Isn’t it considered a Logical Fallacy that atheist Believe that they don’t use Straw Man Arguments, Confirmation Bias and Correlation without Causation when debating about Theism. Logic and Reasoning should rear its head and stop them short but they continue to spew the same Dogma and have unwavering Faith that God does not exist, although they do not Know with any Certainty that He does not exist. They know that there is no Scientific Method that can produce Empirical data, for or against the Assumption, because Science does not seek to explain things other than the Material world. Yet Atheist assumes their position to be Fact and anyone on the other side of the equation is simply Ignorant. The Big Bang Theory, The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution Theory are used as the basis of not believing in God, yet neither of these theories seeks to explain how Life came into Existence, only how life evolved after it came into Existence.
They Postulate that these theories Prove that God does not Exist and they seem to not understand that the very thing that they claim to be lords over, Logic and Reasoning, should catapult them backwards to being Agnostic, and saying “I Simply Don’t Know”. Instead of God does not Exist, the statement should be “I Believe That God Does Not Exist!”
And herein lies the lunacy; I (an atheist) needs Proof of Existence by using tools that do not seek, let alone claim to be able to Prove my position as true or false! But I want you (the theist) to Prove to me that your position is correct by using a method that I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt can not Prove what I ask of you! The Burden of Proof lies with the one making the claim of Existence, is what is said. This is how they shift burden from themselves and their position so that they can continue on without every truly explaining why they do not Believe.
After seeing so many post over the past week or so concerning Black women and “good hair” and beauty, I decide to post this from The Pawn Queen.
A chapter from The Pawn Queen
This thought pattern was the direct result of the first interracial children being born to the raped slave woman during slavery. During slavery the interracial children that the slave master or his wife allowed to live were considered to be better looking than the children of two slave parents. The slave master would sometimes even allow the child to have better clothing, food, and an education. These were things expressly denied to the other dark skinned “bad hair” kids of the slaves.
As the interracial slave child grew older, as any child would have, she would recognize the difference in treatment as did the other slave children. The child of two slave parents would then be ridiculed and called names by the interracial kids because they would here these names being used by the master toward the full African slaves and their children but they would hardly ever if ever be hurled toward them. So in their psyche they deduced that the way they looked was good and the way the other slave looked was ugly. And we all know how real children can be.
“This is the same attitude that they were taught by their mothers and their mothers were taught by their mothers and so on. So as you can see if the wrong reasoning was adopted during slavery and it was passed on to their children who then passed it on to their children, you can see how we end up where we are today.”
This became a major problem in the female slave child because women are constantly in need of affirmation of their beauty by those who they love or those who love them. It’s an archetypal thought that has developed throughout the ages as the most attractive women were the ones that the men of early tribes wanted as mates. Women have always been chosen as opposed to doing the choosing. So as this developed over time a female child would inherently have these same thoughts growing up. Then the father of said child would reinforce this thought by constantly telling her she is beautiful so as she gets older this is what she will come to expect from a man. The father did this so that she would have self worth and confidence in herself and her beauty. Without a father or father figure in her life a woman will search for a male that gives her confidence and assure her of her beauty.
Disclaimer: I don’t like Chick-Fil-A anyway!
I’ve seen so many people over the past week or so claim they won’t eat at the restaurant simply because the founder does not approve of gay marriage. It’s a noble gesture but what are you actually accomplishing. Will your boycott help gay marriage? Nope!
It will hurt the pockets of the owner of the franchise, but before it does that, it’s going to destroy the franchisee. The person that spent their last dime to open up a business that they thought was going to be able to help their family and community for generations to come.
I feel you on the moral side of the equation, why would I continue to support a corporation that spends money to attack LGBT rights, I get it. But what about all the corporations that spend millions to support gender inequality; or those that are against women’s birth rights, those that are against healthcare reform, etc.