Here We Go Again

A note from my 'HERE WE GO AGAIN' Department:

1. I have pointed out here not above a thousand times, I do not think that non-believers cannot have a morality. The 'Golden Rule' is, for instance, open to anyone (though it suffers from the problem that much of what we do, we do in secret and so it actually operates as 'Appear to do unto others what you would wish them to do unto you' . You can see the difficulty.

Yet I am resigned to the same nonsense being repeated over and over again(along with the claim that believers claim to  'know' that God exists, rather than believing this to be the case,  and are all strict Bible literalists, and is often coupled with the weird suggestion (is this stuff now taught in schools?)  that  religious belief is incompatible with 'science'.

The cruder atheists, pitifully uninformed about the nature of faith,  which they have never bothered to investigate, invariably make these charges against believers, usually going on to say that they themselves are 'just as good' as believers. I don't doubt it. Probably better, in the case of this believer. But this is yet another demonstration of their ceaseless missing of the whole  point of the argument, which is 'How do we decide what is absolutely, unalterably good ?'  If you don't believe in a deity, surely the matter is always negotiable. and open to a bit of self-interest. If an atheist says he is 'just as good', as a Christian, then he is actually saying 'I am just as good as you according to a set of standards whose whole basis I reject'.

To which my response is, thank you for making the effort, but why do you care, if you really believe what you say you believe? And if it's because you prefer to live in a society ordered by Christian belief, you're a free rider, happy to catch the train, but unwilling to pay the fare.

It's all tediously obvious. But the atheists never, ever get it. Since most of them are perfectly intelligent, this can only be explained by wilfulness, not by stupidity.

Which brings us, yet again, to the question of why they so much want there not to be a God, and cannot accept any doubt or dissent on the matter.

 

2. By the way, on a related issue, isn't it interesting that, even when I consciously steer away from the issue of homosexuality, for reasons I've explained elaborately in the past and can be found in the index, the heresy-hunters petulantly demand that I speak out on it, and draw unwarranted conclusions from my silence. They seek to make a window into my soul. They cannot accept silence. They must have submission. Nothing short of 'I Love Big Brother' will satisfy these would-be totalitarians.

 

It would be hard to find a better illustration of my point. This is that it is a minor issue, not remotely as important as the death of marriage and the mass-killing of unborn babies, the real battlegrounds of the sexual revolution. Yet it is ceaselessly elevated into undeserved magnitude by people who have little concern for the individuals involved, but seek to use the subject to trap naive and unworldly moral conservatives, whom they will then condemn as 'bigots'. They will do this anyway. But I have no desire to help them.