Wow. I knew the Bible endorsed slavery, but they actually put price tags on different types of people? What. The. Fuck.

I sent this to my ex. She hated it. So i'm happy.

I recall another commentator asking if these folk were also against the usage of pig iron?

I truly believe that piece of writing will lose something in its poetry if it weren't written in capslock.

links don't seem to go where I tell them to go on IntenseDebate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psyc...

Actually what you say is correct. There is little evidence to suggest that genes actually instruct you on specific ethical behavior. They seem to be rules of thumb, as with most adaptations arising from selective pressures.

However we do have an innate sense that makes it emotionally desirable to do the right thing once you've learned (from society) what the specifics are. I think that's what cognitive scientists mean when they say our moral behaviour is driven more by emotion and instinct rather than reason.

I just read the chapter on morality in The God Deilusion and it is just a brilliantly cohesive argument for morality from an evolutionary standpoint. It was recommended to me by the guy who maintains The New Atheist blog, and I'm glad he did so.

Would you say that societal constraints are only part of the picture?

It seems most experts agree that we are also 'innately inspired' by moral codes. A lot of cognitive research is coming in saying that we instinctively know right form wrong, and much of our so called reasoning is merely the rationalizations of our moral decisions.

Following the recommendation of Randy from TNA I just read the chapter on morality in The God Delusion. It goes into the evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour, both in humans and animals and how morality is coded in our genes. It's a great chapter, very useful when you come across the predictable argument D'Souza is making.

I find this encouraging. After all that irrational talk they still resort to science in their time of need. Hypocritical? yes. Frustratingly obtuse? Yes. But still encouraging.

Your point about recognizing the emergence of factions is very important. The more diverse and bigger the Atheist umbrella the healthier the 'movement' will be. We should not start resembling religious dogma with it's associated synchronized goosestepping to the call of the 'prophets'.

A wide variety of political and moral views and disagreements among atheists should be encouraged and different schools of thought fostered.