There are two types of atheists, one variety is sure enough if their own faith position that they can be generous to those who believe in a deity. Sadly the author of this piece is not that kind of atheist. Instead he is what I call the mean-spirited atheist who bends over backwards to spread his own view of the universe by mocking and deriding everyone who has a deity at the centre of their moral landscape.

I personally do not accept the existence of any supernatural deities and I find that belief in such things to be entirely illogical but I also appreciate that many who do believe otherwise have a great deal to contribute to the betterment of our society.

The author's faith in clear thinking and evidence is encouraging. Such a pity it was not employed in production of the essay.

The current religion du jour for the left is AGW. That religion shows no flexibility, transparency and is prepared to sacrifice the prosperity of the world on its alter.

Abbott by all accounts is a man of faith; as long as he supports democratic principles and individual rights not to share his belief he is well ahead of the current wretched government and the disciples of AGW.

LOL, the last line is the most revealing, most atheists are so devoted to their faith that they can't see that they believe in all the same things that the religious folk do. John Turner's critique of Mr Abbott's faith is akin to a Muslim taking a Christian to task over whose church is the most charitable or the more just.
Sorry John, I simply find it amusing that you call yourself a scientist then espouse a belief in the "common good" and "social justice", you're not a "scientist", you're just a technically literate Christian like Christopher Wren using his advanced scientific knowledge to build a cathedral.

In contemporary Australia, by far the most prevalent creationist belief system is the idea that in the State we have found a being that creates social benefits out of nothing but invasions of personal and property rights.

It is a belief that shares all the characteristics of blind faith and unclear thinking in traditional Christianity. The State is conceived of as a being over and above society, aiming at its own ends, possessed of moral superiority, as well as superior knowledge and capacity.

There is nothing this wonderful invention can't do: it cures the sick, it makes the rivers to flow; to adjust the weather we have only to invoke its coercive procedures. It knows what the distribution and abundance of all species should be. It makes real wealth - roads, hospitals, bridges - out of thin air by printing pieces of paper stamped with its own special mark. When it attacks countries on the other side of the world who have never attacked, nor offered to attack us, that is "serving the country".

It knows what everyone’s values are and should be, and of course it knows what's better for people, than people. For how else are its interventions to be justified, coercively overriding the people’s demonstrated voluntary consensual preferences?

Yet when we ask what is the source of the knowledge of this great guardian of the people from their own ignorance and corruption, the answer comes back - the people!

When we ask, if the statist assumptions are true, why unlimited State power and full socialism wouldn't be both morally and pragmatically better; they instantly contradict their own basal assumptions. Yet they still cling to them: they’re never able to state any rational principle by which state power should be limited.

It is this blind faith, on both sides of politics but especially the left, that the author ignores, which is far more intolerant, more powerful, more aggressive and more destructive than contemporary Christianity. It is the State religion that has replaced Christianity: the State as God, which Turner seems implicitly to embrace in this sneering supercilious article.

another athiest sprouting opinions with absolutes but unable to see is own hyprocrsiy for doing so.