a few of the christians who post at OLO, i enjoy engaging with. many frustrate me, most bemuse me. but i think david palmer is the only one who provokes in me unmitigated disgust.

the aggression and the dishonesty in this man is beyond belief. it may be difficult for the religious and the secular to find common ground, but palmer's undermining is hellbent on making it impossible. and this, not from some anonymous poster, but from a named and prominent member of his church. the poison palmer emits is the antithesis of what i regard as christian goodness, and what i see in many good christians.

No matter how liberal the laws are mankind has shown a complete failure at being able to keep them. The Secularist must continue to water down laws as each of their progressive generation turns the previous generations indulgences into rights. Now the kids of those who slept with multiple partners have to try and go a bit further, those who indulged in weekend drunkenness now have kids popping pills and shooting up. Those unable to keep marriage vows have kids who are unlikely to hold any relationship together and those who wanted free love see nothing wrong with stripping their six year olds for perverts to stare at. The denial of the fallen sinful nature is a pathetic attempt to cover how corrupt our natures are (oh! except for artist) Thank God for the only incorruptible One. Without Christ all along morality is a joke and people fooling themselves. Our only hope of goodness is in Him despite the multitude trying to convince us of their self righteousness.

Bronwyn: "No, Graham, we don't need a god to provide us with an ethical compass. ..."

I've tried to express that sentiment here a few times in the past, but have never come close to putting it as clearly or concisely as this.

David Palmer: "I note the usual scrofulous suspects did not."

That and what follows is right up there with "uncovered meat". Its odd how my reaction is different when Palmer says it though. When the Mufti criticized Australian while in Lebanon, I felt outrage at how he betrayed the values of the country that adopted him. Now, when I see an Australian Presbyterian Minister betray the values I was taught in the church and at school, I feel shame.

Bronwyn, you say, “we don't need a god to provide us with an ethical compass.” The use of the phrase “ethical compass” implies that you think there is a certain direction we should be heading in ethically. I’m sure you think there is, but why, without wanting to be rude, should anyone care what direction you think we should be heading in?

What if another atheist disagrees with you on a particular ethical point, and after calm discussion you still strongly disagree, who is to say who is reading the compass correctly? One atheist’s ethical stance is surely as valid as another’s. If not, by what objective standard are they to be measured?

And could you please point out anywhere in the article where religious belief is endorsed, as your comment, and the comments of many others, suggests it does. It doesn’t. The point is simply made that human generated “morality” is completely lacking in any authority. And you and the other critics fail to establish what is the basis for the authority for a human-based “morality”. At best it seems to devolve to “might (in the form of numbers) makes right”. Surely you can see the problems with that.

GP, are you kidding? of course the article is promoting religion. read the last paragraph!

the article is either using the existence of a common morality as evidence for a god, or it is arguing that morality only makes sense by the authority of a god. either way, it's arrogant and dumb, and self-parody.

the problem with the article is that it pretends that an arbitrary authority is somehow superior to no authority. you ask bronwyn how she knows she's reading the compass correctly. The point is, it's her compass. it is exactly as you say: there is no authority for a human-based morality. the compasses largely align, and certain shared moral codes promote certain types of society. and, logic still applies to questions of an individual's moral consistency. but there is no "right" morality. sorry, but that's life.

further, the question you ask bronwyn applies to God as well, and is much harder: who is to say who is reading God's compass correctly? religious compasses vary at least as much as secular compasses. and, if you cannot tell me which reading of God's compass is correct, why should i possibly care? as a practical guide to morality, looking to God's compass is not the magic wand that preston imagines. it's just mr. stick.

bushbasher "you cannot tell me which reading of God's compass is correct, why should i possibly care"

Havn't you noticed that many thiests are quite happy to tell you which reading of God's compass is correct (make that insist and you'd better listen and obey). Never mind that the directions all seem to be different.

When it comes to thiests telling non-thiests about absolutes there is an absolute in the room which most thiests seem to be unwilling to acknowledge.

R0bert