As one of the ten commandments? And a rather good one, however, the problem is we do not live in a black and white world, I can think of at least one situation in which it is acceptable to kill a man (or woman). Namely, when he/she is threatening to destroy the entire world and the only way to stop him/her is to kill him/her. I find that an acceptable kill, don't like the fact it has to be done, but acceptable.
Stop right there, see that’s where you went wrong.
I'll make it simple Evolution has nothing to do with morals (full stop)
So therefore let’s look at it from the opposite angle
If we need religion tell us what’s right and wrong v Then we are only performing right and wrong based out of fear from devine judgment, therefore hell. v Therefore it’s not out of our own judgment that we perform actions of say good, it’s because of this installed FEAR of hell. v Thus a Atheist with no belief in any deity can actually be more moral then a religious person due to the fact, that if he performs good, then he’s doing good out of his own good will. Not out of fear of performing wrong in gods eyes, thus getting cast into fiery pits of hell.
So really who’s the more moral person?
1) The guy doing good because of divine retribution and thus fear 2) The guy doing good because he wants to perform good actions. He is doing this out of goodwill, not installed fear.
So maybe if you wanted to actually attack the non-believing heathens such as myself you should say
If deities are false, shouldn’t we all do what we please, evidently society would collapse if this happened, and funnily enough it hasn’t.
PS: Australia my homeland has many religions and many atheist and we are still here!
Some Christians interpret it as, "Go and bomb the hell out of other countries."
Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
Well, you could scarcely have given a better illustration of Agobot's point.
Over the centuries, people who firmly believed themselves bound by the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" have interpreted it in lots of different ways. Here are just a few points on which they have differered.
War: Does it apply to a soldier in war? If so, does it apply universally to soldiers, or would it only apply to a just war? If so, what is a just war? Do only defensive wars count? If a soldier, as being "a man under authority" is exonerated from the deaths he causes, are they then to the moral discredit of whoever ordered the war? When we are allowed to kill the enemy, does this include only combatants, or does it include slaughtering civilians including children? If not, why does God command such acts of genocide in the Old Testament?
Law: Does the command not to kill apply to judicial executions? Do we have the right to judge someone worthy of death? If so, under what circumstances? Only a life for a life? Would that principle apply such that attempted murderers get off more lightly than successful ones? Does that make any sense? In the medieval age of piety, people were hanged for stealing goods worth more than twelve pence --- is this (a) a stricter morailty than our own lax times (b) an abrogation of the commandment to love thy neighbor (c) a social institution suitable for those circumstances (d) perfectly reasonable when you take inflation ito account (e) other? The Dominionists today say that the death penalty should be mandatory for offenses that merited it in the Old Testament, which at least seems consistent with attention to the Ten Commandments. Should we burn heretics? If so, which ones? Catholics? Protestants? Protestants who are a different sort of Protestant? By spreading their blasphemous lies about God, they are dragging others after them into Hell --- aren't they worse than murderers?
Self-Defense: May one kill in self-defense? If so, against what assault? Any assualt, as to avoid a slap? Or only in defense of life? Or something in between? To avoid torture? Rape? If you approve that, where do you draw the line? Perhaps you allow me to kill to escape torture, but does that include Chinese burns?
Defense of Property: May I kill to defend property? If so, how much property? Would it be wrong to kill for a nickel, if it is rightfully mine? If not, then please set the price in defense of which I may kill a man. Many US state permit shooting a burglar on one's own property even if he poses no threat. Are these states anti-Christian, and if so why do they have so many fundamentalists living in them?
Contraception and Abortion Yeah, you've probably heard that people were arguing about that one. Does preventing a zygote from implanting count as "killing" within the meaning of the commandment? If not, at what point does one draw the line?
Dueling: This is no longer a hot topic, but it was when people dueled, and there were plenty of Christian casuists who permitted it. It is not exactly murder, is it even if it's to the death; because duels are fought by agreement. We allow boxing matches, don't we? And yet there were plenty to disagree and say that duelling was murder. But what if a man defended his honor and his soul both by accepting a challenge to a duel but not firing his own weapon? Is that OK, or if he dies, is he, like the seconds and the attendant doctor, an accomplice in his own murder? Which brings us on to ...
Suicide: Suicide has often been taken to violate the commandment; as suicides had no time to repent, they were therefore usually considered damned. What's your take on this? Is suicide unconditionally wrong? Legitimate to escape pain? Old age? Boredom? How about the suicide of, for example, Captain Oates? A mediaval Catholic would have cast his body on unshriven ground, a modern Protestant might remember that line about "Greater love hath no man".
Well, welcome to the wonderful world of casuistry.
Finally, we should note that knowing about evolution doesn't seem to cast any particular light on these problems.