God dethroned, humanity is next

The ABC’s Q and A program last night gave a rare display of the logical outcome of secular humanism.

Having begun discussing the relative merits of saving whales verses chickens, the show ended, under the guidance of unethicist Peter Singer, considering that it might not be so bad for humans to have sexual relations with their pets.

While most people on the panel and in the audience couldn’t even engage with that outrageous final topic, it did show us where popular secular thinking is taking us.

Having dethroned God, the next logical step for secular atheism is to dethrone humanity. If there is no God to say that human life is sacred, made in His image, then people are just animals, right and wrong mean nothing and euthanising children and oral sex with dogs is acceptable.

If you don’t believe me, read the transcript. It happened on national television and while hugely offensive, was at least an honest viewing of the dismal trajectory of the thinking of Singer and the secularists.

If you have been flirting naively with some of their ideas, take a good look at the whole murky monster and flirt no more.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “God dethroned, humanity is next

  1. Sorry morsecOde or suddenly atheist, I thought we were having a discussion along lines of logic not mere rhetoric?
    Let’s step back from defensive posturing and think laterally. If there is in the universe no absolute decree as to what is good and what is evil, then how do we know what is moderate and what is extreme? And if we decide we know what is moderate, how do we avoid becoming extreme, over time, with no absolute to compare to… The Christian worldview (and also that of some other religions) says there is good and evil which can be known and understood, and while humans do this imperfectly, at least we have a framework, logically, to guide us. You, as an atheist, are clearly using this same framework but denying its reality.
    As for Hammurabi and Buddha, the differences between their ‘codes’ and anything Jesus said are as pronounced as any similarity. To serioulsy and historically believe they influenced Jesus in any direct way is, well, I’ll just let that one go through to the keeper, as we say in Australia.
    In any case, speaking from a worldview perspective, Christians are not surprised that we find good in the world. We don’t (or shouldn’t) claim to have the mortgage on goodness. We believe a good God made the world good and in particular made human kind (you and I) in his own image. This would mean that even among those that deny the existence of a good God, goodness will be found.
    Which brings us to the central claim of historical Christianity, where this God himself took on human flesh and satisfied his own standard of goodness as a human so that we all can share in it more fully. Because this good God is also personal (unlike anything found in Buddhism) we find that love and relationship with him is the key to a growing goodness in our own selves. And of course, I can use the word good freely because I have a worldview that accepts God has shown us what is good (even though we may follow it only weakly, or not at all), unlike yourself, who can only borrow goodness from somewhere else (logically speaking).
    At the heart of this whole discussion for me is not whether I’m right and you are wrong, it is how do we derive concepts like right and wrong that mean anything in a purely materialistic (chance and matter) world? Many thinkers over the centuries who have walked the path of atheism are left with little else but nihilism and despair, everything is absurd. My conviction is not to convince atheists that I am right, but to ask them to consider where their own beliefs lead. Is that where you really want to go? Of course the church and Christians do not often seem a great alternative and have been very good at evil as well. But at least my belief structure encompasses that – there is evil in the world (absence of God) and Christians, despite their own rhetoric, can practise this as thorougly as the next person. Which is why we also believe in justice and forgiveness, other concepts most fully modelled by Jesus but generously influencing the thought structure of many who deny him.
    Have a nice day.

  2. “How do we decide what is or isn’t ‘sensible, moderate opinion’ when God is removed?”

    Unless I’m mistaken, and I could be, ‘moderate’ generally falls within the two extremes.

    “The point of my post, again, is that the extreme views shown on the Q and A program are the logical extension of the sensible, moderate opinions you refer to”

    No, they really aren’t. They’re Peter Singer’s views. And he’s welcome to them as long as he isn’t harming anyone.

    “(laws based on Christian principles, the Christian concept of selfless love etc etc)”

    You mean those laws Christians took from earlier principles like the code of Hammurabi and the lessons of Buddha? Good Christian men, them…

    “I’m saying Christians have an absolute basis for good and evil”

    No, you really don’t. You have a might-makes-right basis for good and evil. Anyone who studies a religion based around human sacrifice can understand that.

  3. Dear SuddenlyAtheist, How do we decide what is or isn’t ‘sensible, moderate opinion’ when God is removed? Is it the majority view? We all know how well that works. Is it the middle-class, educated, western view? This dismisses the majority of people on the planet. The point of my post, again, is that the extreme views shown on the Q and A program are the logical extension of the sensible, moderate opinions you refer to. If God is dethroned, there is nothing to say that one view is better than another and it is only the remnants of our religious past (laws based on Christian principles, the Christian concept of selfless love etc etc) that allow sensible, moderate opinion to survive. I’m not saying all atheists are bad and all Christians are good. I’m saying Christians have an absolute basis for good and evil which holds them to account (sooner or later) but atheists logically do not and are left with only the vagueries of human opinion.

  4. The difference being that Peter Singer was featured on a main stream current affairs program, where as no one, least of all Christians, would want to give Fred Phelps a chance to air his views in such a forum. I find some of Singer’s views almost as extreme as Phelp’s but when you are a Christian idiot, you are universally, decried. When your are secularist idiot, everyone looks very reflective and mumbles into their hands in case they say something politically incorrect. Still, I take your point.

    1. Again, because someone is on a main stream program they automatically represent ‘popular secular thinking’? The way the modern media works, it’s incredibly more likely that they bring the more extreme people onto their shows. Sensible, moderate opinions don’t get ratings.

  5. “it did show us where popular secular thinking is taking us.”

    One man’s opinion is suddenly ‘popular secular thinking’?

    Let me go ask Fred Phelps about Christianity…

  6. Interesting Peter
    only caught a glimpse of Q&A not the last bit but obvious that the muddle of popular opinion is just a noise with no clarity or purpose

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s