Can A Usb Dongle Connect To Ps3 For Internet

Was Sartre a pious believer or an atheist?

scholars I apologize for asking such a question, as anyone who has read Sartre, and not merely to read the covers of books as some existentialists retrograde and reactionary, he knows exactly what the answer is correct, but let it be the same Sartre who tell us: In his book titled defense of existentialism Sartre: "Existentialism is a Humanism" writes: "What complicates things is that there are two kinds of existentialists: the first, who are Christians, including which I would place Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, of the Catholic faith, and on the other hand, the atheistic existentialists, among whom we must place Heidegger, as well as the French existentialists and myself. "also says:" Existentialism I represent an atheist is more consistent. declares that if God does not exist, so Menosuno being in which existence precedes essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man or as Heidegger says, human reality. What is here that existence precedes essence? Means that the man begins to exist, is, arises in the world, and then defined. The man as the existentialist conceives him, if not identity, is because it starts with being nothing. It will only be later, and will talcomo is made. So there is no human nature because there is no God to conceive it. "And later adds:" And when we talk about homelessness, Heidegger face expression, we mean only that God does not exist, and that this must be removed the final consequences ". and if some ignorant existentialist and stubborn in doubt, Sartre says in that book, "Dostoyevsky wrote:" If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. "This is the starting point of existentialism. In fact, everything is permissible if God does not exist and therefore The man is deserted, because there is no or yes or out of it a chance to hold on. " Also in Sartre's literary works are references to atheism, as evidenced by Sartre's book "The Devil and God": "Goetz: I have been wondering during this time, every moment, who I was, in front of the eyes of God .. . At this point I know the answer: God does not see me, I do not listen, I do not know ... Do you see this gap on our heads Well that's God ... See that hole in the ground? Is God. God is the solitude of men ... I, I just decided to do evil, then I have only decided to do good ... I accuse me today, I can only absolve. Yo, man ... If God exists, man is nothing. If there is a man ... "I think these quotes are enough to prove the atheism of Sartre and refute those memos and confused" Sartre believers "(sic), expressed as self-contradictory and hollow as materialistic idealism" or "State Anarchist showing that these insane irrational need someone to "opens" to stop being ridiculous, that they look embarrassed.

Brazillian Wax Charleston Sc

Was Aristotle a thinker "Christian"?

I know that many think they qualify (or disqualify, according to taste) to the Greek Aristotle's "Christian" is a true boutade, and that the whole question may seem a joke or a provocation or a an idle nonsense that does not know escribir.Pero is not so, because there are many priests who, not content with having a saint for each day of the year, wanted to Christianize, "canonized" or sprinkling holy water Macedonian aristotelian for services rendered (without consent, of course) to the Catholic doctrine of Holy Tomás.Ahora hands well, maintaining that Aristotle was a Christian is wrong, because: 1-
Aristotle lived in the fourth century BC (384-322 BC) and therefore it was impossible to know the doctrine of Christ and Christianity if not met, as would truism, it was impossible for him to become.
2-Catholics say that, as Aristotle believed in God, and that fact alone was a Christian, but that is wrong and believe in God quetambién Muslims and Jews but not for that we say they are Christians, right?. Deists also as Lessing and Voltaire believed in God, but they did not believe in any institutional religion. The same, mutatis mutandis, the wicked can say that Aristotle was accused of impiety to the gods in their época.Por other hand, to qualify as a Christian is not enough to believe in God must also believe that Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles, the immortality of the soul, the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, etc.. plus all those beliefs and dogmas were unknown to Aristotle, because he lived in a time before Christianity, more so then qualify to aristotelian a Christian is a-historical nonsense.
3-The God of Aristotle only resembles the Christian God who is infinite, but in all other respects it differs from it because: a) For Christians, God created the world and is omniscient, in contrast to Aristotle, the motor still not only created the world, but neither conoce.b) For Christians, God knows and loves God to men, whereas for Aristotle does not know God loves anyone but himself is known and thought mismo.c thought itself) For Christians God is relegated, linked to the men that made possible the religion (of religare), whereas for Aristotle God is not associated with anyone that there was an infinite distance between God and humanity. Then the Aristotelian God not only has nothing to do with religion, but destroys it to make way for a Deism that is only the prelude of atheism.

How Long Ice After Laparoscopy

Myths about the historical existence of Christ

Myth 1: The New Testament is an infallible witness to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Review: In fact the NT has a lot of contradictions, impossibilities and fallacies that are unlikely to present evidence "irrefutable" of the alleged existence of Jesus. Here are a few examples of contradictions in the NT, "in the Gospel of Luke says Jesus was born 9 years before the death of Herod, in contrast to the Gospel of Matthew says he was born only 2 years before the death of that KING in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew says that Joseph's father Jacob, Luke tells us that change was Heli.Además both contradict each other in all names of ancestors of Jesus other than the names of David and Joseph, and contradicted in the number of generations as a gospel while 56 generations are counted in other are only 42, etc.

Myth 2: In the book "Testimonium Flavianum" the renowned Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus appears where it is recognized that it was the Christ, then this book is a solid historical evidence for the existence of Christ.

Review: Most scholars believe that little passage is only an interpolation made by a Christian scribe (possibly by Eusebius, Father of the Church) was taken long after the appearance Josephus' book, then that "testimony" lacks valor.Muy suspect that this fragment is falsely attributed to Josephus, since it appears as Josephus ... Christian!, it is known that he was always Pharisee and never renounced his sect (which was harshly criticized by Jesus in the NT). But if we assume, without historical basis, the alleged "conversion" of Josephus to Christianity, how is it possible that he dedicates his book just a few lines, to make matters worse, they have no relation to the rest of the text? Why not devoted an entire book to your new messiah if both believed in him?.

Myth 3: The early persecution of Christians by Nero and other Roman emperors of the century, show that the doctrine of Jesus was widely known soon after his death.

Review: Although books and movies that show us a Nero persecutor of Christians, there is no historical evidence has been rigorously pursued by a Christian ... 180 DC (second century). The first reference to the alleged persecution of Christians by Nero was freshly made in 170 AD by the Bishop of Sardis and never antes.Por other hand, it is curious that in 64 AD, Nero's time, many Christians were slaughtered in just Rome 30 years after the death of Jesus in an age where communications between different geographical areas were not characterized precisely by being quick and speedy.

Myth 4: References to the Christians by the heathen Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

Review: First, these historians say nothing testable and new about the character Jesus, only limited mention the Christian movement and spread, uncritically, the same rumor that Christians shouted on ajusticiamento of Second Cristo.En The experts tell us that the passage of Pliny the younger was a further distortion of a quote about the Essenes, not Christians, and the passage of Tacitus only ... was known in the fifteenth century, that is, 1500 years after it was supposedly written.

Myth 5: The holy places of Christianity, the relics and the simple fact that there are icons that represent the body of Jesus are material evidence of their existence.

Review: With respect to sacred places, experts tell us that these were considered as such (and called as they appear in the NT) only from ... IV.Con century to the relics, it is known that 90 % of them are fakes and the rest should be the reasonable suspicion of forgery. For example, the number of chips supposed relics of the cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified is so great that could be dozens of crosses and even a wooden ship ... (sic). And finally, regarding the alleged physical representation "reliable" of Jesus to the same Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that there is no reliable picture Jesus ... unless, of course, that we create these representations of Jesus "Aryan" blond hair and blue eyes of some churches (with a whiff of anti-Semitism) that do not correspond much to the Jewish character of Middle Eastern or Semitic that is attributed to Jesus in the NT.

Diptyque Perfume Melbourne

Myths

Myth 1: All human life is a person. the embryo is human life. then the embryo is a person.

Review: The major premise of the argument is wrong, because while a person is human life does not imply that the reciprocal is cierta.por example, heart or kidney to someone is human life, but are not "persons" nor is the embryo, since although this is a living organism is not a personal being, as to be a person is necessary but not sufficient, to have neural connections in the brain that allow the feeling, thinking, etc., but the embryo does not develop synapses before 29 weeks, ergo not a person with a conscience. On the other hand, the embryo or fetus are not people even when they have synaptic connections, as for being a person is necessary to be integrated into a civilization that teach values \u200b\u200bthat is not the case of the unborn, and neither is the case of humans living in primitive tribes of Africa who, despite having mental functions are not "people" do not live in a civilization that has developed writing and the rule of law.

Myth 2: The embryo is a person, because he has an immortal soul given by God, then an abortion is a crime.

Review: The Myth of the soul and was refuted by Hume, Kant, the materialists and the neo-positivists who demonstrated long ago that the soul rational arguments are nothing but mere sophistry to hide a vulgar pious wish of immortality ("hunger immortality "that spoke Unamuno). The soul is a empty concept that long ago was expelled from scientific psychology and psychobiology that part of the fertile hypothesis of identity between mental phenomena and brain processes that make it unnecessary metaphysical myth of the soul which is unscientific because it is untraceable, unverifiable and to contradict the principle of conservation of energía.Por The argument that the embryo is a person to have a soul breathed by God is a fallacy of false premise.

Myth 3: The embryo is a person not born to be the embryo stage simply by passing the person not to be embryo ceases to be such a person.

Review: To say that the embryo is a single stage of development of a person who exists in a state of embryo is a fallacy of begging the question, because it assumes as true what is at issue, namely whether or not the embryo is a person who has rights such. To say that the embryo is a person without even precisely define it is very dishonest person, especially when it appeals to metaphysical entities like the soul or God are unverifiable and contradictory and therefore explain nothing in relation to the alleged "personality" of the unborn child.Also this argument makes a confusion of concepts and to identify, incorrectly, and free, being in power to be in act, as it is intended that because an embryo or fetus can develop into the people, then we are "people" today, but that argument is as absurd as claiming that because an egg in power (in a possible future) is a chicken, then the egg in this it is a hen (sic), but this nonsense does not explain why the freírme the egg does not know a chicken, let alone explain why the egg does not cost as much as chicken face, or cackling like this ;-). It is worth saying that such sophistry is based on a metaphysical teleological vision which states that the future of the hand of divine providence, determines the past through the present (re-sic) in the same way that personality determines their child's future present and past fetus embryo, but this contradicts divine teleology to causality that is up to the events of the past (not future planning and divine foreknowledge) that determine future events through the events of this, then teleology contradicting the causality is one way contradicting the principle of sufficient reason and, therefore, is irracional.De the same way that it is absurd to suggest that recently planted an acorn is now a robust oak, oak because his future ("existing in limbo?) determines this acorn, but Acorn is destroyed by a flood, fire etc. then never be an oak acorn and an oak if it was never impossible that something that was never determined if fue.Al past as if a fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion was never a person and if ever was a person it is impossible what does not exist in the future determine the existing embryo was in the past before the abortion.

Myth 4: Since science can not accurately determine exactly when the embryo becomes a person, the simplest hypothesis is to argue that the embryo is a person to be the semantic distinction between pure fruit free of prejudice of abortion.

Review: A myth that we can resist the arguments the criticism of myth 1, but this argument rests on a fallacy known as the fallacy of the continuum or continuity: the fallacy that states that because we can not establish the precise boundaries between the extreme terms of a continuum, then there difference between the extremes. Translated into our theme, as we can not determine the precise boundary between the most extreme person embryo and embryonic development process, then there is no such distinction between ends and both denote the same, ie, are "people", but that is as absurd as saying we do not know the precise day and time in which an adult becomes an old, then there is no such distinction and the adult is already a old (and hopefully not for my good ;-)).

Myth 5: Abortion trauma a child always a woman.

Review: There is no doubt that "many" women to abortion have a sense of guilt, but it allows to take out the fallacy of induction false that "all" the group of women who have abortions go through a trauma, right? . On the other hand, this myth does not say anything about the women who do have a trauma by having an unwanted child (the result of rape, for example), which is underestimated by saying that in life there are happy and some sad moments, but not going to have an abortion just to avoid a major upset, but this flimsy "argument" you can go around saying we must not abort, in serious cases such as rape, only to avoid a penalty because, after all, in life there are happy moments and other painful right?.

Myth 6: The abortion is always a crime "unfair" contrary to "natural law", then abortion is a crime.

Review: To say that abortion is "always" a crime is absurd, because if a country abortion is regulated by law, ergo abortion is not a crime because the crime is a violation of the laws of the right positive of a nation and if the right of a nation allows abortion, ergo not a crime to practice (within limits imposed by the applicability legal corpus that political society, that is). And if champions of fetal life tell us it is "unfair" to abortion but allows the jurisprudence of a country should respond to the word "justice" was defined by Gayo jurist as "giving each his own" and that "giving to every one who" is set by the previous positive order (not the fictional order of God the Father or the alleged extraterrestrial Ganymede), ergo what the law prescribe fair, because it fits right (and no justice outside of positive law) that does not mean that that right can be inspired by moral or ethical virtues (which may be in opposition to other religious or moral rules). For Finally to say that abortion is wrong because it goes against "natural law" is confusing and dark, and that should be clear that the sense of the term "natural law": 1) if by natural law refers to the natural law of St. Thomas Theological Aquinas, according to what would a supposed natural laws emanating from God "unmoved mover" who must obey, I should say that: a) the 5-way of St. Thomas to prove the existence of God and were refuted by Hume, Kant, Russell and Good (among others) and therefore no rational basis to conclude the existence of God and if there is evidence that satisfies God, the less the need to prove the alleged existence of natural laws that emanate from such entelequia.b) Assuming, hypothetically, that there was a God (that there) that "God" would not necessarily be identical to the God of Catholicism may be the architect of the Masonic God or the God of the deists watchmaker for whom God is not concerned with the affairs of men. It could also be the nature of Spinoza God does not love what men. It is Catholics who would have to demonstrate that God exists and God is painted as Catholics and that is Allah, Krishna or Spinoza's Deus sive natura. but since they can not prove the existence of God, unless they can demonstrate their essence "Catholic" and, therefore, not worth the iusnaturalism católico.c) Assuming, hypothetically, that God exists and is the God of the Catholics that would not prove that all "should" obey their laws, as in rigor of descriptive statements in the indicative (God exists and claims to do X) we can not deduce the conclusion trial policy in the imperative (then we should do X), as this is a logical-grammatical error known as the naturalistic fallacy. If a Catholic tells me that the existence of God is a true statement, then his orders are obeyed, I would say that even if it were true (which it is) would not follow orders because such a God, and that while a statement can be classified as true or false does not imply that the rules or mandatory (must do X) supposedly deduced statement are true, that rigor and standards and imperatives are neither true nor false (because they are not listed) are only effective and ineffective in terms of given objectives. If I said that I should obey God because if not the wrath of God will crush me answer that that is no reason or proof that I must obey, what reason would have to obey a God be so angry that no one deserves obedience? why should not challenge it if that is my wish? Is not oppose the heroism of the powerful more beautiful and glorious to obey him as a submissive and contemptible poodle? but as an omnipotent God is so powerless that they can not make a simple atheist obey him? To say that disobedience to God's commandments attacks God is calling into question his omnipotence, because how can someone be affect an infinite power? if you believe that God may be impaired by the disobedience, then God is not omnipotent and if God is omnipotent is not ... as you can see the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is full of dead ends and contradictions that Catholics can not solve; then his divine natural law has no bases.2) if by natural law refer to the laws of organic nature remind them that a descriptive sentence (as set out on laws) can not logically deduce a sentence prescriptive (naturalistic fallacy). but suppose it were true, yet the "natural law" goes against the same anti-abortion, because we could invoke the law of natural selection for embryo abortion in cases of childbirth endangering life the mother who "struggle for survival" against the embryo. We can also rely on natural selection in cases where the births pose a danger to the life of the community who have a true "population explosion" aggravated by economic problems, food shortages, droughts, etc. in this case, more than mothers will be the state who require mothers to abort not to jeopardize the continuity of the nation in the "struggle for existence" Darwinian (as in the People's Republic of China, for example).

Myth 7: Who is in favor of "free choice" is pro-abortion and who remain "neutral" is already an abortionist or an accessory to them.

Review: The argument is inconsistent, since it is possible that someone is pro-choice and consciously choose the pro-life ... Or perhaps the anti-abortion is not a "free choice" of the subject?. The argument that who is not anti-abortion stands for is only the fallacy of bifurcation, and to pretend that there is only 2 alternatives on abortion (pro and con) when in fact many people do not feel challenged by the question, either because they do not care, are too busy working or belong to cultures that do not pose these tópicos.Por other side is dogmatic sees all "black and white" unconditionally pro-abortion or against abortion without conditions "and forget that there are flats and degrees, as some are against abortion except in cases such as rape or danger death of the mother where they are willing to allow it. Others are in favor of allowing abortion, but only before 3 months and are opposed to abort after that period (even if the mother is at risk or no risk of birth defects). As shown "there is everything in the vineyard of the Lord" and is not considered abortions honest someone who is neutral as well as, in another context, not a terrorist who remains neutral to the divine cross Bushies "are with us or with terrorism "because, after all, not everyone has a habit of bombing or evangelize the" Moors "or minus the foul habit of bawling" God Save the USA "in a Mormon temple o. .. on the deck of an aircraft carrier of the Unitas Yankee, I say ;-).

Lasik Ontario Driver Licence

antiabortion Catholic fundamentalist rhetorical tricks

Catholic fundamentalist rhetorical tricks

Here are some tricks sophistical The altar boys slyly cato-Tradisa wield against their opponents for the greater glory of his sect:

trick 1: "Atheists are all disciples of the few communist murderers Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. viciously pursued the Holy Mother Church, which is defended only by the light of reason and faith in our Lord against the inhuman violence of hours atheistic Marxist blah, blah, blah. "
Review: Here we see that these charlatans botched trick is to identify chupacirios atheism with communism based on the combination of the fallacy of hasty generalization: "Some atheists are communists, then all are" (also " was anti-socialist communist atheist F. Nietzsche? Was also an atheist communist existentialist Heidegger?) With the fallacy of incorrect conversion of universal judgments, "the Communists are atheists, then atheists are communists", which is as absurd as arguing that because all the pears are fruits, then all the fruit is ... pears (sic). On the other hand, reduce the massacres of Stalin and other leaders of the Marxism to a simple anti-religious persecution is tantamount to falsifying history since Stalin in his purges also settled a number ... considerable militant communists and atheists (such as Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.) that he believed constituted a threat to their poder.Tampoco the extermination of the kulaks or peasant proprietors and settlement of 30,000 Red Army officers were due to "anti-religious motives, but rather a political-economic reasons (in case of kulaks) and a trap set by Stalin Canaris, Chief Hitler's Nazi espionage (in the case of communist officials killed).

tricks 2: "Holy Mother Church has never harmed anyone, but it is a poor victim of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by atheists, Marxists, Freemasons, the Mafia, the UN, journalists and other scourges to the world dechristianize and destroy the church and true believers larynx, laran. "
Review: Yes, yeah, sure. The iglesuca chaotic, like the far right delusion that identify with this sectilla, loves always presented as the victim misunderstood this wicked and sinful modern world (I think that also was the victim when the average age was the 3rd part land and was a power he undertook crusades to exterminate their enemies). Poor thing is always the victim of the dreaded Illuminati conspiracies (which was discontinued in 1786), Marxism (despite the collapse of the socialist bloc in the 89), Masons (most of whom are theists and use Bible in their "taken"), the Mafia (most of which are devout Catholics and even have shrines in their houses), etc, etc. It remains only for the scribes of delirium alcoholism Conspiranoids cato-lic will invent grotesque enemies (say, the aliens from Ganymede) for the church feel more "victim" of what we pretend to es.Hablando seriously, that victimhood hypocritical of the Church overreacted, that does not fit or with a shoehorn, is a fallacy of "begging for mercy" (ad misericordiam) which only serves to distract attention from wealthy and powerful reality of a Church which has more than 1,100 million fan in the world and aims to bi-millenary catolizar the rest of the world he had left and assimilate or destroy (by military means) to any religion or sect that he crossed the road.

Tufillo 3: "The Inquisition did not kill a fly. In the conquest of America, the church did not kill anyone, that is just the black legend who invented the Protestant heretics to divert attention from their killings of Indians. The blame for triggering the English Civil War are comunachos of Stalin's henchmen and the great Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, as evidenced by our historians with doctorates and a string of titles that are worth more than the writers unknown to you dating me patatin, potato " .
Review: The old mantra of "Black legend" of the great-grandmother is the catchall where iglesilla gets all his crimes and shame: The Inquisition did not kill the condemned person, but they were the "judges" who were convicted and sentenced to death (not Hitler , Himmler and other Nazi leaders hands stained with blood, but it would be foolish to suppose that had nothing to do with the Holocaust was planned and directed by them). The Catholic sect had nothing to do with the massacres of Indians in the process evangelism, although the same devout Catholic priest Las Casas, including Catholic priests, was eyewitness to many murders of native and demonstrate many massacres "evangelistic" memorias.Por in their course, the English Civil War was caused by the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy-communist though who rebelled against the republic, who won legitimately at the polls, was Franco ... nothing suspicious communist Of course. But we know that the Communists are the only ones guilty of civil war (renamed with holy water by the Hispanic bishops as "crossed by the Christian West") by the historical work of distinguished merit historian Pio Moa, although we have so "Pius" writer is not a professional historian and his books are not history but rather pure revisionist propaganda for the glory of the PP and the Holy See.

Tu-ru-ru-ru 4: "all atheists are relativists and do not believe there is truth and values, so have a libertine life that is fucking all day, get drunk and lining of joints and lines of coke to bursting tarantantán ".
Review: The repetitive homily of the Holy Father ... Blessed cream (for the Hitler Youth) XVI that atheists are relativists is vague and ambiguous, because there is "no" relativism, but many: ethical relativism, aesthetic relativism, epistemic relativism, etc.así that the accusation is inaccurate and therefore worthless. Now, if ethical relativism regards the charge would be an inductive fallacy, and that while we can not rule out ethical relativist atheists, it is nonetheless true that this does not mean that all atheists universe is relativistic, relativistic and non-Marxist atheists who defend objective ethics (based on the objective interests of the proletariat), it disciples atheists G. Well are relativistic, no less an atheist and bungerianos Mario Bunge, etc.Therefore certainly no shortage of Catholics after Mass are "partying" to close the bars and brothels where they do everything that they attributed to atheists but no matter all the Ambrosian Church cares only that these are properly baptized droves to increase their power and privileges based on population density, and sometimes go to church, after all they could sin, to absolve their peccadilloes them in confession is not as comfortable in the world to be Catholic? to reason there are so many who profess the Catholic ... cynicism, so anyone.

Company Anniversary Invitation Sample

10 things I do when not blogging *

(*: And I realized I do not know if this VERBOID conjugates as blogging, blogging or what. I liked that)

1. I teach
2.
watching TV 3. Leo
4. I talk
5.
sleep 6. I'll walk
7. Buy books (not embedded in read: buy many books then do not read)
8. I take pictures (some end up in my fotolog, some not)
9. As
10. Live

(does that explain where walking this blog? Hehe)