Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 2 2009, 2:19 AM BSTI sincerely doubt "thou shalt not murder" is a religious rule. It certainly predates Judaism/Christianity.
As an absolute principle I doubt it.
Virtually all the comedians I know are atheists... Page 4
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 2:20 AM BSTMaybe you should sit in the audience for every single one of his performances then? His comedic powers obviously must stem from having you around.
Well, I would if I could. Looking forward to coming back soonish.
Quote: Curt @ October 2 2009, 2:20 AM BSTWell then, at least you can't call him a fence walker. Good for him.
My memory is fuzzy, I seem to remember Baddiel bringing up the fact that he (Skinner) thinks David is the devil or evil or going to hell, for being a Jew. Not extreme antisemitism, but not buying them a lollipop either.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 2:21 AM BSTAs an absolute principle I doubt it.
What, so prior to the hypothetical era of Moses, you reckon murder could possibly have been considered acceptable?
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 2 2009, 2:19 AM BSTI'm not sure precisely what you're getting at, but the "selfish" gene is just a title, it doesn't really describe his ideas about evolution. His books as far back as The Selfish Gene have spent quite a lot of time discussing individual altruism as an evolutionary by-product of "selfish" genes.
He only really discusses altruism in terms of humans and even then he's half-hearted about it. At heart he believes DNA replication is the only consideration in evolution, which is wrong, especially as the DNA make-up of a creature changes over the period between birth and reproductive age. He is also a religious fundamentalist when it comes to gradual adaptations versus single or multi-point leaps in phenotypic appearance and behaviour, which again is a view that is now considered dated due to new evidence.
I have no problems with atheists, agnostics or the religious. I have problems with fundamentalists of all stripes, however, and radical and zealous atheism is just as dangerous in my view as any religious philosophy. 
"In the name of Darwin!"
*explodes*
It is a bit offensive when some people (not anyone on here I'm sure!) imply that as an atheist you must therefore have no morals. Just because you 'renounce' the Bible, you somehow renounce morals. I don't find the two to be intrinsically related.
Some people assume a hell of a lot of things about a person the second the word 'atheist' is mentioned.
(Although I'm sure it goes the other way too, etc.)
Us monkeys have no religion, which means we have no anti-religion.
Which is nice, 'cos we just do this all day...
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 2 2009, 2:27 AM BSTWhat, so prior to the hypothetical era of Moses, you reckon murder could possibly have been considered acceptable?
What was considered "murder" was different from place-to-place. And I can't recall any religion prior to Judaism & Christianity that stated it as an absolute sin. Whatever one thinks of the various types of religion, Western society's "civilised" moral and ethical codes have been shaped by these two major religions. What is considered acceptable human behaviour in our society would not necessarily have come into being without religious influence. In a god-less society there is ultimately no big stick to fear. Most secular legislatures simply took the theological teachings of their respective churches and laid them down as a legal framework to live by. Everything from property law to human rights law has many of its foundations in theological teachings.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 2:27 AM BSTHe only really discusses altruism in terms of humans and even then he's half-hearted about it. At heart he believes DNA replication is the only consideration in evolution, which is wrong, especially as the DNA make-up of a creature changes over the period between birth and reproductive age. He is also a religious fundamentalist when it comes to gradual adaptations versus single or multi-point leaps in phenotypic appearance and behaviour, which again is a view that is now considered dated due to new evidence.
While I take issue with a couple of your turns of phrase there, I'd be definitely interested if you could point me in the direction of a couple of reputable sources dissing his gene-centric outlook on evolution.
Aw, this conversation reminds me of the stand up stuff that George Carlin used to do about the "invisible man in the sky". Didn't he boil the commandments down to "Don't steal my shit and I won't kill you."?
Quote: zooo @ October 2 2009, 2:31 AM BSTIt is a bit offensive when some people (not anyone on here I'm sure!) imply that as an atheist you must therefore have no morals. Just because you 'renounce' the Bible, you somehow renounce morals. I don't find the two to be intrinsically related.
And I never suggested anything of the sort. (Who are these people that suggest that atheists have no morals? You'd be hard pressed to even find many religious fundamentalists who think that non-believers can't have a moral code, I'd have thought? If anything it's people such as Dawkins who seem to imply that they have the moral high ground.)
Hmm. What about things which we might find morally wrong which are actually encouraged in the Bible?
You've used lots of long words, and got all theological late at night. I'm all confused now. 
Quote: zooo @ October 2 2009, 2:39 AM BSTHmm. What about things which we might find morally wrong which are actually encouraged in the Bible?
Such as?
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 2:38 AM BSTAnd I never suggested anything of the sort.
I know you didn't, I specifically said so, you numpty!
I have been unlucky enough to have met two people who said that to me.
They were fun... :/