Check out this 7 minute excerpt between Tavis Smiley and Cornell West. I find it absolutely hilarious and hypocritical when they claim that the 'conservatives' that are 'attacking' black liberation theology (which in itself is racist) are racist. What's even more funny is the fact that it's another black man that's attacking black liberation theology, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't matter the quality of the argument or who is presenting the argument. All that matters is the fact that SOMEONE, ANYONE, is making an argument in the first place. That's all it takes to be considered a racist! just making an argument! You've got objective facts that support your argument? TOO BAD! DOESN'T MATTER! YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY RACIST FOR MAKING THE ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE! and let's not forget how its ok for Obama to talk about poverty, but if Romney does it, then suddenly its like a 'musician that wants to make music but hates the notes.' It's no wonder that black people are in the sad state they're in these days when we have these two marxist idiots that supposed to be our 'intellectual leaders.'
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Atheism isn't a religion?
If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now.
This reinforces two points I've been making about atheists and atheism. First off, in order to be an atheist, one must engage in a certain form of special pleading. This form of special pleading, which I'll dub "atheist pleading" (the name is a placeholder) is when they arrive at a conclusion after applying what seems like sound "reasoning" or "logic," but if the same "reasoning" or "logic" were applied to a relevant analogy, the conclusion reached would be considered ridiculous, absurd and/or illogical. Vacula produced an amazing example of this when he said the following:
As you can see here, Vacula applied what seems like sound reasoning or logic. He claimed that shifting responsibility doesn't solve the problem because the 'ball is in Gods court.' The reasoning seems to be sound, until you take that same reasoning and logic and apply it to a relevant analogy, like a husband cheating on his wife. If you were to say the ball is in the victims court, and the wife has the responsibility to operate on the unfaithful husbands terms, your logic and reasoning would rightly be considered absurd.
The second point is simply the fact that atheists are attempting to become the thing they hate the most. Atheists hate religion, God, etc. etc. and yet it seems they're doing everything in their power to be completely similar to it. Instead of "man of faith" they say "man of science." They claim they can be moral and good people, just like, or even better than, religious people. They claim to have their "moral codes" just like religious people. They claim an "origin of life," just like religious people. Now, they're building temples....just like religious people.
Author Alain de Botton announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the U.K., reports DeZeen magazine.
A collaboration with Tom Greenall Architects, the structure will be built in the City of London.
Dedicated to the idea of perspective, the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years, notes Wired. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
This reinforces two points I've been making about atheists and atheism. First off, in order to be an atheist, one must engage in a certain form of special pleading. This form of special pleading, which I'll dub "atheist pleading" (the name is a placeholder) is when they arrive at a conclusion after applying what seems like sound "reasoning" or "logic," but if the same "reasoning" or "logic" were applied to a relevant analogy, the conclusion reached would be considered ridiculous, absurd and/or illogical. Vacula produced an amazing example of this when he said the following:
Shifting responsibility here doesn't solve the problem because the 'ball is in God's court.' The issue at hand is "Why doesn't God reveal himself," not "Why should it be up to God, humans should find God." Shifting responsibility might solve problems in other cases, for sure, but it's not going to here.
As you can see here, Vacula applied what seems like sound reasoning or logic. He claimed that shifting responsibility doesn't solve the problem because the 'ball is in Gods court.' The reasoning seems to be sound, until you take that same reasoning and logic and apply it to a relevant analogy, like a husband cheating on his wife. If you were to say the ball is in the victims court, and the wife has the responsibility to operate on the unfaithful husbands terms, your logic and reasoning would rightly be considered absurd.
The second point is simply the fact that atheists are attempting to become the thing they hate the most. Atheists hate religion, God, etc. etc. and yet it seems they're doing everything in their power to be completely similar to it. Instead of "man of faith" they say "man of science." They claim they can be moral and good people, just like, or even better than, religious people. They claim to have their "moral codes" just like religious people. They claim an "origin of life," just like religious people. Now, they're building temples....just like religious people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)