Apparently, the fact that a category 5 cyclone (Australian for hurricane) has hit Australia is because the country has an atheist prime minister Julia Gillard.
(See: Cyclone no time for atheist PM)
This is not an innocent mistake. This is vicious and malicious hate-mongering. It's symptomatic of a group of people having so much hatred in them that they seek to blame others for major tragedies beyond the scope of a standard serial killer or arsonist.
Even if those who make such claims actually believe them, this provides no defense against these charges. We can still ask WHY they have decided to believe these things, particularly in the face of a total lack of evidence as support.
We can find the answer in the fact that people who make these types of claims WANT to believe them. They ACHE for these propositions to be true. So, without a shred of evidence, they adopt the position that these types of claims ARE true.
But this fact shows these people to be moved - even compelled - by deep hatred.
A person not so motivated by hate would give the accused the benefit of the doubt. He would say, "I am not going to believe this of them until driven to that conclusion by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt." Because there is no evidence, a fair and just individual would not be driven to such a conclusion. Yet, the individual who goes that direction anyway - who embraces such a conclusion - must be somebody who loves the conclusion enough to embrace it so tightly.
We also have reason to ask not only how hateful and spiteful the speaker must be to adopt such a belief, but how hateful and spiteful that person's god must be to act the way the speaker describes.
What type of person is it who would destroy whole regions of the country - kill people, including young children - and drive others into poverty and suffering - because Australia has a prime minister.
There is no God that exists but that which comes out of the imagination of their believers. When an individual invents a God, this tells us more about the inventor than it does about God.
The person who invents a God who would impose so much suffering on people for such a petty reason is, himself, somebody who would would impose as much suffering on people for such a pretty reason. When he says, "God did this for the reasons I mention," he is saying, "If I were God, then I would do this for the reasons mentioned."
Many atheists will freely draw the conclusion that the God who would do such a thing is no saint. Yet, too many will stop short of the valid implication that the individual who would invent such a God - who would call such dispicable evil "good" and "just" - is just as evil as the God he invents. The inventor is endorsing such a vicious and petty God and claiming Him to be worthy of worship, meaning that the inventor - the worshipper - must be just as vicious and petty as the God he invents.
Yet, the inventor will often throw in the claim that such a creature is perfectly benevolent and just. In this, the inventor is saying, "Even though I - if I were God - would inflict this great death and suffering for such petty reasons, I am perfectly benevolent and just." Of course the inventor of a God would like to see himself in that light. This does not prevent it from being absurd - a mockery of the very morality the inventor is claiming to uphold and defend.
Like I said, the things people say about God tell us nothing about God. However, they tell us a great deal about the person making the claims. The people blaming Australia's Prime Minister Gillard for the cyclone that hit the country are, themselves, people who would inflict that suffering on their fellow Australians - if they were only given the power to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment