of Venezuela in the web analytics is an article entitled" Death atheism "and written by Juan Muñoz, where he conducted a" critical "(sorry for the misuse of terms) of atheism unfortunate that just shows their ignorance about the topic it addresses. For example, this character does not understand the meaning of Buñuel's famous phrase, as evidenced by his comment: "It is a typical English, but attribute it to nothing less than Buñuel, who at the impertinent question would answer that he was an atheist, thank God. The funny thing is that more true than in the boutade joke: because only by believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist. "For me the only boutade is surreal commentary Muno, and apparently does not understand that phrase Buñuel tells us the truism that only an atheist can be defined to exist in the community concerned, the belief in the existence of a deity, and that in the absence of belief in God or theism would impossible to have an A-theism (at least in the positive and strong sense of the word) that precluded such a theistic belief. In the same way that anti-spiritualism of the skeptics would be impossible if there were previously pseudoscience nonsense of Muno espirita.El that "only believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist" is a common fallacy of the "stolen concept ", as this twisting, twisting, maim and omitting the semantic meaning of the term "atheist": an atheist does not believe in God, that's a-theist = without God and therefore advocates a-theism = negation of the negation of theism or belief in one God. Who refuses to pretend that God believes in him is as absurd as claiming that those who deny the existence of Zeus is because, deep down, believe in Zeus (sic) also the skeptic who denies the existence of ghosts because it denies ... believe in them? (sic) go, I swear that whoever denies the existence of anything is because they believe in that thing, but it seems that the logic is upside Muno, go. The alleged "Christian atheist" or "atheist theist", which "believes" Muno, is a fictitious entity as contradictory and non-existent as the "square circle" or "anarchist state," and only serves to expose the contradiction that lies deep in the brain in such agnóstico.Muy fun but not serious and aware, is the following nonsense Muno anti-atheist, "the atheist loses time and effort trying to prove the unprovable: that God does not exist." How do you know stumps that the absence of God is unprovable? Logically, this would only be possible pontificate agnostic dogma if it were shown that the demonstration of the existence of God is unprovable, and mathematics can be shown that certain assumptions are unprovable, but I do not see anywhere in the Muno article as "proof", nor I see Muno faces and refute the arguments atheists to prove the nonexistence of God, such as the argument from evil or the argument of the incoherence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod or is it perhaps do not know?. If so, then Muño commits the fallacy of asking what the beginning and is intended to show ... which is typical of fundamentalist agnostics, still pontificating está.Muño clear falsehoods like this: "In principle, it is not proved the existence of nothing. If anything, we suggest the existence of something that is very different, that is, made part of the mondo and lirondo of what exists and, if not, ill be taken as a game. Wanting to prove its existence is as much like turning: from zero to reach the existence of what is to be tested. Absurd. What exists is there to be taken into account, there is a hidden treasure you have to look for special methods. "First, it is false that you can not prove anything: for example, in Euclidean geometry is shown it is impossible to square a circle, that is, square the circle there. Euler's theorem demonstrated by his lack of regular decahedron. According to the principles of thermodynamics, there is the perpetual engine of the second kind, etc. In the second place, not based on science that exists to prove just that There (sic) as if they did would be reduced to vulgar arguments in a circle (no part of the reality of apples to prove its reality), but hypotheses that can apply non-observable or detectable at the beginning of which is deducted predictive consequences that verified, may prove the existence of such entities postulated (as happened with the planet Uranus, the antiparticles, etc..). Muno curious that tell us that what is postulated to be already at the point of departure, a fact and lirondo mondo, but if so how to make a hypothesis to apply something you already know exists? Leverrier knew that planet Neptune that under certain postulated perturbations in the orbit of Uranus was a fact? if you knew Neptune before making their calculations "for lost time in so long and complicated equations? why bother to ask a German observatory to point your telescope at these coordinates whether the existence of Neptune was already at the point of departure, a fact?. We, thanks to science, we know many things that are "there": atoms, genes, cells, pulsars, etc. but in the past were not known or obvious and that, contrary to the assertions Muno, if they were: "a hidden treasure that had to be found with special methods, so I recommend to take a course Muño Epistemology accelerated to stop saying so many tonterías.Ahora read the catechism agnostic Muño pontificates from his ivory tower ... suspended in the air: "Agnosticism is, however, in a more radical and in other more neutral. It is more radical because it goes to the merits, not accept such beliefs, but is neutral in stating that the Lord in the same issue can exist that do not exist, the agnostic does not even rule on the point. Just do not waste your time on such a matter. "agnosticism is radical because it accepts the belief in God, but based on grounds or reasons that do not accept the belief in God?" will not accept the belief in God because, yes? if so, then agnosticism is a radical ... irrationality that has little to envy fideists irrational believers who accept the Lord's sake. Very neutral agnosticism is admitting the possibility of God, yet that is not very rational, and to admit an extraordinary possibility (as is the existence of God) without testing this possibility is to commit the fallacy of "free statement" and is so irrational as to admit the possibility of demonic possession ... just because. That the agnostic does not rule on the existence of God is not a sign of maturity, but of ignorance in the matter, and that agnostics are not aware that the existence of God if it has been falsified (Contrary to the view of the agnostic Popper) by the critical rationalist atheist that proves the existence of God by demonstrating the absence of his idea, which is impossible as contradictory as a square circle, and in fact, if the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is impossible, ergo the event object denoted by the concept is too. Similarly, if the concept of the squared circle there could exist no empirical square circles (or square rounds) in Muñoz universo.también gives us the following pearl of his parish bulletin agnostic: "So are pathetic efforts professionals and militant atheists, and Communists, with being religious beliefs. First, because the wrong target: atheism is a doctrine that argues against a particular existence, is not neutral, areligious, quite the contrary, deeply religious in their belief that God does not exist. But also because it assumes that you are removing the only arguments are irrational beliefs. The results are obvious. "Muno here makes a slip of confusing irrational anti-religious atheistic doctrine with religious doctrines (which are the exact opposite) committing a fallacy of bifurcation curious as to this there are only 2 types of doctrines in theodicy: areligious and religious agnostic, what happens to the anti-religious doctrines? ah well, for its sophistic trickery subsumes within the religious, which is as absurd and foolish as it would subsume the anti-capitalist Marxist doctrines within the category ... capitalism (sic), taradez that neither Mises nor Von Hayek dare cometer.Por true, how does Muño that belief in God is an irrational belief? where are the tests that demonstrate their irrationality? where are the criticisms of the rational arguments for the existence of God to test at least, that the existence of God is unprovable? answer: no, because agnosticism Muño feeds sophistical irrational beliefs and he attributes their enemies. Usandoun simile of the Bible, Muno "sees the mote in your neighbor's eye and not see the beam in your own." ;-) Amen. Finally Muño boutade gives us her latest showing how irrational and fundamentalist fanatics who are agnostics like him: "Take the two ends of Europe (not just geographically): Spain and the Soviet Union. Spain, after forty years of fundamentalist Catholicism and arrogant, has the highest rate of irreligion in Europe. In the Soviet Union, after seventy years of militant atheism and aggressive, 60% of its population believing declare: seventy million Orthodox, ten million Catholics, Protestants and sixty four million Muslims, excluding the unruly Jews. The lesson is very short, nothing like atheism religion to flourish, not least being the reverse true: nothing like religion to detach from it and come to think for themselves. "We are told that 60% of Russians are believers, this means that in Russia 40% are non-believers. ask what you enough?, in the USA only 3% of the population is incredulous, and if we consider that the average percentage of atheists in the world is 10%, we have that Russia has perhaps the largest proportion of ATEA THE WORLD, the result of that bastion atheism was the USSR. Then reality gives the lie to the stupidity of Muno, because as the English, despite its growing irreligion, have a lower percentage of atheists that Russia would have to conclude (contrary to Muño): "Nothing like atheism ( state) to distance themselves from religion and get to think for themselves, being no less true in reverse: nothing like religion to endure it in broad masses of the population, as in Catholic Spain (spiritual reserve of the West, according Generalissimo Franco). "
0 comments:
Post a Comment