While it may have seemed to Sydney Atheists a profound promotional strategy to adopt the catchphrase "Good Without God" a few years ago it brought a silent chuckle to my heart - for I know the heart of man.
No doubt there were those Sydney Atheists subsequently delighted with the rise to the highest political position in Australia of a person declaring her preferred belief system or religion being Atheism. In Julia Gillard were the hopes of Atheists for a demonstration to the nation (and to the world) that Atheism offers the moral and intellectual capacity to guide the world to better times and lifestyle. "Good without God", this was to be the new way, the new philosophy, the new ethic.
Well, we have been patient but it is time to call the exercise a complete failure.
The unravelling was there to be seen in the process of Julia Gillard's elevation to the position of Prime Minister but most of us were inclined at the time to assign it all to the toughness of politics.
However, the most obvious sign of deficient morality was the betrayal of voters in saying only days out from the 2010 election "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and then announcing after the election that there will be a carbon tax introduced by her government.
Added to this was the post election cutting of a deal with Independent, Andrew Wilkie - essential for the formation of a minority government - that she would legislate for stringent poker machine reform. Earlier this year she walked away from the deal.
Then came the riot in Canberra on Australia Day which arose from a misconstruing of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's words on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy - and all of which had its roots in a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office to a Union official at the Tent Embassy. Subsequent intimation that more than one person in the Prime Minister's office was involved has met with 'stone-walling' by the Prime Minister and the four or more versions of events given by the Union official (the most palatable affirmed by the Prime Minister) but now undone by revelation of a recording of the actual words uttered by the Union official to the holder of the microphone at the Tent rally all smacks of deception and ill practice from within the Prime Minister's office.
The ABC's Four Corners television programme this week unveiled a woman repeatedly avoiding the question of her knowledge of preparations in her office in year 2010 for the axing of then Prime Minister Rudd and replacement by Julia Gillard. Add to that her "I don't recall" response yesterday to questions about her dissemination of private polling in the weeks prior to the axing - polling designed to show her suitability over Kevin Rudd to lead the Labor Party all compound the deception.
You can throw in her earlier denials, but since proven otherwise, of a key role in a Socialist group during and post university times and a lame attempt to explain away an errant message sent Tony Abbott when he was in government and Health Minister but which was intended for a colleague to declare her failure to grasp health issues.
Deception, cover-up and deception are the marks of the political life of Julia Gillard, Atheist.
"Good Without God"? The poster girl of Atheism in Australia has demonstrated something quite the contrary. She is no recommendation of Atheism.
Jesus Christ has made it quite clear: "No-one is good, but God." A person can only be seen as good in God's eyes, or should I say righteous in God's sight, if they put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is done only by one recognising that one is not righteous, repent of sin and earnestly ask Jesus Christ to be Lord of one's life.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Are you serious, this has got to be one of the most hilarious and naive posts I have read in a long time.
Julia Gillard is by no means a poster girl for Atheism, she is a politician that is also an atheist. Guess what, she is also a woman and you could just as easily replace the word "atheist" in your post for "woman" and you would be "proving" that women don't belong in office and are nothing but liars. Not a single point you made was uniquely characteristic of an atheist and you have just generalized all atheists.
Imagine if I said: "Good with god?" Well look at all these priests raping and torturing young children, these poster boys for faith, Hah! See what I did there? Well you just did that with ONE individual. ALL POLITICIANS LIE, even the religious ones, it's part of politics and has nothing to do with faith.
The fact that you try an pin it on her atheism is laughable, ignorant and simply shows desperation. You may as well blame it on her being a red head. There is absolutely no substance in your argument and I ask you to reread it and rethink it so that you may see where you went wrong.
You probably don't know many atheists since you stick to your own little bubble of Christians, but I know many of both and most atheists I know are good and moral people, usually more so than those professing to be religious. Keep in mind that 3/4 of the top philanthropists in the world are atheists, helping make this world a better place. It takes one look at the pope and the Vatican to know where the Christian donations are going.
Shock and horror! A politician who didn’t keep all her promises and perhaps made back room deals! And she might even have misled us one time saying "I don't recall". Surely anyone who has done those things cannot be "good".
It must be her atheism, because Christian politician don't do that. Christian politicians get elected with the slogan "we are not good" and keep all their election promises because the Bible instructs to tell the truth.
Gillard aside, I haven't yet seen any atheist give a robust defence of what even the 'good' is, let alone that 'good', whatever that is, being able to stand on its own two feet without support from God's necessary existence. For example, take G.E. Moore's lifelong pursuit for this project. He threw God out, and in the end he thought morality existed for the sake of the Good, which he defined as Beauty, which meant nothing more than a few paintings and a bit of poetry. And then look how the Bloomsbury Set put their spin on his work: buggery, adultery, cheating, lying, prigishness..all in the name of "freedom" from conventional morality i.e. heterosexuality, faithfulness, honour, honesty etc.
The point is, without God, whether you are "good" (however you wish to rephrase your parasiting off the Christian worldview) or not, there is no difference between the two. All morality in evolution is bound to, defined by and reduced to maximising fitness, which is nothing more than spreading your genes as far as and as long as is possible.
What I have said I have said and I draw attention to the last paragraph of my blog.
That's where the light shines.
Sam Drucker
That's right John! Without Bible we wouldn't know that genocide and child sacrifice can be a good thing. Only Christians know that "good" is relative to God's command and this relativity is call absolute good. We are so lucky to know that God's absolute moral command to kill gays and witches. This absolute command should be followed (unless we don't follow it). We are so lucky to have biblical moral code.
Sam, thanks for not following 1 Peter 3:15. That commandment is now a bit old so let’s just forget about it.
But I did, Peter. The last paragraph of the blog contains the antidote for your condition.
Sam Drucker
Peace, Sam. Don't you see what is going on here. It is not the fact that Julia Gillard is an atheist, which is the root of the problem, but the fact that she is not from Sydney. I think Sydney Atheists and Sydney Anglicans can stand united on this. I mean, have you ever met a nice Melbournian? Ok, I have. But that's not the point.
The point is that we can find something that unites US and that divides us from THEM. Like our superior beaches. Yes, admitted, religion is very good at dividing, but it is not the only thing that can thoroughly divide a people.
Alter Ans, peace brother(?) sister(?)
I am always happy to be at peace.
The subject you raise about the features of the two cities doesn't need mentioning. It's just regarded as a given.
Sam Drucker
Peter,
I wrote, “I haven't yet seen any atheist give a robust defence of what even the 'good' is”. Your response was a banal, but hollow, criticism of God, staking out a self-deluded moral high-ground without saying exactly what that moral absolute was and from where it arose.
Proves my point: an atheist is incapable of defending their own position, opting instead for intellectual cowardice. That is, they feebly draw attention away from their epistemic responsibility (i.e. being philosophically honest) by throwing self-righteous pebbles at their opponents' arguments rather than ever laying out their case.
John, I am not sure what you expect. You are in a comment section of a blog, and then even in a comment section of a blog post that misunderstood a simple slogan "good without out god", to mean that "all people without god are good" - which it doesn't - just to score some lame political points. This is not a place for considerate debate. The post itself is obviously just meant to belittle others, don't expect more from the comments.
On the topic of divine morals: go check Euthyphro's dilemma. It was formulated in BC, and still nobody has been able to solve it since. You use the word "interlectual", and "philosophical honesty", but honestly, anyone with some philosophical interest should know that much.
What Peter probably wanted to say is that theist morals are anything but absolute. Which is a good thing, actually. Otherwise, DOCS would have to stop droves of religious parents from killing their kids or selling their daughters. It still happens too often that some misguided parent e.g. starves their kid to death because they are certain god wants them too, but usually people know when to consult a shrink. Non-religious morality, from either westerner or eastern philosophical traditions have been much more consistent and unchanging over time.
alter ans, where is the peace, the unity? Hold the line. Don't falter. You can do it!
I'm still here on 'cloud nine' brother (sister?)
Sam Drucker
You are right Sam. Have you ever been to the beach in St Kilda? Ok, they have penguins, but give me Bronte any time. Cheers.
That's right John. Atheists are "cowards" not fulfilling their "epistemic responsibility". Atheist philosophers have never been able to answer your questions and are now converting to Christianity in masses because they can't ground their "good". Luckily Christians do have the bases for their absolute morality. When God tells us to kill our kids or commit genocides, then that is the absolutely right moral thing to do. Hurrah, we have the grounding to justified genocide. I better go now. I need to swing by the gun shop and get ready just in case God talks to me tonight.
Ah, yes. Bronte was my beach of choice as a boy. Even sliding down the steep slope behind the picnic area on cardboard was a treat.
The railway picnic day was often held there and my family were participants. The beach itself was a little tricky but no safety issues experienced by our family.
Sam Drucker
Peter,
So atheists have been able to provide a reasonable, non-question-begging reason why it is good to be good? Mere assertion. Haven't seen one yet. Maybe you could be the first honest atheist to briefly explain...but I won't hold my breath.
The usual atheist account is that morality increases fitness. Great! And you want to throw pebbles at God for ordering the Jews to wipe out murderous, raping, dangerous, slimy...neighbours.
That's right John. Atheists can't answer the "reason why it is good to be good". They have no idea why it is better not to kill someone or why not to seal someone else’s property. Atheists don't know the reason why helping someone and gaining social credit and trust is a good idea. It is just a puzzle. Luckily Christians have the answer to this. Killing gays is good because Yahweh says so!
BTW, I got the gun and Yahweh appeared to me in a dream. Surprisingly he said put the sword away but asked me tell you guys at Sydneyanglicanheretics to close this web site. So could you please do Yahweh a favour and close this blog. It is the God's will after all. Just to let you know he also said Peter Jensen's theology is right except that anti-gay thingy. Sorry about you guys being wrong…
Peter, it seems to me that your dream has less substantiation for others (eg us) to accept as your contention concerning the validity of personal testimonies. Strange that you should ask us to act on the content of your dream given the rule you apply elsewhere.
Just a thought.
Sam Drucker
Peter,
You're a dishonest, evasive fool.
John, you are truly made in the image of God as you use the same "fool" ad hominem as your God. Psalm 53 tells us that God Yahweh uses similar language just like God Elohim in Psalm 14. Or is it the other way around? I just can't remember which God was in which Psalm.
Sam, why don't you want to obey the word of God as it was revealed to us? You'll pay for it.
Peter, what word from God do you mean?
Sam Drucker
Peter,
If you are incapable of such a simple act as explaining and defending your position, go away.
You're a fool because life is short according to atheist belief and yet you spend time here wasting your ever-decreasing time you have left to live. Now that's really dumb.
Sam,
It is Yahweh's will for you to close this web site. He told me that. So get on with it and close this blog!
John,
You are right again. Christians should spend time writing nonsense and lies about atheists on blogs like this, and atheists should not challenge that rubbish. And sure, it is just dumb and waste of time for atheists to defend themselves while privileged Christians bad mouth non-believers. Go Team Yahweh!
Like I said you stumped me with impossible questions "reason why it is good to be good". I should go away because atheists have no idea why it is better not to kill someone or why not to seal someone else’s property. Your questions are so difficult!
Peter,
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine your above little incursions into philosophy land were actually an attempt to obtain a place in a Philosophy undergraduate first year class. Now imagine I have to assess whether you're actually capable or not of demonstrating a glimmer of what it takes to undertake such a demanding discipline. I read through your attempts to explain your position and decide not to reread it to see if I've overlooked something the first time because I clearly see I haven't.
My decision? Change to accountancy. At least there I'll never have to squirm over your quite poor powers of reasoning and lack of understanding concerning rather complex issues, such a meta-ethical philosophy.
Don't be upset: there are a large number of quite competent accountants out there who earn some quite good money.
John, your thought experiment is great. Only people who already know philosophy should be allowed to study philosophy. You truly deserve to be the person assessing who gets to study philosophy. You extensive understanding of atheistic views lands you this important position. People like me are clearly not worthy even to study this divine subject. Thanks for your assessment.
BTW I don't know much about accounting. So you great thinker, should I be let in to study accounting if I don't know much accounting?
Peter,
I'll let you have the last word.
Peter, you said:
It is Yahweh's will for you to close this web site. He told me that. So get on with it and close this blog!
So that is what you mean. I must say I am surprised.
Why would it be that God, who I believe in and talk to multiple times each day, would go to you who does not believe in Him and who apparently has no interest in talking to Him, to tell you to tell me to close this blogspot down?
Ample opportunity has existed so far for God to speak to me direct. Indeed, I have asked Him a couple of times whether I should depart this blogspot. So far, He has declined to say to do that. I believe he has asked me to tone down my comments a little and I have done that.
Try to be rational. It's supposed to go with Atheism.
All that said, your proposition poses some questions. Being an Atheist you would have to set down a test by which you would affirm the existence of God. The being who spoke to you - what test did that being pass for you to know it was God?
Sam Drucker
Sam, I was surprised too. So I decided to do the Gideon's wool test (Judges 6) to see if it is really Yahweh speaking to me. This morning the ground was wet, but the wool was dry! My partner also saw it so he is my eye witness. Yahweh truly wants you to close this blog. Devil must have misled you before. God wouldn’t want you to tone down, but to speak out and be brave, not to be the meek and mild, and lukewarm.
You asked how to test the existence of Yahweh, so I checked the Bible what to do. Judges 6:25-31 offers a viable test. So anyone could go to a local church to do property damage and see if Yahweh will "defend himself when someone breaks down his altar".
So now that you have eyewitness report (eyewitnesses are still alive) and multiple attestation of Yahweh speaking to me you really need to close this blog!
Peter, try to be rational. It is what any self respecting Atheist would aim at.
You claim to have applied a (Gideon like) test today to affirm that is in fact God telling you what to say to me but it was actually last week when you said God had spoken to you and you obviously accepted it was God back then.
If you are going to lie, get your timing right to give yourself a better though unlikely possibility of being believed.
Lying? - Good without God? hmm!
Sam Drucker
Sam, you must be confused. Atheists don't talk with Yahweh. And obviously you can do similar tests like Gideon did every day and night. God doesn't get tired.
Atheists generally think it could be ok to lie for a greater good. Only Yahweh believers know that providing false witness is always absolutely wrong. True believers would not lie even to prevent a holocaust because that would be utilitarian way and action would be relative to a situation. True believer would rebuke someone for lying to prevent a holocaust.
Peter, the only confusion that exists is in your mind when your irrationality and inconsistency is exposed and you try to dig your way out.
As others elsewhere have said "When you have dug a hole in which the way out is over your head ... stop digging!!"
Sam Drucker
Peter,
It's clear that you neither have an understanding of ethics nor a grasp of the Christian apologetics for that discipline.
I am unaware of any [knowledgeable] Christian who would argue that it is always wrong to lie, even if it is to save another's life. That Christians did that to save people's lives in WW2 shows that your arguments, once again, are not interested in facts but making sure your ideology is the last man standing, at any cost, including integrity.
Furthermore, as any good Jew knows, the commandments, all 613 of them, have levels of authority.
Speaking of good Jews, Jesus demonstrated my point when he pointed out to the legalists that rescuing a cow after it had fallen into a ditch was not working on the Sabbath, despite its strictly being so, because an animal's pain was more important than the principle.
But greater still was his love for the adulteress. (Being the great biblical scholar that you are you'll recall this incident??)
The point I've made before, which you weren't capable of answering, and which I'll make again, is that atheism has no epistemological basis for declaring any action moral/immoral because it has no basis for universal judgement. All it can say is that X is bad because we say it is or it brings less pleasure or it doesn't help fitness or we are in a majority and win the vote or...
Post a Comment