By this time we can afford a ghost famous as an exception. Go therefore and happy 2008.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Standard Of Beauty In Japan
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
By this time we can afford a ghost famous as an exception. Go therefore and happy 2008.
By this time we can afford a ghost famous as an exception. Go therefore and happy 2008.
Friday, December 7, 2007
How To Removie Ikea Stick On Mirrors
Believers, atheists and fallacies
why when believers seek undermine the position non-believer, agnostic or atheist read (word demonized and monstuosizada where there for them until the end), tend to refer to as the standard Stalinist communism atheist, as such inseparable from non-belief in gods and / or unavoidable shows where you can take the absence of belief in the divine? I've already heard too many times. The latest in the recent encyclical of Benedict XVI gave us recently, but has only been one more.
Yes, I know, you tend to the fallacy when the internal heat is released to the defense of his position, and we know that for many the best defense is a good offense. But in short, a argument as they can leave the frog said, because if it applies to each can be applied to other, indeed. Nothing more appropriate to send to hell the argument a paragraph published in the blog "cannibalistic cooking Guide" published by Mario Romero :
"These are not religious, are fanatical, belief in God has nothing to do with it", he said a good friend of mine believer once. Well, let's face it ... the same goes for the Stalinist communists or other repressive regime ... that's not were atheists, were fans. To make matters worse fans of a political or economic theory, a thesis that includes atheism, but atheism is . No, far from secularism. Fanatics who kill in God's name if they are of their own theism. So I made false conclusions ...
See if once we learned: do not believe in higher beings have not attached any political connotation, philosophical or moral per se . No guidelines atheist, do not act in a way not common believers. Claiming that by not believing that a god who gives moral standards will act unethically or in bad faith is absurd. As society has developed an ethical construction that we have seen grow and evolve thanks to the artwork and increasingly alien to religion, a construct that considers ethical values \u200b\u200bfor themselves and their weight for human dignity within. Many assume and defend those values \u200b\u200bbut not the issuance of a deity as absolute, but will not provide rewards of eternal life or salvation after death. From this point of view is a somewhat less interested ethics, we used to order this world, not to win another award. And this ethic grows parallel to the manifest cruelty of the states where legislation is still under ethical theists, those moral "revealed" divine therefore no discussion or rethinking social support for the staunch believers, as cruel, unjust and outdated look.
And it out of Marxism.
My friend, who does not like you tried in their religion with the constant reference to the last Inquisition ask at least the same. And without going into half compared to assess whether or not. That I think no, but that's an issue that should be treated on another occasion.
why when believers seek undermine the position non-believer, agnostic or atheist read (word demonized and monstuosizada where there for them until the end), tend to refer to as the standard Stalinist communism atheist, as such inseparable from non-belief in gods and / or unavoidable shows where you can take the absence of belief in the divine? I've already heard too many times. The latest in the recent encyclical of Benedict XVI gave us recently, but has only been one more. Yes, I know, you tend to the fallacy when the internal heat is released to the defense of his position, and we know that for many the best defense is a good offense. But in short, a argument as they can leave the frog said, because if it applies to each can be applied to other, indeed. Nothing more appropriate to send to hell the argument a paragraph published in the blog "cannibalistic cooking Guide" published by Mario Romero :
One of the reasons is intended to include for spitting his ravings, is the question of Marxism. According to that letter, "Marx was an atheist, ergo, atheism is equivalent to Marxism."The quote seems to me conclusively to refute the words contained in the encyclical. Either way I will never tire of saying: we must not always resort to such Nazi, follow these bad examples presented, to return the ball. In the score of times believers have the misfortune to come out ahead by a landslide, which are many centuries throughout history in which it has made war, killed, prosecuted, tortured, extorted and other ADOS on behalf of the gods, whatever religion they wanted to defend those gods at all times. Even in the times we live indigestible still suffer atrocities in the name of God, is named after a Christian or Muslim.
But if we are righteous, and use that kind of argument, then we can qualify for free all that the gains we measuring with the rod. In such a way that we can use the example of Hitler, which was vegetarian, and very bad painter (Christian well) then, following the line of "reasoning" ratz, obviously such practices invariably Nazism and beliefs about the supremacy of the white race. Of course, this has no foundation. Anyone can rate this fallacious argument, and retrograde, but then why the same argument, applied to atheism it is valid to many people?
"These are not religious, are fanatical, belief in God has nothing to do with it", he said a good friend of mine believer once. Well, let's face it ... the same goes for the Stalinist communists or other repressive regime ... that's not were atheists, were fans. To make matters worse fans of a political or economic theory, a thesis that includes atheism, but atheism is . No, far from secularism. Fanatics who kill in God's name if they are of their own theism. So I made false conclusions ...
See if once we learned: do not believe in higher beings have not attached any political connotation, philosophical or moral per se . No guidelines atheist, do not act in a way not common believers. Claiming that by not believing that a god who gives moral standards will act unethically or in bad faith is absurd. As society has developed an ethical construction that we have seen grow and evolve thanks to the artwork and increasingly alien to religion, a construct that considers ethical values \u200b\u200bfor themselves and their weight for human dignity within. Many assume and defend those values \u200b\u200bbut not the issuance of a deity as absolute, but will not provide rewards of eternal life or salvation after death. From this point of view is a somewhat less interested ethics, we used to order this world, not to win another award. And this ethic grows parallel to the manifest cruelty of the states where legislation is still under ethical theists, those moral "revealed" divine therefore no discussion or rethinking social support for the staunch believers, as cruel, unjust and outdated look.
And it out of Marxism.
My friend, who does not like you tried in their religion with the constant reference to the last Inquisition ask at least the same. And without going into half compared to assess whether or not. That I think no, but that's an issue that should be treated on another occasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)