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,
You cannot be serious. Are you really arguing that the nature of reality - in this case, the nature of thought - is different depending on how we perceive it? This is the crux of "objective" morality?
How about, it is what it is, regardless of whether God exists or not, and regardless of whatever emotional baggage you bring along?
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.
That is simply silliness. If God doesn't define it for you, it doesn't mean anything at all? Tell me, where does God define "furniture", especially as distinct from "appliance"? Can you tell the difference between furniture and appliances in your house? If so, why?
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.
Huh? Tell me, where did God define "hypocrisy"? Shouldn't the Bible be more than a lexicon to you? Isn't it quite enough to observe one set of behaviors in one situation, and some other set of behaviors in analogous situations, and then call it hypocrisy? Except, wait, atheists aren't entiteld to such judgements, right? Only theists, am I correct? Are principles that shift like sand in the wind indicative of "objective" morality, then?
At least Christianity provides the foundation needed to critique the behavior of its own. Christians can condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition.
Based on their own subjective moral constructs, of course.
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.
"It's wrong because someone else said so" is your idea of a "coherent" objection?
Condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition??????? Surely not! Say it is not so! No one expects......