———-
Me – As an atheist I cannot blame a god
You – Yes you can…
———

Of course I can blame a god if I wish, as I could also blame my recycling bin or the guy who operates the hot dog cart down at the beach. But obviously I was speaking of my own sense of morality and ethics, which prevent me from indulging in such a pointless and hypocritical venture.

———-
Me – Religion is not entirely blameless
You – Yes, it is.
———-

A person’s actions may be informed and sanctioned by the religion they follow, and can have an effect upon those who are easily swayed. So yes, it is not entirely blameless. Those who promote a religious belief should be aware of that and take steps to mitigate any such problems. When I said ‘religion’ I was referring to the institution, which I would think anyone could grasp.

———-
Me – If you wish to combat the excesses of religion, go ahead
You – *Facepalm*
———-

How witty[/sarcasm] I am stating that I have no moral right to prevent anyone from taking action, but I am not endorsing any particular course.

———-
Me – I should note that I am not trying to reach any specific conclusions
You – You should be…
———-

Explanation needed, I don’t have ESP.

———-
You – Cultural Stricture is Located in Cerebellic Lobe”
———-

Maybe, but unimportant. I don’t give damn where it’s located, the fact is that cultural strictures are learned behaviours. That’s why we have so many different ones, they are not homogeneous across the world.

Anyway, enough troll feeding for one day.

Dave Bailey

Yes you can…

Religion is not entirely blameless

Yes, it is.

If you wish to combat the excesses of religion, go ahead

*Facepalm*

I should note that I am not trying to reach any specific conclusions

You should be…

Cultural Stricture is Located in Cerebellic Lobe

In my opinion the comparison is valid, and adequately illustrates the point I am trying to make.

> Proponents of general relativity are not called relativists. Proponents of the Big Bang theory are not called Big Bang-ists. Proponents of quantum field theory are not called quantum field theorists (the term actually refers to those who have a deep understanding of QFT, or those who work on the theory in academia). Public perception of terms does matter. A lot.

“Why would the the designer not borrow that ingenious invention, the feather, for at least one bat? The evolutionist’s answer is clear. – Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, page 297.”

Dawkins has obviously no objection to the term. I am in good company.

I did not “link genocides perpetrated by officially atheistic states to atheism itself”, I merely expressed my opinion that atheists are capable of turning their philosophy into a religion, and that states such as those run by Stalin or Mao make ‘statism’ an unofficial religion. I stand by that statement. As far as creationists turning ‘evolutionist’ into a pejorative, I am really not concerned with what they think. I accept the evidence for evolution, I promote understanding and acceptance of it, and I defend it. The word is grammatically appropriate as far as I can see. I am more concerned with those of us who continually state that they ‘believe’ in evolution. If you believe in it then you don’t understand it.

Furthermore you do yourself a disservice by using the term ‘evolutionist’. It is an anachronism that has been dredged up in recent times by The Institute for Creation Research to malign scientific acceptance of evolution as founded in faith. The more rabid believers of creationism use the term as an epithet.