外国語学部生・・椿原慎二の語学力15

PART15版

はいはい、椿原。椿原。椿原慎二症候群はお引取りください★

ボコボコにしちゃるけんのう！

↑竹原慎二↓椿原慎二

ttp://promotion.yahoo.co.jp/charger/200802/contents02/theme02.php

いったい誰だよ、椿原慎二ってｗ

ってか、>>1は逮捕されねーのか！？
ニュースで、2chへの書込みが原因で逮捕されたって、
流れているのを何回か見たことあるんだが。

人の生命にかかわることでないと、逮捕は無理なのか！？

椿原だと、人権がないからなぁ。動物愛護法では取り締まれるかもしれない。

This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity.
The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.

A close examination of the validity of the proofs adduced to support any proposition
is the only secure way of attaining truth, on the advantages of which it is unnecessary
to descant: our knowledge of the existence, of a Deity is a subject of such importance
that it cannot be too minutely investigated; in consequence of this conviction
we proceed briefly and impartially to examine the proofs which have been adduced.
It is necessary first to consider the nature of belief.

When a proposition is offered to the mind, It perceives the agreement or disagreement
of the ideas of which it is composed. A perception of their agreement is termed belief.
Many obstacles frequently prevent this perception from being immediate; these the mind
attempts to remove in order that the perception may be distinct. The mind is active
in the investigation in order to perfect the state of perception of the relation which
the component ideas of the proposition bear to each, which is passive; the investigation
being confused with the perception has induced many falsely to imagine that the mind is
active in belief. -- that belief is an act of volition, -- in consequence of which
it may be regulated by the mind. Pursuing, continuing this mistake, they have attached
a degree of criminality to disbelief; of which, in its nature, it is incapable: it is equally incapable of merit.

Belief, then, is a passion, the strength of which, like every other passion,
is in precise proportion to the degrees of excitement.

The degrees of excitement are three.

The senses are the sources of all knowledge to the mind; consequently their evidence
claims the strongest assent.

The decision of the mind, founded upon our own experience, derived from these sources,
claims the next degree.

The experience of others, which addresses itself to the former one, occupies the lowest degree.

(A graduated scale, on which should be marked the capabilities of propositions to approach to the test
of the senses, would be a just barometer of the belief which ought to be attached to them.)

Consequently no testimony can be admitted which is contrary to reason; reason is founded
on the evidence of our senses.

Every proof may be referred to one of these three divisions: it is to be considered what arguments
we receive from each of them, which should convince us of the existence of a Deity.

1st, The evidence of the senses. If the Deity should appear to us, if he should convince
our senses of his existence, this revelation would necessarily command belief. Those to whom
the Deity has thus appeared have the strongest possible conviction of his existence.
But the God of Theologians is incapable of local visibility.

2d, Reason. It is urged that man knows that whatever is must either have had a beginning,
or have existed from all eternity, he also knows that whatever is not eternal must have had a cause.
When this reasoning is applied to the universe, it is necessary to prove that it was created:
until that is clearly demonstrated we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity.
We must prove design before we can infer a designer. The only idea which we can form of causation
is derivable from the constant conjunction of objects, and the consequent inference of one from the other.
In a base where two propositions are diametrically opposite, the mind believes that which is least
incomprehensible; -- it is easier to suppose that the universe has existed from all eternity than
to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it: if the mind sinks beneath the weight of one,
is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the burthen?

The other argument, which is founded on a Man's knowledge of his own existence, stands thus.
A man knows not only that he now is, but that once he was not; consequently there must have been
a cause. But our idea of causation is alone derivable from the constant conjunction of objects
and the consequent Inference of one from the other; and, reasoning experimentally,
we can only infer from effects caused adequate to those effects. But there certainly is
a generative power which is effected by certain instruments: we cannot prove that
it is inherent in these instruments" nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration:
we admit that the generative power is incomprehensible; but to suppose that the same effect
is produced by an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being leaves the cause in the same obscurity,
but renders it more incomprehensible.

3d, Testimony. It is required that testimony should not be contrary to reason. The testimony
that the Deity convinces the senses of men of his existence can only be admitted by us,
if our mind considers it less probable, that these men should have been deceived than
that the Deity should have appeared to them. Our reason can never admit the testimony of men,
who not only declare that they were eye-witnesses of miracles, but that the Deity was irrational;
for he commanded that he should be believed, he proposed the highest rewards for, faith,
eternal punishments for disbelief. We can only command voluntary actions;
belief is not an act of volition; the mind is ever passive, or involuntarily active;
from this it is evident that we have no sufficient testimony, or rather that
testimony is insufficient to prove the being of a God. It has been before shown
that it cannot be deduced from reason. They alone, then, who have been convinced
by the evidence of the senses can believe it.

Hence it is evident that, having no proofs from either of the three sources of conviction,
the mind cannot believe the existence of a creative God: it is also evident that,
as belief is a passion of the mind, no degree of criminality is attachable to disbelief;
and that they only are reprehensible who neglect to remove the false medium through which
their mind views any subject of discussion. Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that
there is no proof of the existence of a Deity.

God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.
Sir Isaac Newton says: Hypotheses non fingo, quicquid enim ex phaenomenis non deducitur hypothesis,
vocanda est, et hypothesis vel metaphysicae, vel physicae, vel qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanicae,
in philosophia locum non habent. To all proofs of the existence of a creative God apply this valuable rule.
We see a variety of bodies possessing a variety of powers: we merely know their effects; we are
in a estate of ignorance with respect to their essences and causes. These Newton calls the phenomena
of things; but the pride of philosophy is unwilling to admit its ignorance of their causes.
From the phenomena, which are the objects of our attempt to infer a cause, which we call God,
and gratuitously endow it with all negative and contradictory qualities. From this hypothesis
we invent this general name, to conceal our ignorance of causes and essences. The being called God
by no means answers with the conditions prescribed by Newton; it bears every mark of a veil woven
by philosophical conceit, to hide the ignorance of philosophers even from themselves. They borrow
the threads of its texture from the anthropomorphism of the vulgar. Words have been used by sophists
for the same purposes, from the occult qualities of the peripatetics to the effuvium of Boyle
and the crinities or nebulae of Herschel. God is represented as infinite, eternal, incomprehensible;
he is contained under every predicate in non that the logic of ignorance could fabricate.
Even his worshippers allow that it is impossible to form any idea of him: they exclaim with the French poet,

Pour dire ce qu'il est, il faut etre lui-meme.

Lord Bacon says that atheism leaves to man reason, philosophy, natural piety, laws, reputation,
and everything that can serve to conduct him to virtue; but superstition destroys all these,
and erects itself into a tyranny over the understandings of men: hence atheism never disturbs
the government, but renders man more clear- sighted, since he sees nothing beyond the boundaries
of the present life. -- Bacon's Moral Essays.

The [Beginning here, and to the paragraph ending with Systeme de la Nature," Shelley wrote in French.
A free translation has been substituted.] first theology of man made him first fear and adore
the elements themselves, the gross and material objects of nature; he next paid homage to the agents
controlling the elements, lower genies, heroes or men gifted with great qualities. By force of reflection
he sought to simplify things by submitting all nature to a single agent, spirit, or universal soul, which,
gave movement to nature and all its branches. Mounting from cause to cause, mortal man has ended
by seeing nothing; and it is in this obscurity that he has placed his God; it is in this darksome abyss
that his uneasy imagination has always labored to fabricate chimeras, which will continue to afflict him
until his knowledge of nature chases these phantoms which he has always so adored.

前科者は犯罪を繰り返すのだよ。
地域住民にも公開すべきだね。
悪い事すると名前を晒されますよって抑止にもなるだろ。
椿原慎二

【デブ】やせろよ！阪大生・椿原慎二！【メタボ】

世間の椿原慎二に関する調査結果
名前： マジレスさん
E-mail：
内容：
http://ranobe.com/up/src/up258025.png

↑結果がでますた

　 　 　 /　　　　　　　　　　 ヽ
　　 　 (　 ノ⌒〜⌒〜⌒ヽ､　)
　　　　ヽ/ 　　　＼, ,／　 　i ﾉ
　　　 　 |　--[<･>],[<･>]--|
　　　 　 |　､ 　 ,,,,(､_,),,, 　 ﾉ|
　　　　　ヽ　　　ﾄ=ﾆ=ｧ　　 /
　 　 　　　.＼ 　｀ﾆﾆ´　 ／.=.,_
　　 　_,.='";| ｀ ┻━┻'　 .l　 　"=ｭ;,,_
_,..= '"<　　:l　　＼__／　　:l　　　＜ : : :
　　　　　　　　椿原慎二（22）