The perfect atheist would never call himself one and never mention or complain about God or any of history of God.
Well duh. But of course the perfect atheist would live in a perfect world where theists weren't intruding their incoherent beliefs into civil society. When we talk about your God, we're not acknowledging the existence of any such being. Neither are we making that concept part of our reality. We are simply using semantic shorthand to describe your beliefs.
Since your gods are the creation of your own minds, our pointing out their immorality and incoherence is just another way of describing you, the believer. We would have no reason to do this if you acted responsibly and ran anti-virus software in your brain.
So a genuine evolutionist does not teach morals at home to his or her children, they can only mention physical or social consequences of certain behaviors...
Interesting use of the word "so". Was it your impression that you had made a point of some kind that led to this bizarre non sequitur?
What on earth gave you the idea that morals have something to do with theism? It seems self-evident that theism is, to borrow Harris' phrase, just one of the "first and worst" attempts to explain the morals we had evolved earlier in our history. "Physical and social consequences" are precisely the subject that morals are intended to address. What else could there be? Or perhaps your somewhat crude version of theism has degraded your ability to understand the implications of the word "social".
A dictator is not "bad" he just has a different instinct.
...an instinct that manifests as identifiable physical and social consequences we have chosen to label as bad.
People cannot be good or bad just different in behavior.
...and those behaviors manifest as identifiable physical and social consequences we have chosen to label as bad. To borrow another phrase (from someone whose name I can't recall): language isn't your first language, is it?
KP
™ Version 4.2
