Elf Bowling Play Online

News, supplementary pensions, Participation Agreement

Occupational pensions:

bargaining concerning supplementary pensions began November 25, 2010 with the key to an agreement to extend the arrangement until June 30, 2011 (financing of supplementary pensions before age 65).

The main objective is to ensure the financial stability of AGIRC and ARRCO.

For the first CFTC priority was to renew AFFMB (Association for the fund management and financing of AGIRC ARRCO) that funds the supplementary pension, which would expire December 31, 2010.

Two sessions were scheduled, on December 21 and February 24, 2011.

(AFP) Several thorny issues on the table: the consideration of the reform of basic pensions, changes in pension levels and contribution rates or benefits in family plans and Agirc arrco.

Participation:

Be careful to express your investment choices.

The Act of November 9, 2010 including expanding opportunities for power savings plan for retirement (PERCO)

The money in the special reserve which the recipient does not require immediate payment are necessarily assigned to an employee savings plan (PEE, PEI or Perco)

From 1 January 2013, this rule will apply to all agreements, including agreements prior to 1 January 2007 (Labour., art. L. 3323-2, L. No. 2010-1330, Art. 110).

By default (that is to say when the person does not request immediate payment or allocation to a company savings plan), half the share of the reserve Special contribution calculated using the statutory formula must be assigned to Perco, the other half is allocated under participation agreements (Labour., art. L. 3324-12).

Cycle Blend Osterizer-imperial

Balance PPO, PPO Fashion Week 1

.

Too many trips, too many temptations ...

Find the love of freedom requires some excesses.

was fun:)

serious in. Go! Tomorrow is distributed.

* OPP: Goal Weight Pétasse

.

Marshmallow Guns Wal Mart

engaged!

My shopping list, something to eat and munch without guilt, libitum :

Soups, 4 kg of apples, dairy light, diet coke, teas, sweeteners, frozen vegetables galore, light gum, eggs, cucumbers, hearts palm, lettuce, tomatoes, lime, herbs, soy steaks (for carnivores, turkey ham,

other lean meats and fish).

To me, no rice, no potatoes, no pasta,

but wholemeal bread , oat bran and wheat.

Well, apart from my 80 minutes of walking per day (weekend pause) ,

I'll have fun on a good sound, or do housework, dancing,

earphones back! short, what a trick that lets off steam ...

to you to find yours!

I do not too often now, so it is rather bath, soft music,

small candles, or incidental to 2-5 euros at H & M. ..

I test lots of old make up, I get massages,

I will do my hair with manicure or girlfriends ...

I Bookish at the library, matt my favorite series,
'm wandering ...

Treat yourself nice moments, just for your eyes!

Reward yourself or console you,
brief comforting you ... Do not punish yourself!

Plan or not, we are all princesses.

* OPP: Goal Weight Pétasse

.

Gay Meeting Spots In Hyderabad

NAO 2011 was signed on January 21

An agreement, signed by organizations unions representing over 65% of the employed population, ended the too long waiting period ensuing negotiations ended last December.


The results of this negotiation are well above the averages recorded in the companies covered by the agreements of metallurgy.

Recalls points of agreement NAO 2011:

 AI framework, budget of 3.5% (excluding contract BURST)

 Minimum frame revalued by 2%

If realization of a Rafale export contract :

 increase additional 1% distributed to staff as part of an "increase individual generalized" framework

 Minimum revalued by 2.5%,


A budget not under 3% (excluding contract BURST) divided as follows: 1.5% 

AI,

 1.5% AG (paid 1/2/2011)

 Heel AG to 31.50 €

 13th month € 2020 mini

 Guaranteed Minimum Income € 1,830 (base + length + pro rata 13th month minimum)

 Specific non upgraded framework 1.5%


If progress toward a contract BURST :

 Budget additional 1% in AG

 13th month € 2050 mini

 Guaranteed Minimum Income € 1,850 (base + length + pro rata 13th month minimum)

For Premium Salon 200 €

Added to this is:

 increased participation of the Directorate of the mutual non executives to continue to disengage the EC

modification of the final installment of PERCO 55 to 57 years to take account of longer duration working life, a project 

upgrading of travel expenses on which the Directorate must work during the first quarter of 2011.

The CFTC has fulfilled its objectives have evolved in the proposals of the Department, thus providing staff with a good level of agreement.

Pokemon Silver Visualv

Massive Attack!

We will suffer!


.

Velvetta Rotel Chicken Commercial

GOOD USE OF ATHEISM IN TEN OBJECTIONS. About Quebec atheist Claude MJ Braun (Michel Brûlé, 2010)

God and God is three.

Raymond Devos

third and final part

8. Contrary to the observation and reason, faith is futile and inefficient. Since the Enlightenment, in fact, faith is denounced as a pseudo-knowledge, then it is unmasked as being a mere belief ridiculous, as when the Greeks believed that lightning was expressing the anger of Zeus. Now, faith or religious belief Christian in particular, is a complex phenomenon and more than mere belief rather surprising and ridiculous. First, believe is a complex mental phenomenon involving what is believed, the content of the belief on the one hand, and - as analytic philosophers say - the attitude towards the content of which is that belief, the other hand. philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), one can not accuse him of being a believer, was the first to ask a crucial distinction between believe that -believe-in and . ( Leviathan, Book 1, Chapter 7) The religious belief, according to Hobbes, includes not only a believe-that - so what is known in the jargon, a "propositional attitude" is to say an attitude toward a proposal. For the Christian, it will be believe that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it is primarily a believe-in - the attitude towards a proposition, namely, the belief in resurrection. David Hume (1716-1776) said of his side as if the propositional content of belief - the belief-that - is only likely truth or falsity of the belief itself - believe the -in - n is not susceptible of truth or falsity (see Treatise of human nature, Book I, III, VII). In Quebec, a sovereignist believes in the sovereignty of Quebec. If believes that Quebec will Sovereign in 2050, the propositional content of belief is possibly true or false. His belief in sovereignty, however, is itself neither true nor false, but, say, sincere or not.

distinguish therefore believe that the-believe-in within the faith. However, the in- believe is essential to faith, and has the same priority as -believe. So when, in the Gospels, Jesus exclaims before a foreign woman who believes in him: "Oh! that your faith ( pistis ) is great! "(Matthew 15, 28), Jesus probably means that the faith of the lady is a believe-in powerful and profound . St. Paul goes on to say that "when I have faith ( pistin ) the fullest, one that moves mountains, if I lack love ( agapèn ), I do am nothing. "(1 Corinthians 13 2). This believe-in seems logically to imply the believe that -and not the reverse, because I can well believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as taught by the Church, but 'm matters little. Therefore, what matters is the faith in the belief-in that, if we believe Paul is the love (agape ).

But the believe-in agape as is precisely what the Church - Thomas Aquinas, him again - as means of faith, theological virtue . It follows that faith is essentially a under - excellence (arete Greek). The atheist who rejects faith as futile and ineffective, denies a virtue, precisely what has the most value, the same excellence. Besides God, would be of this nature, excellence by excellence, the agape. So, rejecting the belief-that of faith, atheists reject belief -in, the virtue par excellence. The bathwater and the baby, so to speak.

9. The natural explanation is sufficient, the supernatural explanation is superfluous. There is a very intriguing sentence in Darwin's masterpiece, The Origin of Species (1859). In the last chapter, in fact, when Darwin discusses the challenges facing his theory, we read:

The analogy leads me therefore to think that all beings held that lived on earth are probably descended from a single primordial form into which life was breathed into the origin.

A plausible interpretation of the previous sentence is that Darwin believed that life was breathed into the inert material by a Higher Being, God. In any case, Darwin seems unable to explain in naturalistic terms the transition from inorganic to living beings. The title of his book offers less, ultimately, that it announces.

Whatever is, back in the ninth argument atheist. What was there before the famous Big Bang ? Physics is unable to say anything on this thorny issue. So, the question of what was there before the Big Bang , where it produces and what was established this tiny spot containing the seeds and dense universe, does not arise as the atheist. But the question is perfectly legitimate, even if no reply has been advanced by science. In fact, ever since the Enlightenment, such questions - questions philosophical and religious questions of meaning - are hit with a curse. Science is master of us thought without sharing. It is still legitimate to think metaphysically. The famous question that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) raised its Principles of Nature and Grace founded because (1714): " Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that things should exist, why should they exist and not otherwise? "is perfectly legitimate. If God exists, why does it exist? What is the rationale for its existence? Why God is there? The atheist rejects these questions as meaningless.

Consider the following reasoning from Aristotle:

(1) Any thing that came into existence from a cause which existed previously.

(2) The universe appeared there 15 billion years.

(3) Therefore the universe has a cause that is earlier.

The atheist rejects this argument, however, quite legitimate. What is wrong according to him? For the atheist, the universe comes from nothing, would have made from scratch and nothing. This is, of course, the atheist belief. On this point, we can not tax the believers as irrational belief denying premise (1) seems even more irrational than the belief in God as the cause of the universe because it is irrational to believe that something appears out of nothing, whether the universe in its entirety or electricity that powers my computer.

The usual reply of the atheist is: "Okay. So if everything has a cause, where does God? What causes it? "The answer seems unstoppable, but she misunderstands the meaning the first premise because it states that anything that appeared one day from a cause which is before, not that everything has a cause that preceded . Thus, something eternal - which does not need a cause for his birth - is sufficient in itself and has always been.

In Breaking the Spell. Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006), Daniel Dennett argues that the universe does have a cause: it is himself! By applying the stuff that is to do everything, "as he calls it, the universe, he says, has itself created. The trick in question is actually the belief that the universe was self-created. However, it is impossible. In fact, that the universe may have self-created, it must first he existed in a certain way, so there exist before, which is quite inconsistent.

It follows that the root cause of the universe must transcend the universe, that is to say that it is itself not caused. This is the First Cause. God. Since He created time and space, God is timeless and immaterial. He is all-powerful since He created the universe. We can now answer the metaphysical question of Leibniz Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that things should exist, why should they exist and not otherwise? The universe exists, no one doubts, and astrophysicists say that the universe has not always existed: it was there some 15 billion years. Now that the universe has come into existence, there must be a First Cause, not caused by another cause. Why God is there? Since it has always been the question of its existence does not arise. It is itself the reason for its existence.

10. The atheist does not believe he did not want to believe. He will think when he meets a good point. Of all the arguments for atheism proposed by Claude Braun, the latter is the more pitiable. The atheist is right here in the same situation as those who fight against pornography in a futile attempt to define it: there are only when they see it. On the other hand, do not rely too heavily on the arguments on religious conversion. If, as I think faith is a virtue, then, in agreement with Aristotle, I think we should rather focus on the role of education in virtue. Unfortunately, in a liberal society like ours, where religious education is pilloried for indoctrination, do not count on it. At least we can hope that the debate raises awareness. Let us not forget that the hope - with faith and charity - is held as a theological virtue. Everything is about virtue. God Himself is that virtue, and if you have trouble with faith and hope, we can always pray to God to make us share these essential virtues because it is the nature of virtuous share. This is called generosity, love better.

Volleyball Panty Lines

GOOD USE OF ATHEISM IN TEN OBJECTIONS. About Quebec atheist Claude MJ Braun (Michel Brûlé, 2010)

A believer is an antiseptic.
Raymond Devos

PART III

6. The gods and believers behave immorally; So, do not adopt their beliefs. Here, the atheist must be careful to avoid fallacies. First, they are not all gods and all believers who behave immorally, so that only an atheist would be morally irreproachable. Whether you are an atheist or a believer, it is not always what we think is good. If a small number of priests have sexually abused, one can not generalize the wrongdoing to all priests. Regarding the gods, whether one or more, the question remains open. For the Christian God, As I noted in the first objection, based on the principle of charity, it should read the Bible intelligently, so that God's apparent fate exonerated of charges of immorality. Also avoid the fallacy of the attack against the person: you've done wrong, so your ideas or your opinions are surely false . If my neighbor is a federalist and he is accused of pedophilia, I'm still justified to believe in federalism.

7. If the gods were perfect they would have created a perfect world. But evil exists. So, at best, if the gods exist, they are imperfect. This is perhaps the oldest objections against the existence of a deity (or several), and also more serious. The objection goes back to Epicurus: either God is powerless to prevent evil, or, if he is omnipotent, he is evil by giving it free rein. As for this dilemma, or the believer must recognize that God is not omnipotent and that, contrary to what traditional theology, or else God is wicked, contradicting the traditional claim seeking God is infinitely good. Even the believer experiences all the wretchedness of the world to understand the existence of evil alongside a loving God. At the age of 92, Abbe Pierre still did not understand why so much suffering afflict humanity. He wrote:

I am not cured and never will be any of this lot of suffering that afflicts mankind since the beginning. I recently learned that about eighty billion human beings have lived on earth. How many have had a painful existence, struggled, suffered ... and for what? Yes, my God, why? ( Abbé Pierre with Frédéric Lenoir, My God ... why? Small meditations on the Christian faith and the meaning of life , Paris, Plon, 2005, p. 13. Note that the Abbé Pierre wrote "why" and not "why", as if seeking an explanation Abbé Pierre teleological : for what, for what purpose.)

It is futile, even foolish, to argue, as do most part of believers, that "the Lord's ways are inscrutable" because, well, it meets a mystery by another. In Christian thought, response as to the existence of evil is the doctrine known as the Latin word bonus privatio back to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas took over after him. Despite appearances to the contrary, evil is definable: it is the absence of good ( privatio bonus). Death, for example - which is probably the ultimate evil for us humans - is the absence or deprivation of the property that is life. Slavery is the deprivation of liberty. Poverty, lack of vital goods, including money. Disease, lack of health etc.. The definition absence of evil as well (bonus privatio ) stems from a general thesis that supports Thomas Aquinas, drawing on Aristotle, wishing that " The property may exist without evil, whereas evil can not exist no good. In other words, if there is evil, then there must first be good. The only reality that exists is good - that is to say, Thomas Aquinas, God. An evil being - Satan, Beelzebub, Adramelech, etc.. - Opposed to God, existing before God, is logically impossible. That is why the devil or the devil Christianity is designed in such a being (an angel) who received forfeit the existence of God. Christianity is not a Manichean.

Evil, moral sense, that is to say that exerted by free beings like men, did so only because of existence of the first property exists. The objection of the unbeliever is whether God created the good, the coup would create evil? No, says Aquinas, because what God creates, in the full sense of the term, well, being, not evil, it had existence by absence of good. Evil, in short, is not to mean "ontological" the term, as like to say the philosophers.

What, replicates the unbeliever, there is no evil? " So what about the calamity that struck Haiti January 12, 2009? Is this not the perfect example of the existence of evil for a people who, moreover, has more than its share of misfortunes? Why them and not us? God be bad for their persecution of this on little people already affected by poverty?

These cries from the heart of the atheist recall the famous poem Voltaire before the earthquake of Lisbon in 1755 where he condemned any attempt to divine justification. Thomas Aquinas does not say, however, as the theologians at the time of Voltaire, that the victims deserve the wrath of God or other similar indignities (including the most recent unfortunate Pat Robertson wanting that "Haitian slaves had once found a pact with the devil "). Apparently, full of resentments, Voltaire did not take account of the theory of evil as thomasienne privatio bonus.

According to Aquinas, it should also distinguish between moral evil natural evil . In Latin, the first is said malum culpae the fault. Natural evil, He said malum poena, punishment, pain. If God did not create the malum culpae , the moral fault, is it thus causing the malum poena, produced among other natural disasters? Thomas Aquinas does not deny the existence of pain and sorrows caused by natural disasters. However, the sentences generated by the earthquake in Haiti have passions as real as affecting human sensitivity. Again, both have reality as deprivation of the property.

The objection that the loss of loved ones is undoubtedly an evil. It is indeed a reality that the loss of loved ones in conditions as appalling as the earthquake in Haiti. The Aquinas does not deny for a moment. But in terms of reality "ontological" in terms of what is - and we must never lose sight of that is here to be metaphysical plane where is the good - these losses, as appalling as they are, remain to be deprivation.

Consider an analogy. Suppose I say "There is nothing here." Let us not think that in saying this I want to say that there is something and that something, anything, there! We find ourselves then to "reify" anything, that is to say to make sure that nothing exists in a certain way, nothing would be something, but nothing ... This is logically inconsistent and, worse, misleading. Similarly, when we say that the penalties are a result of the natural disaster, do not believe that what the victims are private - the severe shortage, in a word, evil - exists independently of the property they are private, alone exists. What the Haitians are private, they are real, that is to say persons, property, vital services, institutions, etc.. which are not. That misfortune. According to Aquinas, God did create the missing in the earthquake, but it has not killed; He has not removed their life. In short, it is not the author of evil.

So do we ask, but where does evil, that is to say, the deprivation of being ? Why is this so? Again, do not give reality to the deprivation of being, that is to say evil. In fact, the right question is: how is the deprivation of being?

According to Thomas Aquinas, God is the being who is supremely. Therefore, since be is to be good, God is perfectly good. In the language of metaphysics of Aristotle, God is "pure act" (Actus Purus ). All other beings, including humans, exist only potentially, that is to say that we are always changing. Although we said that we "exist", we are not really. This may seem paradoxical, but true. Exist for us is changing. Only death will put an end to this so-called "existence" to give us access to the true existence, which is God.

Suppose I am suffering from AIDS. As Thomas Aquinas would agree that this evil can be explained by natural causes, namely the presence of HIV in my body. However, if the virus affects me so, he must be good in his way, that is to say, it has to be . In other words, the virus is good, although it grieves me and grieves me that this is not the virus itself, for he is good, but the lack of health, that is to say the lack of property. So to speak, the evil parasitic well.

Likewise, the tectonic plates that are rubbed into the area of Haiti last year, causing the earthquake so devastating, are good in themselves. These frictions are not bad in itself. They are only related to humans in the region, depriving them of their lives and other goods they cherished.

God, be good par excellence, does not create so as well. Hence then comes evil? Accidentally good, Aquinas responds. Following the unparalleled disaster, international relief efforts are mobilizing like never before. Men lack of well create the property. For a believer as Thomas Aquinas, men, private property, creating the property, are instruments of God. It is not said, however, that this overabundance of creative property does not occur sooner or later, by accident , evil, that is to say a good deprivation. The cause is not evil, but accidentally well. In wanting to do good, we can make mistakes. For example, I help someone to build his cardboard house knowing that it will not withstand a possible earthquake. I aim well (building a shelter), but sooner or later, his house collapse on him. I accidentally deprived, without malice, good thinking help. My intention was good, but the consequences of my actions are not.

God would it be unable to predict the future consequences of the property he creates? In this case, it would be perfectly omniscient. If God is not the author of evil by creating good, it would nevertheless be indirectly or accidentally author. This would mean God is not omniscient perfectly.

I believe God is omniscient, perfectly, but I also believe that when He created our world, which is the best of possible worlds - as Leibniz said - it was better that he is not entirely omniscient. In our world, that He created, God can not predict in advance all the consequences of its creation. I argue that this was preferable to a world where God is omniscient, perfectly.

Indeed, suppose that God knows infallibly what will happen. What follows from there? As Bertrand Russell said mischievously (in "The art of rational conjecture"), if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, then it was pointless to forbid them to eat! More generally, if Allah is omniscient, He knows the future. If He knows the future is that the latter is determined. If the future is determined, then no one can decide in the strict sense of the word. If no one can decide, free will is illusory.

For all these reasons, God can not be completely omniscient.

Paradoxical as it may seem, the goodness of God leads him to prefer a world where evil can exist (always as a parasite of the property) because this world is preferable to a world where evil does not exist. In short, God has good reason to prefer a world where evil exists in a world without evil. What then is the reason why God would have preferred our world, which includes evil, a world where there are none?

examine the problem from this angle. A world that does not contain any harm would be one where freedom does not exist. Indeed, a world where creatures are not free to choose good or evil is less valid than the one where human beings have free will. In such a world, people are virtually forced to do good. However, to do good because you can not do otherwise has no moral value. If the reason I'm not an alcoholic, because my metabolism can handle alcohol, I do not deserve not to be an alcoholic. By cons, if I manage to get out of this dependence on willpower, I have all the credit (even when I fail, despite my efforts, I still find it morally worthy).

So a world where people can exercise their free will is preferable to a world where free will does not exist. This is the reason why God chose this world where human beings have the free will.

course, in a world like ours, God's omniscience seems limited. God makes perfect in creating free beings He may indirectly create evil. But this situation is preferable to a world where free will does not exist.

Consider the problem from another angle. God did not create a paradise with the man in a state of perfection of foot-in-cap, as a paradise is not the best of possible worlds to enable man to develop. Suppose that our perfect world, where no harm, no suffering, no. So if there is no evil, good would not make sense. Indeed, if there is no danger, courage has no meaning, and if no more than greed, there is more generosity or charity, if no more fear and hatred, love has no meaning. In such a world, man can not be perfected. A perfect world would be the least that is appropriate for the exercise of human freedom.

If you will, God agrees to limit his omniscience in order to generate a greater good. There is however another solution to the problem of the incompatibility of divine omniscience and human freedom. It is that the Roman philosopher Boethius proposed (480-524 AD) in Consolation of Philosophy .

Boethius's solution is closely related to the concept of time when about God. God is the author of all things, including time. It follows then that God, by nature, is timeless.

That was before God created heaven and earth?, Asked Augustine. And the holy respond sarcastically: "He was preparing hell for those who investigate these profound mysteries ( Confessions, Book XI, chapter 12). Augustine rejects this as being struck by inconsistency. It is indeed like asking what was before time, because the word implies a time before time prior to the time, which is contradictory. In fact, time has reality than to humans. In other words, if men did not exist, time would not exist. It follows that there is no time for God. God is just. It was not, and He will not. It is, full stop. Tell God that He is eternal is wrong because it is not in time. "You do not see God as the oldest establishment in the ratio of the amount of time," wrote Boethius.

With these considerations, Boethius can safely say that God has no foreknowledge. Indeed, who said "foreknowledge" uses the time in the future in particular. However, it must be repeated, God is timeless. It can not predict the future, because there is no future for God. Our past, present and future are as it were, under God, that "eternal now". To Boethius, "... the knowledge of [God is] a moment that never goes out." Here, words fail us and play tricks as an "eternal now" or "this never crosses" have no real meaning. It bumps, say Wittgenstein on the limits of language.

Still, Boethius can dissolve the problem of inconsistency arising from the divine foreknowledge with human free will. Indeed, God "sees as present in his eternity events that will occur at a time."

Let an analogy. During a parade, onlookers watch the floats pass one after another. Now imagine someone located on a hill sees the parade a glance: the observer knows beforehand what the tank spectators gathered in the street will.

Thus, God has always what we are about to decide, without depriving us of free will. Thus, the timeless view of God, it was necessary that Adam and Eve sin, while in terms of human time, there was no need there. God, "providing" everything does not necessarily dictate the actions that we have.

If you say "why bother praying to God, since everything is already set in advance? "You get to play God. Praying is believing that everything is not predetermined. As Kierkegaard writes, "the determinist, the fatalist are desperate ... because there is more to them than of necessity "(Treaty of despair ). When one thinks he's God, indeed, the necessity of all things falling on us like a wall of silence. If God made man prayed, let alone nothing is played for man, everything is still possible.

( forward )

Multiplication Chart From 13-20

GOOD USE OF ATHEISM IN TEN OBJECTIONS. About Quebec atheist Claude MJ Braun (Michel Brûlé, 2010)

If you are an atheist, then you are in bad faith.
Frederic Dard

first part (of three)

John Stuart Mill argued with reason that has any interest in not reject an opinion contrary to that of the majority because primo, if it is possibly true, it misses the opportunity to learn the truth and, secondly , if false, it also misses an opportunity to better understand what our opinion is true. ( 1) In addition, Mill makes a fundamental principle of rationality in any discussion, the better to understand the views otherwise does not understand that our rival.

He who knows only his own argument in a case knows little. It is possible that his reasoning is good and no one arrived to refute. But if he, too, unable to refute the reasoning of the opposing party, and if he did not even know he has no reason to prefer one opinion to another. The rational position to adopt in his case would be suspended sentences, and not knowing how to be content, or he is guided by the authority, or adopts, like most people, the party for which he feels the strongest inclination. (2)

In the debate between the atheist to the believer, it should adopt the principle of rational discussion of the Mill. If the believer feels uncomfortable with Mill, a good liberal and atheist, you should know that Thomas Aquinas had systematically used the same principle invoked by Mill with his famous method of disputation wishing that the controversy is the best means to achieve true so that any argument, any argument against or objection must be presented and vetted in critical review. Thomas Aquinas did not realize how out of originality since it draws its method of disputation in diretta The Philosopher (Aristotle, especially at the beginning of Book B of Metaphysics ).

In addition to the principle of rational discussion, we must also rely on a version of the principle of charity wanting it to be understood sympathetically the arguments of our opponents as being of interest since ' they are the result of someone as smart as us. In short, people who do not share our views are not necessarily idiots, they are intelligent people worthy of respect.

This granted, let us turn to the arguments in favor of atheism, Claude Braun, as atheist Quebec, lists ten in number (p. 37 to 39). In what follows, I present to every argument for atheism against a statement by Braun-argument or objection. The aim is that the reader may better be able to get a head in the debate between atheism and belief. Any beginning student of philosophy should engage in the same year since it is very formative in terms of critical thinking.

1. The believer is an atheist who does not know . It is true that a believer, a Christian in particular, does not adhere to the beliefs of other religions. The atheist can not understand why Christian beliefs are true, while those of other religions are false. Obviously, this first joined the second argument, as we shall soon see. The objection atheist wants to sum the believer sin by inconsistency: if the other beliefs are wrong, those of the believer should be false, so for consistency the believer should be an atheist. The atheist is also consistent in rejecting as false beliefs of all faiths. The problem with this argument, of course, is that the atheist presupposes, without establishing that all religious beliefs are false.

2. No religion has a monopoly on truth, so it is quite arbitrary to choose one over the other. As I said, this argument is a variant of the first. The same problem sometimes arises: is peremptorily decreed that no religion is true. All that the atheist is allowed to say, in effect, is that religions have a variety of beliefs. Conclude from this factual statement, is no legitimate or true is not valid. The conclusion is not deductively valid because, even if the premise is true, the conclusion could be false. The premise, in fact, relates to what people think of their religious culture of origin; there, people believe so and so, by so and so and so. The conclusion, it concerns what is true regardless of what people believe. In other words, the mere fact that religious beliefs differ, we can not conclude that there is no truth to this.

3. In all religions, the description of the gods is not consistent. They are indeed presented as perfect, then they do things showing they are not. This applies in particular to the Christian God who is presented now as merciful but in some passages of the Bible is cruel and bloodthirsty. Claude Braun cites no incriminating, he is content to say only that there may have one everywhere, "according to the passage of the revelations that we want to consult." He could have quoted this passage from the biblical the prophet Isaiah that brings water to his mill atheist: "I am Yahweh , there is no other. I form light and I create darkness. I'm happy and I create evil. It's me O Lord, who do all this . "(Isaiah 45: 6-7) were could also include acts of violence, war, murders committed by Israel against, inter alia, the Canaanites, etc.. The question then is: why do we tell these stories with a moral unedifying? Is that the Bible is a book that is not confusing a book of history in the modern sense of the term to explain the history and factual events of a people, the Hebrews. The Bible tells the story of the relationship between a people and their God, Yahweh . This is a "sacred history " as it was before. The authors of works that make up this library is the Bible trying to express sense of adventure of the Jewish people in relationship with God, truth is secondary compared to pa meaning of events. This is why it is always risky to take literally the biblical narratives. The so-called 'fundamentalists' literal interpretations these stories. Joshua stopped there in his race the sun around the earth? (Joshua 10: 12-13) Yes, say categorically fundamentalists, because what is written in the Bible is literally true . Long time, biblical scholars have learned to read the Bible in the second degree. We must learn to read the Bible together. There is nothing blasphemous to say that the Bible is a sort of "catch all" of the Jewish tradition, full of historical falsehoods. Again, this is not the truth stories which is concerned that their sense . The scholars know for example that the creation story at the beginning of the end has Genesis two accounts at the end, spun like a quilt, the story "Yahwist" of creation (Genesis 1 1-28) in seven days, being much newer than the other story (circa 500 BC), the story " Elohistic "oldest (Genesis 2 4 and following), dating back to Solomon (1000 BC). In the first story, God appears as an abstract being, a pure spirit ("The spirit of God hovered over the waters"), whereas in the second, God is anthropomorphized ("I heard your footsteps in the garden ... ") An informed and intelligent reading of the Bible requires that take account of exegesis. In this sense, the type of reading is required of the Bible meets the principle of charity admitted earlier, this principle that, what is the authors of the Bible. this is not the truth that the meaning of the events recounted. On this basis it is possible to justify the many apparent contradictions that we encounter.

4. The gods are anthropomorphic. These are the men who invented so they mystify themselves. In a sense, the answer to the question if it is the men who invented the gods or the reverse, is the responsibility of religious studies. But it is an extraordinarily difficult issue so that the science of religions do not address directly. They would rather talk about "the experience of the sacred " located at the heart of all known religions. The great historian of religions Mircea Eliade, has proposed the term hierophany to designate the irruption of the sacred in the lives of men who gather to tell and in society. We may recall the movie Gods have fallen head on (Jamie Uys, 1980) in which a small Bushman hunter receives on his head, fell from an airplane in flight, a bottle of Coca-Cola. Obviously, the tribe of African hunter, without contact with Western civilization, the bottle of Coca-Cola, profane perfectly for us, will become for them a source of hierophany , that is to say, sacred, where, therefore, the gods appear. Obviously, for the Western viewer, the gods do not exist because we know how to make Coke bottles, these are just mere mortals like the Bushmen who make them. The question of the existence of gods is here quickly resolved.

To complicate somewhat the case and to advance our thinking on this complex issue, let us turn to the parable that the ex-atheist Anthony Flew, proposed in There Is A God. How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (3), work in which the British philosopher explains his change of tack after fifty years of hardline atheism. Here is the parable that offers Flew:

Imagine a phone connected to a communications satellite is released on the shores of an island inhabited by a tribe that never came in contact with modern civilization. The natives tap on the keypad on the handset and hear voices out of the phone. They believe, prima facie, that the voices come from the device itself. Other smarter - scientists of the tribe - are able to reproduce an exact replica of the phone and make up the same numbers on the keypad. They hear the same voices again. The conclusion is self-evident: that amalgam specific form crystals, metals and chemical process produces what looks like human voices, for Therefore, the votes are produced by the device itself.

A sage of the tribe convenes scientific discussion. It has long been thinking about this whole affair and he came to the following conclusion: the voices in the unit are actually people like themselves, people who live like them and who can think like them, but expressed in another language. So instead of thinking that the voices are the properties of handset product, he suggested to his followers to study the hypothesis that these voices actually come from a network of mysterious communication and those of other humans would like them. But scientists scoff at the advice of wise and tell him: "Listen. When the device smashes the voices are silent. Therefore, the sounds are nothing other than the specific mix of lithium and electronic circuits and light emitting diodes. (4)

Through this parable, the former atheist invites those who think the world does not need an explanation involving a transcendent source - to the gods - , it suffices to itself, and that life appeared by accident of matter inert to revise their views because their attitude may well be that "scientists" of the tribe, which is that of dogmatic atheism. The existence of one or more deities nothing crazy and seems perfectly reasonable.

A more open and that atheism would be reasonable to say: "I do not know if God (or gods) exists. After all, it is not impossible that one day we know it exists. For now, I have no reason to believe that allowing me this is not possible. ". This position, which could be described of "open agnosticism" has three advantages over atheism: 1) it is more open and more respectful of the opinions in religious matters, 2) a reasonable belief that although it may be false, and finally 3) does not pray. Let us briefly examine these three benefits.

First, a belief can be rational as well as false. A person with cancer is believing in perfect health is wrong because she has received two diagnoses oncologists assuring that it did not have cancer. Even if the belief is false, it is rational: the two diagnoses show.

Belief in God is rational, even if we do not know if it true (or false), and it is legitimate to teach. It would not be desirable to oppose the religious education of youth. Training of children is indeed incomplete without founding narratives and rituals "hierophanic, they will, in adulthood, to separate things. Moreover, there is nothing irrational to advocate within a political party or civil society; same thing for the believer.

Finally, as surprising, even paradoxical as it may seem, agnosticism leaves open space for prayer. Praying God (or gods) so that its existence becomes clear is not so irrational as it seems at first. After all, the one who cried for help when there is nobody around acts completely rational. The agnostic open also asked for help so that the light that God exists or not. If God exists, He will answer.

5. Do not believing in God has no impact on us. If one violates a tenet of faith, nothing happens. In short, it makes no difference whether God exists or not. existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus argued that if God does not exist, then life is absurd. However, contrary to the argument by reduction ad absurdum these atheistic existentialists did not conclude that therefore, God must exist, but that existence is absurd existence would indeed be devoid of purpose, of purpose, devoid of meaning . Shakespeare had already Macbeth, " life [is] a story told by a madman, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ..." (Macbeth, Act V, scene 5). But the program of existentialism is not so black it seems. Sartre in particular is that our only "purpose" or "purpose" is our freedom. This is to give meaning to what has not. Not only humans but the universe in which we live, has no meaning. As Russell wrote on his side:

In the visible universe, the Milky Way is a tiny fragment in which the solar system that fits only a tiny grain in which, in turn, our planet is a microscopic dot. On this tiny point of infinitesimal clumps composed of carbon and water, provided with a complex chemical structure, crawl a few years only after which their components disperse again (5).

Unlike argument that the atheist says, non-belief in God has huge consequences affecting human existence. Affirm that God has no consequence that what is good or evil becomes personal matter subjective. It also argued that for consistency Russell. This is what we call the "moral subjectivism . Russell still listen.

When a man says: "This is good in itself, it appears to assert a fact, as if to say:" This is square "or" This is sweet. " I think this is a mistake. I think it really means: "I wish that everyone wants this," or rather " May everyone want this. " If one interprets his words as an affirmation, it is only the affirmation of his personal desire, for cons, if interpreted in a more general, they n'affirment anything but do that express a desire. The desire itself is personal, but its object is universal. That, in my opinion, this unique tangle of the particular and the universal which has caused such confusion in moral matters.

(...)

If the above analysis is correct, morality does not contain any statement, true or false, but consists of desires of a certain kind, namely those related to the desires of mankind in general - and gods, angels and demons, if they exist. Science can examine the causes of desires, and ways to achieve them, but it can not contain any legal award itself, because it deals with what is true or false.

The theory I have presented is one form of the doctrine of "subjectivity" of values. (6)

I think it's pretty clear that if God does not exist, then morality is not, at least objectively. Then we slide into a moral subjectivism, which leads in turn to surreptitiously moral relativism which is the worst moral situations. This is also one in which we are now.

(to follow) ______________




NOTES (1) See John Stuart Mill, On Liberty , Paris, Presses Pocket, 1990, Chapter 2: Freedom of thought and discussion .
(2) Ibid., P. 79.
(3) Antony Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese, Harper One, New York, 2007, 222P.
(4) Ibid., P. 85-86. My translation.
(5) Bertrand Russell, op. cit., p. 68-69. Russell is even more pessimistic in "The profession of faith of a free man", which reads: "That man is the product of causes which made no provision by the end they were doing, and that its origin, development, hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are nothing but the result accidental collision of atoms, no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life from the grave, that all works are for ages to disappear in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably disappear beneath the rubble of a ruined world (all those things if they do not escape the discussion, are nevertheless so close to the certainty that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. It is only on the scaffold of these truths on the firm foundation of unwavering despair, that the dwelling of the soul can now be built safely. "in Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic , Vrin, 2007, p. 66.
(6) Bertrand Russell Science and Religion, Gallimard, NRF Ideas # 248, 1971, p. 175-177.

Cloudy White Urine Back Pain

ADRIAAAAANE!

admit that small shadow silhouette lying down on a

photos made me dream.

Where To Buy Potpourri Supplies Toronto

OF MUSIC EDUCATION AS EDUCATION EXCELLENCE

It is clear from this that the music has the power to give the soul of a certain character, and if it has this power it is clear that we must steer young people towards it and educate them.

Aristotle Policies , VIII, 5 1340A 24

is the fault of Rousseau!

A persistent prejudice that has existed for a long time is that art and science are radically opposed, arts exclusively by appeal to emotion, while science is the model of objective knowledge and neutrals. As a liberal state, the school is required to teach that knowledge, the arts no longer do them. It's the same for religious education, religion being based on beliefs, the school is not the appropriate place for teaching beliefs, whatever they are.

Education marries a liberal epistemology "foundationalist" seriously flawed. By adopting a more adequate epistemology, the reliability based , prejudice of a radical distinction between on the one hand, knowledge, belief and emotion, on the other hand, jumps and, hence, our whole conception of liberal education that it is upside down. Music education is rehabilitated because it has an emotional dimension that no one disputes, but also a cognitive component too often neglected and overlooked.

The problem is that it must be called the "dogma" there is wanting a radical break between emotion and cognition. We often hear such as music is emotion or expression of emotions. Listen, for example, the testimony of Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt in his most recent trial When I think that Beethoven died when so many idiots live ... (Albin Michel, 2010)

Music is so much more than music ... musicians n'insufflent not just notes, chords, rhythms and timbres in us, they inform us dynamics, temperament, vision. Penetrating to the depths of intimacy in our soul that vibrates like a piano hammers hitting the strings, the songs and activate our feelings collide. They comfort, they shake, they relieve, they consolidate the joy, anger, impatience; they terrify, soothe, revive. Nothing touches us more deeply or faster than the music. (p. 32-33)

In this kind of testimony, the music "and activate our feelings collide." This is the design sentimentalist music that is current today and which, as I said, take all the appearance of a dogma.

sentimentalist This conception of the music comes largely from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in the first place. Musician and philosopher Rousseau said that " The melody, imitating the inflections of voice, expresses complaints, cries of pain or joy, threats, whining, all the vocal signs of the passions within its jurisdiction. The author of the Devin du Village well as Essay on the Origin of Languages defends the thesis that languages were invented not to express thoughts, but mostly feelings, so that "real" music can only be voice since it comes directly from the song which expresses human feelings. As written by Catherine Kintzler, the real music, "natural" According to Rousseau, is that " which goes to the heart, which arouses emotions and not merely to please, touches and stirs the human soul ..." (Preface to Writings on music by Jean-Jacques Rousseau Stock / Music, 1979, p. xx). Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt tells us nothing that we know already from Rousseau.

Catherine Kintzler also observes that sentimentalism (or sentimental) of Rousseau is based on the nature of man , its sensitivity in particular, while his rival, Jean-Philippe Rameau ( 1683-1764), Rousseau's fable cons of classical music, is another appeal to nature, but the nature of things . Rameau is what might be called "realism" in philosophy of art. He argues that musical harmony trafficking laws obeyed by the sound phenomena. Next musical realism which was also defended later by Austrian Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904), the musical reality exists independently of us, our sensitivity in particular, in contrast to Rousseau, for whom the only reality is that produced by musical our sensitivity.

With Rameau and Rousseau we would face the following dilemma: either the music exists outside us, or it exists only in us. This dilemma lies in the other: the music has nothing to do with emotions, or it is emotion. This, it will be understood, a false dilemma, because music has both the emotions and thoughts. Anyway, the design sentimentalist Rousseau has prevailed and still prevails today. It goes along with what Catherine Kintzler calls the "democratization" of music that wanting

The music addresses at all. In other words, when listening to music, I hear myself and it directly from the ear to the heart. It is clear that this kind of democratization have caused first and foremost a way of listening to music as a universal language of the heart. We are still somewhat mired in the sentimental play, and it is the fault of Rousseau ... (Preface, p. xxii-xxiii)

course design sentimentalist determines our conception of education music. As we have seen, it will be suspect in the eyes of the school liberal, since it deals with emotions, not knowledge. Indeed, emotions are personal "in nature" (at least according to Rousseau), musical tastes are for everyone, so that the school does not have to impose liberal tastes and, therefore, it is not constrained to the teaching of music.

The as-if intentionality

music, understood as a succession of sounds obeying the laws of harmony (Rameau), did nothing intentional itself. In this, Rousseau was right against Rameau. But Rousseau was wrong by emptying the emotions of the thoughts they contain. Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt who, like us all, the argument implicitly wife sentimentalist Rousseau, managed by some unknown feat to achieve, based on pure emotion that he would contact the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven, the following thoughts. First, "an essential point, he writes: [Beethoven] taught me the power of thought." He continues:

When listening the Fifth Symphony, for example, I discovered that this intelligence can be extracted from a simple theme - the famous pom pom pom pom. A theme? A pattern rather because it is an embryo of theme, a theme that fails to rise to the melody, a rhythmic banality, a sentence that never considered Bach or Mozart. Yet Beethoven is happy with it, seizes it, holds it, relaxes, expands, again, the range, the kneading of a hundred different ways. This poor apostrophe - a brute knocks on the door - it draws a movement rich symphonic drama, scandal, waiting, silence, smash. It is observed taking action, we see his soul live circulate between the notes, change the modulation of feelings, inflate the band of contrasts. Beethoven stands there, surrounded by his music, compelling, volcanic constantly present. (p. 22-23)

many things he learned from simple sounds!, We would like to retort to Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt. The famous opening motif of the Fifth in itself is a sequence of sounds. Beethoven could hear clearly not limited to this, he used these sounds intentionally to say or communicate a thought, a thought sublime, which by itself is an emotion. In short, an emotion- thought we would say. This is what Schmitt tries to decipher so many others. In the example of early film by Stanley Kubrick, 2001; the Space Odyssey, where the ape-men trying to decipher the meaning of the black monolith, we try to decipher what Beethoven was behind (or before) the first notes of his Fifth . Fate knocks at the door , it has been suggested. Maybe. Anyway, the emotion-thought provided by the symphony is sublime, transcendent, extraordinary, etc.. This thought-emotion subjugates us, delighted us, transports us, etc.. Eric Emmanuel Schmitt for the emotion-thought Beethoven taught him " the power of thought . What does this mean? This is not just an emotion or a pure thought, but both at once, an emotion-thought ; best, thought-emotion . In sum, there is no thought without emotion or thought without emotion. Both are inextricably linked. The design sentimentalist Rousseau makes the mistake of forgetting, as well as classical realism Rameau.

As if fate knocking at the door. All we can say is, in reality, it will never as a metaphor . The music actually runs on a series of metaphors to fuel the as-if intentionality . The art of musical interpretation is that as-if intentionality . All the commentary resolves Schmitt so. Reread it by prefixing an as-if generic "[as if] [Beethoven] is taking action, [as if] seen his soul live circulate between the notes, change the modulation of feelings , inflate the band of contrasts. [as if] Beethoven stands there, surrounded by his music, compelling, volcanic constantly present. "Taken literally, the same comment is wrong from A to Z. It becomes a profound truths when the prefix as-if . We must learn to listen to music through this process of as-if intentionality that manipulates with the great art masters.

education to as-if intentionality

education in music can not therefore consist in education intentionality as- if . Indeed, the music student must learn to decode these types of intentional second degree. It must become an expert. The as-if intentionality being rich teaching, he will understand the principle of musical works. Faced with a work, it will make assumptions and confront. It may be mistaken, misunderstand, or wander. The musician is first and foremost a descrambler (the composer of an encoder as-if ) . It seeks to understand a musical work by proposing a "reading as-if" balanced, coherent and measured.

This is also true for painting. Take the famous Mona Lisa of Leonardo Da Vinci. It does not say the painting of Da Vinci she smiled . Obviously, the canvas is not smiling! Indeed, the table does not him-even this uniquely human characteristic. Conversely, the web has certain colors and certain features labeled brush. However, it's as if the lines of the drawing made by the brush of the master smiled. As if smile emerges lines, colors, etc.. It does not however be confused with the canvas. As if Lisa Maria Gherardini aka Mona Lisa smile briefly sketched. That smile is fleeting. However, a painting or a picture can represent time, duration. It metaphorically we can only say that the Mona Lisa represents the passing of time with a smile ripped from the ephemeral present. Table speaks as if time stopped . We understand the value of the painting, its meaning , since we are able 'as-if intentionality . Understand a work of art is to be able to understand it in the mode of intentionality as-if. Now who said provision, said practice, practice, success and error. Here we join the music education and the ethics of excellence.

Music education as education excellence

The epistemological thesis reliability, combined with the ethics of excellence, will now allow us to justify music education in schools.

The reliability based posits that our beliefs are true insofar as they meet a normal, correct, their acquisition. The whole issue is what constitutes the "normal process of acquisition or fair." The answer is that given by the ethics of excellence beliefs guarantees (reliable) are those who are intellectually virtuous or excellent, that is to say where the holder of the belief - the "believer" - was available to do the right thing, as it should, when appropriate and where appropriate, and why it should, etc.. lies in the provision to as-if .

We have previously shown that education Music is in the provision as-if intentionality . The excellence of the musician is therefore in its ability to correctly understand a musical work (or to cope adequately in terms of thoughts, emotions).

I can feel fear, joy, sadness, etc.. But I may be wrong in this respect. Frightened at the sight of a newborn, this emotion is inappropriate or disproportionate because, generally, a baby is never something terrible, unlike a bear or a tiger.

Music education is therefore crucial in the acquisition of excellence and, therefore, appropriate provisions emotional. I hear the first movement of the Fifth Symphony Beethoven, and I feel nothing. No thought-emotion I can not think. I was known as the composer's life, his deafness, his perpetual struggle against the isolation of his intense need for love, etc.. There, I can understand what is at stake in the musical work . It is as if Beethoven excellence while teaching me the courage, generosity, of perseverance, hope, etc.. In short, the music of Beethoven everything as if it teaches me excellence. The strength of thought , as said Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt is the strength of character to student excellence. Thinking , such as creating, is demanding, in fact, well thinking is demanding. "That's why , writes Aristotle, evil is easy and difficult: easy to miss the target, but difficult to achieve. "Over the composer seeks to communicate the difficulty and overcome this, more work is beautiful and the composer works of excellence. "To propose Beau is therefore quite virtue," writes Aristotle.

was very wrong to exclude music education programs, for education in music education is in fact the thought-emotion to the measure, emotional balance, in a word : excellence. To escape the shackles of liberal education, adopt a different epistemology, that of reliability based on excellence.