[Senator Bedfellow]

I would not ascribe that sort of illiteracy to him. The question was regarding the obvious double standard, whereby it's apparently perfectly acceptable to blame the idea of "evolution" for all manner of horrors, but the idea of "religion" must of course be given a pass for whatever horrors we might ascribe to it. One idea shouldn't be blamed, and the other should.

I merely point out the creationist hypocrisy - I did not make it.

[Diamond]

The question was regarding the obvious double standard, whereby it's apparently perfectly acceptable to blame the idea of "evolution" for all manner of horrors, but the idea of "religion" must of course be given a pass for whatever horrors we might ascribe to it. One idea shouldn't be blamed, and the other should.

I merely point out the creationist hypocrisy - I did not make it.

If the Dawkins form of atheistic evolution is true our thoughts are one thing, if it is not, they are entirely a different thing. The former position presupposes some standard beyond nature (for which it cannot account) by which to assign praise or blame, but under such a scenario notions as as "good" or "evil" are necessarily meaningless. They are nothing but empty sensations created by chemical reactions of the brain. Complaining of a "double standard" or of "creationist hypocrisy" implies the existence of some objective standard by which to judge, a standard for which atheism can give no account. At least Christianity provides the foundation needed to critique the behavior of its own. Christians can condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. An atheist like Dawkins, however, cannot even give a coherent reason for why something like the biological experiments of the Nazis were unethical, yet he compares Moses to Hitler. Go figure.

Cordially,