Says Allen, "If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse".
The same Woody Allen who was sleeping with his girlfriend’s daughter, got caught with nude photos of her and ultimately was chucked by the girlfriend and took up with the daughter. The same Woody Allen who, in a trial to defend his reputation in a different matter, fought to keep both the girlfriend and the daughter, now his wife, off the stand in order to prevent “his reputation from being smeared”. As if the whole universe doesn’t know about Woody Allen and his type of morality.
Maybe moderns don’t know much about history, even that of the idiots who they quote. Or maybe they don’t care, so long as their ideologies are the same.
Either way, seeing them use Woody Allen to judge God is a real knee slapper.
16 comments:
Uh.......
My first response to that image was, "Is that real?"
Merely a lack of belief?
I'm curious, too. I want to know what's God's excuse for Woody Allen?
The problem is that most atheists seem to be blind to such inconsistencies. So long as something appears to support their worldview they will stand behind it unquestionably. They behave in the exact same way as those they criticize yet they have the nerve to refer to those people outside their echo chamber as sheepple.
Paul, I certainly agree with that. Much Atheist behavior is Consequentialist, and is unconsciously so. Avoidance of contradictions plays no part in their method of thinking; they can change their process without notice and never miss a beat, much less acknowledge the contradictions produced.
It stems from having no absolutes and no truth. Without those, the only value is their own survival and that of their ideology, regardless of its irrationality.
Thanks Stan, you describe it much better than I could :)
"they are serious in their campaign to be obnoxious."
An atheist group put an advert on a bus to advertising a convention. In your opinion, what is the most obnoxious part of this?
that bastion of morality, Woody Allen.
The sign never claims that this atheist group considers Allen a bastion of morality.
Paul,
As observed so many times:
Closed-minded souls finally tend to mediocrity and very active alter-egos, despite some having high intelligence, as a very good capability of assimilating and/or solving problems from different perspectives.
That's the problem: perspective. Not a lack of culture or singular kinds of intelligence. Materialism alone is just too limited, just mere blindness.
I'll just give an admittedly biased argument:
Just look at this excerpt.
Explanations about the very basics of this source of knowledge are pretty well summarized (note this is NOT New Age.).
There is no way a non-material entity of nature should be directly answered with an "Only Material" induction method. Not only is a Category Error, but inductively falacious. From the few things I know which are similar conclusions to that excerpt, I think that monism from a materialist perspective suffers of serious limitations.
From a honest pluralist point of view, no good spiritual teaching is undermined from one another once it is understood by experience.
What most atheists old and new alike (specially the new ones), if not all, have done is to attack the 18th century's concept of deism. The philosophical materialism and metaphysical naturalism's applied definitions do not even address the concepts of theism at all, so circular reasoning and inductive fallacies are guaranteed. The best they can do is to say they can't prove theism under their standard ideological stance, neither can they prove their atheism under those very same worldviews.
And Everyone:
This bus campaign thing just remains as a weird but funny crusade. Long live the holy sacred godlessness. Gotta love those blue-blooded atheists :)
Kind Regards.
Nats,
The ads are a direct moral judgment being made by Atheists who have no standard Atheist morality or standard by which to make such a judgment; so they are non-coherent (suitable for ridicule).
The ads are blatantly intended as an attack on the belief system of others, not a promotion of any positive Atheist belief. Atheists don't believe in God; so their judgment is actually purely on those who do believe. The double meaning is inescapable and obnoxious, and is quite obviously intended as such. I'm sure that Atheists think it to be snortingly hysterically funny.
When Woody Allen's moral judgment is used in that attack, it elevates Allen to a position of moral authority to make such a judgement. Woody Allen is in no position to pass moral judgment on anyone else.
If Atheists have something positive to contribute, they have not done so, so far, in the bus ad and billboard campaign. They have nothing of their own, in they way of purely Atheist philosophy, so they must rip and tear at what they wish to destroy.
Atheism is a void, and it has no characteristics other than its rejection of diety and hatred of the other. Because it is purely negative, ("there is NO diety"), there is only the void and the need to protect the void.
The void of Atheism does free up the mind to wander into areas of self-annointed moral superiority, based merely on self-created moral standards ("I thunk it up myself"). But those are consequences of Atheism, not Atheism itself.
That is why no Atheist has any moral authority. No human does.
"Atheism is a void, and it has no characteristics other than its rejection of diety and hatred of the other."
Rejection of deities, yes
Hatred of the other, no
Stan, you are projecting your own hatred of a group of people.
It is interesting that you chose this article to comment on, rather than the article which I posted earlier today showing the despicable characterizations and reprehensible representations of the Other made just recently by Atheist guru, Richard Dawkins.
Perhaps you might wish to justify those characterizations of the Other?
Or perhaps you would rather wait until the Reason Rally has run its course, and its characterizations of the Other can be taken into account as well?
I do admit that a universal characterization of Atheists is not truly possible; only general characterization based on the behaviors of those who present a public face and seem to want to represent the whole: Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Myers for starters, all of whom spew hatred, and who collect cadres of followers of the same mind.
The Tu Quoque attempt fails, because the characterization is accurate, and is based on observable reality, not my own hatreds or emotions of any sort. In other words, it is evidence based.
Stan, I did not read your other post, just got here, but your blog seems fascinating, in a strange way, perhaps I should read more then.
In any case, why should I care about what other Atheists like Dawkins say?
Let me put it that way: I'll assume that you are a non-Muslim. If another non-Muslim say something, should I lump you with that person?
Lumping non-religious people together is just as useful. Yet, that's what you did here.
Note that self-proclaimed Atheists who lump themselves with other Atheists are just as wrong...
In case you missed it, I admited that making a universal statement is not possible.
However, Atheism is no longer a closet ideology. Atheism now has a public face which is represented by those who claim to want to destroy religion and every aspect of religious effect on culture. Perhaps they have illegitimately co-opted your ideology, but co-opted it is.
If Atheism were just a lack of belief, there would be no need for Atheists to attack the Other. But Atheist groups now routinely attack using propaganda which is inflammatory, and continual law suits which are intended to bankrupt. Atheism as a movement has become predatory, intent on eliminating the Other. The grouping of Atheists has released their venom.
If you are not in agreement with that, fine; but it is known as the Atheist movement, and it is composed of organizations which are staffed with famous Atheists and which are aggressively seeking to rid the earth of the Other. Dawkins has mused about life after having destroyed Christianity; Hitchens wrote that religion poisons everything; PZ Myers curses the religious daily and laughs at the thought of their punishment and death. Like it or not, these are the representatives of Atheism, and they have attracted legions of Atheists to their ranks.
Surely you are aware of this...?
TheOther,
I should have invited you to make a defense of your belief system, using the tools of rationality: either deductive logic which is grounded in axioms which are incorrigible; or empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data.
Please feel free to make your case for Atheism.
Stan, so you have something against certain Atheist groups, not against Atheists as a whole?
That makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.
However, that's not the language you seem to be using throughout your blog... why?
As for my defense of Atheism, I am not sure what you mean. I don't believe in any gods that people told me about. What else can I tell you about it?
TheOther,
If that is the depth of your thinking, then so be it. Have a good life.
Stan,
Thanks, you too!
I am glad to see you have nothing to say about Atheism either!
Post a Comment