free to take him and me to task and explain every flaw in the argument.
This is what I was hoping you were going to do,rather than accusing him of academic bullying.

[Deereyme66]

Believe it or not, my days aren’t preoccupied with providing a full dissection of a video of a pro Christian like Turek strawmanning a young student, just because you ask me to. Like a lot of your hectoring I’ll perhaps come back to it. I may not. Either way, it doesn’t have a bearing on, or validate your desperate desire to prove absolute truth and ‘objective meaning’ via the existence of a God.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[billpuntonsghost]

Strawmanning a young student?
The truth is you have no defence for your worldview position.
If you did,your explanation for Turek’s flaws in his arguments would be posted thick and fast. Your,” I haven’t the time “, is an admission of your presuppositions being flawed.But hey,what does the Bible say!

[billpuntonsghost]

“I’ll perhaps come back to it.Either way it doesn’t have a bearing on or validate your desperate(😂)desire to prove absolute truth and’objective meaning via the existence of a God.”
Oh yes it does,and you know it.Your unwillingness to comment on the video shows deep down you know.

[billpuntonsghost]

Any other takers on bringing down Turek’s flawed arguments ( the usual crew?)
Maybe they haven’t the time,as well!😂 What a surprise!!

[Fifty Pence]

As one of the “usual crew”, I haven’t the time to even watch any more of your tedious videos, never mind dissect them.
People losing interest in debating with your endless videos is probably proof of the videos being right in your mind. Yet you’ve failed to convince anybody else, making the whole debacle pointless.
At the end of the day, there is no definite proof that a god exists, and no definite proof that there is no god(s).

[Siderite]

There’s no point debating with bpg or engaging. There’s no good faith in debate with him. Everything is a tactic to try and find some gotcha which shows he’s right. Answer his questions and you get endless repeats of the same question, no matter if you have answered it or not, and claims that you can’t answer it or are stumped by it. Refusing to watch endless propaganda videos and refute the claims presented is another ‘win’, followed by guffaws and arrogant triumph because it cannot be that you are just bored with it, it must mean you aren’t able to refute. He starts with his conclusion and uses your answers to demonstrate his pre-ordained conclusion, without even thinking about what is said. It’s not an attempt to understand the other side, as such a discussion should be, but to make himself feel secure.

There’s no point with it, because bpg has all the answers, so there is no chance of convincing bpg he is wrong on any point, even small. I don’t expect bpg or anyone to reject faith based on my arguments, but there’s not even an inkling of curiority or understanding as to how atheists or agnostics may form their worldviews. We just have to be rebelling against God because of our hatred of it, and unable to form our own moral codes based off other factors.

Why waste time with the pigeon who wants to knock over the chess pieces and say that he’s won all the time?

[Deereyme66]

‘Oh yes it does,and you know it.Your unwillingness to comment on the video shows deep down you know.’

I’m unwilling to go in to more depth because I simply can’t be arsed bpg. If it was a uni task or anything that might bring some sort of satisfaction for putting the time and effort in I might. The likelihood is you’ll just dismiss what I say anyway and pedanitcally harp on about my ‘worldview’ and the existence of God presupposing what I say. Listen, I’m pleased for you that you’ve found God if it makes you happy. I’m happy being agnostic / atheist. I don’t feel the need to try and turn people away from their belief in God. I think less badgering from you and those who are desperate to convert people might be more appealing if I’m honest.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Northumbiron]

Question for BPG.

Was the video rehearsed and stage-managed?

Was it edited before it was uploaded?

Was just one student chosen or were there others whose contributions didn’t make the Final Cut?

Asking for a friend.

[billpuntonsghost]

“People losing interest in debating with your endless videos”!
No one has debated ANY of the videos😂
“There is no point in debating with BPG or engaging.There is no good faith in debate with him”
No one has debated ANY of the videos😂

[Siderite]

I wasn’t referring to the debates on this or other videos, specifically. I was referring to debates in general, going back years on this site. So, before guffawing like you have caught others out, perhaps try and think about what is said, not what you want it to say, eh? I was referring to debates based on what you have said, not what Turek of others have said in a video.

[Author]

Posts