This article is a total fantasy.

The author has created straw man atheists, I could equally portray Christians as heretic massacring psychopaths, there are many examples.

"At its heart, atheism is a selfish, short-sighted worldview. Atheism drives people to live for themselves and live for today. In John Lennon's Imagine, Lennon imagines an atheistic world where people live without heaven and instead, 'live for today'"

The claim that Lennon's musings are a complete atheist worldview is total drivel as is the claim that atheists are egocentric and indifferent to the fate of the earth and future generations, in fact, pious Christians have been the ones plundering the earth for two millennia

Many Christians have retreated from the world in the belief in an eternal reward in Heaven and their "sacrifice" and "good works" were not for future generations, but for themselves.

It would be much easier to argue that religion’s obsession with the next world leads believers to conclude that this one doesn’t matter.

In fact, I recall Ronald Ragan’s Secretary for the Environment commenting along the lines that he didn’t care about environmental issues because he expected the rapture to occur at any time

atheism as an ideology is contradictory in terms and not logical.

atheism means.. there is NO God
as in, NO...proven....decided...absolutely NO.
it is not even an agnostic no...not sure no...i dont want to find out no.

can a 4 dimensional man fully know or fathom the infinite God?
let us make it easier
can a man on earth now make an emphatic claim that there is no naturally occuring black stone with exactly 42 white spots arranged 7 perfect davidic stars on it, somewhere in the universe?

such is the arrogance and hypocrisy of unbelief

I think he is trying to say that you have to be able to believe in a great big sky fairy to believe in climate change, and that Christians are quite happy to sacrifice others to meet their fantasy objectives.

What a load of garbage. I presume the author is a Christian judging by his opinion of Atheists. This makes him about as well qualified to comment on the motivations of an Atheist as I am to comment on the motivations of a Hindu.

He states "At its heart, atheism is a selfish, short-sighted worldview. Atheism drives people to live for themselves and live for today."
How does my unwillingness to believe in fantasy and fairy tales make me selfish and short sighted?
I fail to see how his absurd belief that he will enjoy eternal life in heaven would make him more likely to be concerned about future generations on earth.
As an Atheist I can assure him that I am very concerned about the future. I, like the author, will die at some point. But my legacy will be in the form of my genes carried by my children. If the earth becomes uninhabitable then all is lost. Therefore I am very concerned that I leave the earth in as good a condition as possible for the benefit of my children and their children. Just because I live in the real world, (and not some fantasy world full of gods and demons and heavens and hells) does not mean that I don't care about future generations and their quality of life.

Cripes - a whole article based on a complete misrepresentation of atheism. I am an atheist because I am unable to believe in the existence of any of the gods on offer. This has no impact on my ability to think about or care about the future. I care very much about it, which why I am in favour of a sustainable world population: I would like generations after my death to enjoy a decent lifestyle, enough food, a fair share of the world's resources, fresh water, fish in the ocean

And here's me thinking the A in AGW stood for Anthropogenic rather than Athiest Global Warming...

I particularly liked the 'no-true Scotsman'-style hectoring of "Christians who claim that dominion over the earth means we can rape and destroy it have misunderstood and misapplied this stewardship." because those Christians certainly do not think they have misunderstood anything.

All in all I prefer my satire funnier and when questioned as to its wit? Able to respond with "more", not "less".

God would be ashamed that his non-existance has been so thoroughly misrepresented.

A surprising number of atheists DO believe in anthropogenic global warming. I say 'surprising' because many of the arguments advanced for AGW are substantially the same as the arguments advanced in favour of religion, and just about as effective. The 'precautionary principle', for instance, is a dead ringer for Pascal's Wager. Not that there are any arguments for AGW in this article, other than the tired old anecdotal: "Hasn't it been hot lately?"

But it's nice that the author has been able to bring together in this way the two groups that he obviously loathes. It makes the process of tarring with the same brush ever so much easier.

Considering the practical implications of worldviews is something that sadly people often don’t give enough consideration, so well done Rob Martin for giving it a crack.

An obvious criticism of this article has already been made above. In fact, it has been repeated many times. But, as so often happens with comments on forums like this, it’s a tangent that is unworthy of our time.

“Atheism is not a worldview”. Well, yes, technically that’s correct. Atheism is technically denying the existence of God and doesn’t technically oblige an atheist to any other views. But what is, in fact, the view of the world taken by 99% of atheists in the Western world today? That of naturalism. “Nature is all that exists”, or as Sagan said “The cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be”. And what are the implications of this view for someone considering the need to make personal sacrifice without any personal gain? This is the underlying issue that Martin is really fleshing out here, within the specific context of the need for some kind of action on climate change. If we live, and then die, and go back to the dust we’re from, and our lives contain no purpose other than the purposes we give them ourselves, does this provide a compelling reason to act on climate change?

It appears to me that this article has validity; Martin’s points have genuine force if you look at the substance rather than focusing superficially on his description of atheism. Perhaps he should’ve titled his article “The view of the world taken by 99% of atheists and which appears most compelling once God is rejected impedes climate change action”. More accurate? Yes. But far less interesting!

(to be continued

Martin says that “The consistent message of atheism is to maximise our lives, our potential and opportunities now because this is the only life we get and we need to fill it with as much as possible” and that “The future in an atheist world is very short – to the end of our life”. This actually sounds A LOT like what Richard Dawkins has been telling us all for years! “There’s Probably no God- now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. Sound familiar?

If enjoying our lives is the main game in town and our lives are short, why sacrifice for no personal gain? It’s a good question. It’s a pity non of the responses from the atheists here have thus far provided any serious food for thought in response.

Have to agree with Mac!
Both John Howard and Tony Abbott are committed Christians, allegedly.
Mr Howard was very much a latter day convert to climate change, and Mr Abbott once described it as Male bovine manure, or words to that effect.
As others have stated, christian history is littered with bloodthirsty butchery and debauchery, and we won't mention the centuries long slavery/child sex and other abuse.
I mean, Christians once excused/justified slavery, as their bible allegedly informed them the the negro had the mark of Cain on him, or was no better than the beasts in the field.
And how many pedophile priests escaped justice, (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) because so called Christians covered up for them; or forgave them, in God's name!
If god could speak to them now, he would likely ask of them, who gave you the right to speak or act in my name?
They butchered six million Muslims, on the grounds they wouldn't swear allegiance to the christian bible, (the endlessly revised and edited, but sole work of human scholars!)
They burned seers at the stake and accused them of witchcraft, even Joan of Arc!
And even today, they try mightily to prevent population control by banning the pill, condoms and the morning after pill, even in cases of rape!
Green credentials? Really?
One would suggest that the Author remove his head from whatever warm and comfortable place he has inserted it; straighten up, and take a good long look around at the real world; and then the mirror!
Rhrosty.

Trav,

There is no “message of atheism” to begin with, so there is nowhere further to go - no more “food for thought” beyond pointing this out. It’s just a strawman from the author. What someone wants to deduce from the absence of an afterlife is up to them - atheism has nothing to say about it.

Now, if you want to ask “Why sacrifice for no personal gain?” then that’s a different question. To which I would reply, “What kind of a psychopath gains pleasure from destroying things for their own gain, and to the detriment of others, in the first place?” It’s not in our nature, and those for whom it is, are usually removed from society.

Why should our restraint rely on pleasing or obeying a god? And why would doing that be more important, or more moral, than simply sacrificing any perceived benefits for altruistic reasons and concerns for future generations?

Now they’re better questions!

Our lives would become pretty shallow and meaningless if we didn’t care about leaving something for future generations. There is no bigger motivation to leave behind a positive legacy than having such brief and finite lives. After all, what better substitute for eternal life could there possibly be?

What individual Christians and atheists have said or done is totally irrelevant to Martin's argument.

It's a red herring, Rhrosty.

Martin's talking about what arises upon reflection from different worldviews. Where do different views lead?

If a 5 year old tries to play a Beethoven piece and fails miserably, instead being out of key and with mistakes everywhere, does this mean the original Beethoven composition is worthless? Hardly.

Martin's talking about the compositions.

But AJ, if atheism is true then your life, indeed everyone’s/everything’s life, is ultimately totally shallow and meaningless. If we have come into being completely unintentionally and for no purpose then it doesn’t matter in the slightest what anyone does or doesn’t do.

You can resort to name-calling with references to “psychopaths” but it doesn’t get you anywhere. People are just different, and no one can be meaningfully called wrong or bad, even if they do “destroy things for their own gain, and to the detriment of others”.

There is no such thing as a positive legacy to leave behind. Things are just what they happen to be and no one state of things is any better or worse than any other. Of course you personally may happen to prefer one state of things over another, but why should anyone care what you prefer?

In this article Martin was speaking in absolutes by spelling out his view of the consequences of atheism in such strong terms. Perhaps this was intended to open up a conversation? Maybe it contributed to getting his article published?

It seems to me that….

1. Atheism is likely to lead to naturalism. Some philosophers of religion actually consider them so close as to be indistinguishable, possibly because there’s such a lack of views out there held by atheists, other than naturalism.

2. Naturalism provides no reason to believe in the concept of objective purpose, but does provide reason to think that there is no objective purpose. In this context (climate change), naturalism fails to provide reason or motivation for acting towards an altruistic goal that goes far beyond ourselves, and in fact does provide reason or motivation for not acting towards such altruistic goals.

However Christianity does give us objective purpose in this context and motivation to act, as Martin outlined. So here is a weaker claim than Martin has made in his essay, but one that appears undoubtedly true to me: Christianity gives more reason for an adherent to care about future generations and the world’s wellbeing than naturalistic atheism does.

But JP, I’ve already discredited everything you just said in our previous discussions. A new thread isn’t a reset switch for reality.

Here are a couple of my favourites: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14934#257586, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13321#230298.

<<You can resort to name-calling with references to “psychopaths” but it doesn’t get you anywhere.>>

Referring to psychopaths as such is not name-calling. Please look-up the definition of name-calling. I have “resorted” to nothing.

I'll say again, that if you think we need a god for a sense purpose or morality, then you have sacrificed your humanity in deference to your god.

Trav,

<<…Martin was speaking in absolutes by spelling out his view of the consequences of atheism in such strong terms. Perhaps this was intended to open up a conversation? Maybe it contributed to getting his article published?>>

Or maybe it’s because that’s how so many Christians think. It never ceases to amaze me how often the notion of absolute certainty is applied to what I say whenever someone tries to rebut it.

<<Atheism is likely to lead to naturalism.>>

Not necessarily. Think of how many atheists take astrology and any new-age woo seriously.

<<Some philosophers of religion actually consider them so close as to be indistinguishable, possibly because there’s such a lack of views out there held by atheists, other than naturalism.>>

Or possibly because they’re setting up a strawman.

<<Naturalism provides no reason to believe in the concept of objective purpose, but does provide reason to think that there is no objective purpose. In this context (climate change), naturalism fails to provide reason or motivation for acting towards an altruistic goal that goes far beyond ourselves, and in fact does provide reason or motivation for not acting towards such altruistic goals.>>

Along with the questions I posed in my last response, another good question here would be “Why should it?” But given the points I’ve just made, this is pretty much irrelevant anyway. It also ignores the last paragraph of my last post.

<<Christianity gives more reason for an adherent to care about future generations and the world’s wellbeing than naturalistic atheism does.>>

As does this.

JP,

Basically the article is another variation on the assertion that morality is impossible without belief in the supernatural.

"But AJ, if atheism is true then your life, indeed everyone’s/everything’s life, is ultimately totally shallow and meaningless. If we have come into being completely unintentionally and for no purpose then it doesn’t matter in the slightest what anyone does or doesn’t do."

Not necessarily, we can either find meaning by inventing a creator or by using our intelligence to find meaning in the natural world.

Christians seem to be totally unaware of the influences of the secular world on their beliefs-

For example, until the late 18th century slavery was acceptable to most Christians, the factor that ended slavery was not Christianity itself, but the influence of Enlightenment values on Christians. The earliest Christians regarded slavery as natural and the subjugation of women as divinely ordained and were hostile to most Greco-Roman culture. If modern Christians are concerned about AGW it's as a result of modern secular science, not Christian doctrine.

Statistically, most climatologists working in the field today are likely to be either atheists or agnostics, why did that singular group of "nihilists" bother to express their alarm if they weren't motivated by altruistic concerns?

Mac – no one denies that atheists cannot and do not make up their own notions of what is right and wrong and then call this “morality”. The problem for atheists is, what to do when atheists disagree with each other about what behaviours to call right and wrong. There is no objective standard for them to measure their respective opinions/preferences against. One atheist’s opinion/preference is as good or bad as any other’s. You may consider an atheist rapist to be acting wrongly while he may regard his behaviour as being perfectly acceptable. And really that is as far as you can go.

The same goes with making up meaning. Of course an atheist can say that he can make up some meaning for his existence but when there is a clash of “meanings” there is no way to resolve things. One atheist may find it fits within their framework of meaning to be able to ruthlessly exploit the rainforest while another finds meaning in preserving it. On what basis can you say that one should trump the other?

JP-
Whilst i do disagree with your idea that people can't come up with a system of right and wrong on their own, even if this was the case the theist position is no better. The fact that the author of the article points out that there are Christians who "have misunderstood and misapplied this stewardship" clearly shows that people disagree even when they are told what to do in whichever ancient book they happen to choose. Can you tell me which version of the Christian faith is the correct one? Or which Religion in general? You can try but not many will agree with you.
It get worse when you actually read these books and start to realise the kind of world they actually do promote, as pointed out by other comments.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the moral compass of each individual is both affected by the society they are brought up in (parents, friends, school, government and religion if any) and the individual themselves. But just because everyone's compass isn't perfect doesn't mean that there is not a direction we should all be heading based on the evidence of what benefits us as humans.

JP,

If your source of morality is so objective, then tell me: by what method or mechanism do you determine that God is the one that is good and Satan is the evil one?

How do you know that you're following the right one, and that Satan isn't sitting around waiting for you to realise that what God has been saying isn't good at all?

At least Satan is more mature than God. Here's God, bagging out Satan like a school kid, and all the while Satan just sits back and rises above it all by not returning in kind. 

Jokes aside though, JP, my questions above highlight the glaring oversight in your logic.

Oh dear another "them bad atheists and how only someone with faith in the un provable can believe in a future". Seriously Robert Martin that article is just self indulgent drivel dressed up in a thing veil of pseudo intellectual goop.

Atheism is only a position that one has no belief in a (any) god or supernatural, it is has zero to do with anything else a person may consider or even hold important to their lives. Indeed you may be conflating atheism with the biggest impediment to climate change and the earth, religion.

JP,

(1) "no one denies that atheists cannot and do not make up their own notions of what is right and wrong and then call this “morality”. The problem for atheists is, what to do when atheists disagree with each other about what behaviours to call right and wrong"

As NathanF has commented, this is precisely what Christians and other theists do, and have done for millennia, and the result is often bloodshed on an enormous scale. Why didn't the deity make his/her/its message clearer? Christians, even amongst themselves cannot agree on the "word of God", there is really no universal Christian morality.

(2) You haven't answered my question as to why the interpretation of the Bible has changed throughout history--the most plausible answer is that the continual re-interpretation is due to cultural change and the resultant different mores. The Old Testament God urged his followers to invade Canaan and massacre its inhabitants, do you agree with that as a moral imperative? What is your opinion on the ethics of the institution of slavery or chattel status for women and girls?

(3) Then there's the problem of theodicy, how can the Christian God exist?

Both Christian and atheist morality are the products of the human mind, unfortunately only atheists understand.

AJPhillips,

Yes! Of course! There are two gods, one good, one evil, and the evil one created the world and wrote the Bible, the Gnostics were right!

Let’s assume that everyone has come to the conclusion that atheism is true. So now, instead of attacking theists that is no longer necessary because no one believes in God.

That being the case though, everyone would still have the problem of not being able to sort out who is right or wrong on moral issues. The rainforest destroyer could claim that in his opinion he had done nothing wrong while others could claim that he had. But no one would have any basis for saying whether he or anyone else was correct about that.

NathanF, it appears that you would want to say that we should act in ways “based on the evidence of what benefits us as humans”. But that is just your particular preference. Another person may prefer to act in ways that benefit just themselves without any concern for anyone else. Yet another person may preference the well-being of great apes over human beings. These different preferences may come into conflict and in atheistic universe there is absolutely no way of determining which preference should prevail.

oh dear some more of that Christ-stain compasion on show agian.
2000 years to come up with some actual proof:- fail.
2000 years to get your sorties straight:- fail.
2000 years of peace in christidom :- err mega fail.
should i go on as with most Christ-stainers his "beliefs" are there merely to provide him with a sense of the high moral ground from which to sling his....

JP,

Saying exactly the same thing you said before using different words doesn’t negate the arguments of others. Our points still stand and you still have not addressed the hypocrisy of your own position that myself and others have highlighted. So again, JP, how do you objectively determine who the good one is out of God and the devil?

[And please don’t say it’s because if you remove the ‘D’ from ‘devil’, you get ‘evil; and if you add an ‘O’ to god, you get ‘good’.]

Until you can answer this, your points are all invalid, because the yardstick by which you determine who, out of God and Satan, is the good one, is the same yardstick by which decent, law-abiding non-believers arrive at their ideas of right from wrong, and thus your ultimate moral authority is no more reliable or objective than their opinions are. Even less reliable, actually, because you’re holy book doesn’t tell you what to do in the event that it doesn’t directly address a moral dilemma, or contradicts itself (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf).

You can’t propose the need for an ultimate moral authority until you have overcome this dilemma in your reasoning.

But yes, for argument’s sake, let us all assume that no one believes in God and that we are all faced with the fictitious conundrum of not being able to sort out who is right or wrong on moral issues.

So what?

Are you suggesting that in a world in which no gods exist, we would need to invent one in order to prevent wiping ourselves out? If this was the case, then the more non-religious a society is, the more crime and social unrest we would see. Yet we observe the complete opposite.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

How does this sit with your theory?

Here’s another question: how can you objectively know that the old Levitical law is no longer relevant, and that Jesus wasn’t actually the devil out to trick others? You can’t say it’s because he speaks to your heart - that wouldn’t be objective.

AJ - I'm intrigued as to why you care what others believe. If atheism is true it doesn't matter what anyone believes,

JP- The fact that we care shows that we are a social species who understand that our best chance or survival and the chance that our genes survive into the future is if we work together. That is the most basic and selfish reason why we have created moral systems over the years.

Yes people will have different opinions about which rules to follow and which to discard. Hence why most developed societies have developed forms of democracy to try and decide which rules are in our collective best interest. The fact that no system is perfect does not mean we should give up and take the word of an ancient book which has been shown to be morally bankrupt on many levels.

The best analogy I've heard about this moral problem of objective vs subjective is likening it to a team game of chess. In a middle game position there are say 100 options the player can take. Objectively speaking, based on the rules, there is one move that is the strongest. No one can argue that. But reaching that conclusion is not easy since humans aren't computers and don't have all the relevant information. But still the team can discard 80 of the moves because they lose straight away and are clearly bad. This would be the equivalent of having a society where people aren't punished for murdering people (and they have the active will to do so, which evolutionary is not true). So then its up to the team to work through the remaining 20 moves to find which is the best. A good example is slavery, which for many years was thought about as a good option. But with more information and understanding that was discarded as clearly harmful to the interest of the humans involved and society

So even though there is one option that is objectively the best I'll admit the process of reaching this is not always straightforward. But once again the answer isn't to look to the "infallible" word of God which, as I stated before, is interpreted in a myriad of ways and raising exactly the same problem that you have pointed as Atheists as having.

Unless of course God comes down and tells us which way is correct. But I doubt that will happen.

the godless are always creating 'morals ' in order to cover how bereft they are. Most groups acting as custodials of the environment are made up of deviants. Thankfully some people really do care about the environment. I suspect those holding the gw fantasy are in the minority of those people.

JP - you say

"One atheist may find it fits within their framework of meaning to be able to ruthlessly exploit the rainforest while another finds meaning in preserving it. On what basis can you say that one should trump the other?"

The same goes for Christians. Some Christians are intolerant of homosexuals, others accept them. Some Christians are vegans, other believe it is OK to slaughter meat.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity.

As the product of a few million years of evolution, we humans (atheists included) find ourselves the most highly socialised mammal on the planet. We are hard and soft wired to look out for each other and our offspring.Our inborn biological imperative encourages us to be co-operative, to self sacrifice and to look toward the future. We atheists understand and feel this without the need to invoke Santa or God. I suggest Robert could learn more about humanity from biology than from a narrow minded ideology based on fantasy and mythology.

AJ good luck with that line of reasoning.

I've yet to see a theist on OLO engage with point you make about the choice of a god to follow being less than absolute. The strategy seems to be just ignore mention of that issue and carry on promoting the idea that they work with a set of absolutes.

On the broader topic Christian's I've known sometimes cared for the environment, the idea that god is going to destroy it all anyway so it's well down on priorities seems to be a more common viewpoint.

R0bert

Strange essay indeed especially considering that some of the most strident voices opposing the environmental movement altogether and more specifically idea of human caused climate change and global warming are right-wing Christians, some/many of which are closely associated with the IPA which is one of the sponsors of this website forum. So too with the right-wing "catholic" publishing outfit Connor Court which also has direct links with the IPA.

I have just checked out Robert's website which pretends to "answer" the big questions.
One wonders which century Robert "lives" in - perhaps the 18th or 19th or even the 14th (prior to the European Renaissance)
It is as though none of the explosion in radical iconoclastic scholarship, philosophy, and hermeneutics of the 20th and now the 21st ever happened.
It is as though the internet does not exist. Because every aspect of every known religious and Spiritual tradition is now freely available with an internet connection. And every philosophical proposition ever made about the nature of Truth & Reality in all times and places too.

And yet somehow in the face of all of that, everything has to turn out to be reduced to the dim-witted form of one-dimensional Christian-ism with its infantile/childish mommy-daddy good-luck parental deity that Robert promotes.

"I cannot see how atheists can rationally hold the tension between maximisation of opportunity in the present and simultaneously sacrifice for the future." An argument on the lines of "I cannot see/understand..." is an argument on personal inability and thus no argument at all.
But who needs arguments? I'm convinced: atheists are going to burn in hell, so let's burn them on earth now.

Mr. Martin should have stuck to Christianity. His critique of the negative aspects of Christianity is cogent and accurate as far as it went, although there's a lot more to criticize there.

His statements about the portions of Christianity that should be emphasized is accurate too.

His comments about atheism are irrelevant noise, both inaccurate and insulting to an extraordinarily varied group of people whose only commonality is a lack of belief in one more god than Mr. Roberts.

The huge hole in the author's argument is that atheists believe that this is the only world we or our children, grandchildren etc will ever know and that if we don't look after it they will suffer the consequences. Anyone who believes in an afterlife doesn't have to give a toss about the world we live in because they are looking to a future imaginary existence with an imaginary god to meet their needs. I am very happy to make my own decisions based on human decency and enjoy my immortality based on the laws of physics: the matter of which I am comprised can never be destroyed. It may at some future time form part of a sentient being, and my atoms will be distributed amongst myriad life forms. How awesome is that?

I am an athiest. I have a guiding morality. Arrived at after careful contemplation and much thought. Also driven mostly by self interest.
Do whatever you want, total freedom, as long as your actions in no way harm another person.

I want my free will and to make my own choices about my life.
I dont want to be harmed so I can hardly commit acts which cause others harm. At least not logically and rationally.

For the author to state that it is impossible for an atheist to be moral is a load of bollocks. Indeed as far as I am concerned, although I am far from perfect, my morality far eclipses that of your average godbotherer who supports an ideology of lies and fantasy that has many many many times caused great harm to untold numbers of people.

The Catholic church in NSW proved the disconnect between religion and morality when it opposed ethics classes in schools because it didn't want Catholic students to miss out.

NathanF – your chess analogy breaks down because with chess there is a goal to aim for – winning the game – but in a universe that has come into existence unintentionally and which has no purpose, there is no goal, nothing to aim for. One “move” in such a universe is as good or bad, as meaningful or meaningless as any other move. You may not like what other people do and they may not like what you do but neither of you are right or wrong.

Of course you can care about what other people believe but it makes no difference what anyone believes. Some beliefs may lead to the total destruction of the planet but, despite the fact that you may not like that happening, that does not make it a bad thing to have happen. There is no reason why the planet or the universe ought to exist.

Mikk – you say that you have derived your own guiding morality and that your morality includes the principle that you want to be free to do what you want to the extent that you don’t harm others.

Of course you can choose to make up such moral principles and live by them if you want to. But in an atheistic universe no one else is obliged to make up the same moral principles as yours and live by them. If they want to rape and pillage as much as they wish, it is meaningless for you to claim they are acting wrongly, they are just doing something you happen not to like. After all, you admit you have simply made up your principles and they have made up theirs and there is no basis on which you can establish that your principles are the right ones and theirs are wrong.

You may claim that they are being illogical or irrational but there is no requirement in an atheistic universe for people to act logically or rationally. Besides it could be argued that it is neither illogical or irrational to rape and pillage.

The author makes clearly has no idea what atheism is or means for those who do not believe in a sky-dwelling deity. It was obvious from the beginning when it was stated "Whilst Australia has always experienced extreme weather events, it now seems that we are experiencing these extreme weather events more frequently...". No evidence that the statement has any basis in fact but is simply an assumption. From there it just gets worse.

That is one of the poorest articles I've ever seen published in Online Opinion.

JP- Again you have avoided the question of how a theist goes about deciding which set of beliefs and actions are the correct ones. Can you provide an answer to that?

Also your point about the universe having no goal is correct on a basic level. However we as a species have come into existence and are capable of using our brain to make our lives better. What constitutes "better" is basically what helps us survive because that's the basic goal of living organisms.

Robert Martin talking about the motivation of Atheists is like a prostitute talking about the motivations of a Nun.

Robert, what a load of rubbish!

As an atheist with children, I for one am deeply concerned with the type of planet that we will leave for our children. I cannot answer for the majority of atheists, as we do not normally gather together in any great numbers to discuss these matters, but a belief that this world is all we have, and are ever likely to have, is a very strong reason to look after it.

Statistically, it is known that the great majority of mayhem in the world is carried out with religious belief a major factor. For example, the bible belt of the United States has far more crime per capita than the more secular north, or compare Scandinavia with the Middle East.

Even if your thesis were true, provably true, that Atheists were all uncaring about the planet's future, how could that lead us to a belief in fairy tales? You don't necessarily have to be of low IQ to believe this garbage, but it must help!