Atheist 10 commandments

[MongGrel]

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

A lot of Atheist need to heed this one! ^^^

The golden rule went out the window years ago, even when I try to apply it I constantly run into people that won't act in that manner. I try to abide by it myself in general, but you can't turn the cheek with some people.

Amusing a lot of those people are fanatically religious, and it's the Golden rule applies, as long as you belong to their subgroup.

It's called growing up, a lot of people never have these days.

 

[MongGrel]

I don't draw a distinction between Christians and Muslims and Jews who bomb abortion clinics and murder people and blow up children.

All religious people are fundamentalist batshit insanos, right?

Perhaps I should draw distinctions? Na....that's too hard.

Not all, I have many devout religious people in my immediate family and I still live more or less like I was raised, I actually believe I'm probably more tolerant then some of them on many issues.

Common sense and objective observation makes it pretty obvious there are a lot of fundamentalists batshit insanos out there though.

 

[SKORPI0]

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12576334-religion-for-atheists

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Completely false. Subjective validity is not invalidity. You only suppose it is because you have been taught to distrust your own intuition.


What the fuck is wrong with you? Either you have not considered this question seriously, or you are literally a sociopath. I'm not kidding.


Is beauty meaningless because it lacks objective validity?


So what?


No, that's what causes a thing to be legal or illegal.


I ask again: so fucking what? Why do you not trust the values you assign? Are you proving Moonbeam right?


No, it was wrong then and it is wrong now. What the fuck is wrong with you that you think slavery was ever right?


NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO! You are ignoring the difference between objective and subjective validity. My choice for my favorite color is a VALID one. Your choice for your favorite music is a VALID one.


Why does it need to have objective validity?


Maybe that's why you don't have a problem killing everyone and think slavery was right.

Just what do I believe? Do I think killing everyone is right? Where have I explicitly said this?

Because I have an intellect and ask uncomfortable questions and make points which offend you doesn't mean all that much. I challenge, no dare you, to demonstrate with objective scientific incontrovertible proof that your emotional outburst has any more validity woven into the fabric of space time than my hypotheticals.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Be excellent to each other!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Be excellent to each other!

I think that is a wonderful guiding principle.

Here's a quote I like

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

 

[Subyman]

Atheists do themselves a disservice when they put together stuff like this.

 

[shira]

A non-commandment is a nonsensical term intended to poke fun at Christianity. If they are meaningless, why write them?

I see; your opinion is that only absolute rules have meaning. That inspires me to write another non-commandment:

Try to be mindful that just because something is meaningful to you doesn't mean that it's meaningful to others; and just because something is meaningless to you doesn't mean that it's meaningless to others.

 

[Thebobo]

Great movie and excellent moto...

 

[ivwshane]

Atheists do themselves a disservice when they put together stuff like this.

Why is that?

I think lists like these are pointless because being an atheist doesn't have any real meaning other than one who does not believe in god. Or is that your point, that it only distorts the meaning of what it is to be atheist?

 

[TheSlamma]

Why do I need *any* "commandments?

I don't believe, I live my life.

Seems to work just fine.

Exactly

are we going to have to come up with a name for our group of people who just "lack belief" in all this BS?

 

[Subyman]

Why is that?

I think lists like these are pointless because being an atheist doesn't have any real meaning other than one who does not believe in god. Or is that your point, that it only distorts the meaning of what it is to be atheist?

Trying to fit analogs of religious ideas into atheism is pointless. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism doesn't have beliefs. It doesn't have a mantra. It doesn't have any central planning or organization. There isn't dogma. There isn't scripture. It doesn't have a bible. It is simply not believing in god. Nothing more.

Think of it this way. There are Sam's Club members. They make an annual payment. They have a store they go to. They have an ID that is checked at the door. People that are not Sam's Club members do not have a "No Sam's Club Member" card. They don't make an annual payment to "Not a Sam's Club Member". They just aren't members.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trying to fit analogs of religious ideas into atheism is pointless. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism doesn't have beliefs. It doesn't have a mantra. It doesn't have any central planning or organization. There isn't dogma. There isn't scripture. It doesn't have a bible. It is simply not believing in god. Nothing more.

Think of it this way. There are Sam's Club members. They make an annual payment. They have a store they go to. They have an ID that is checked at the door. People that are not Sam's Club members do not have a "No Sam's Club Member" card. They don't make an annual payment to "Not a Sam's Club Member". They just aren't members.

Perhaps we have the wrong end of the stick here. I set up an argument in an attempt to show that there is nothing which makes a universe without a wiser authority that makes "right" have anything but arbitrary meaning. What I didn't do was take it anywhere. Ivwshane and others did clue in at least in regards to morality and atheism. He can choose to be empathetic to those in need, and religious people do just the same thing. If Christ said "love thy neighbor as yourself" and a Christian does not then he's doubly guilty, first by the hypocrisy of claiming to be following Christ yet rejecting one if the core mandates given by Jesus himself, and then actually harming those who are religious who are determined to help their fellow travellers along life's road.

The point is that it doesn't matter if absolutes exist or not. It does not matter where the desire to help comes from. What does count is what one actually does. This is the most important thing, the one which if commonly employed regardless of religion or lack of it would make this world a better place. A "commandment" I'd endorse is to be kind and do what you know helps another. Think, provoke, do what gets people to be less complacent, but in the end it's being a good Samaritan which counts.

 

[ivwshane]

Trying to fit analogs of religious ideas into atheism is pointless. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism doesn't have beliefs. It doesn't have a mantra. It doesn't have any central planning or organization. There isn't dogma. There isn't scripture. It doesn't have a bible. It is simply not believing in god. Nothing more.

Think of it this way. There are Sam's Club members. They make an annual payment. They have a store they go to. They have an ID that is checked at the door. People that are not Sam's Club members do not have a "No Sam's Club Member" card. They don't make an annual payment to "Not a Sam's Club Member". They just aren't members.

There isn't an atheist religion now but what if atheist wanted a community in which to foster their ideas and beliefs in how to make society better.

They could call themselves the unified atheist league.

😛

 

[Moonbeam]

All religions are basically appeals for compassion and the fact that the consideration of the other leads to transformation, the disappearance of the self and that the acquisition of this state produces happiness. One is always happy in love and if one loves the other as one would wish to be loved, the love of self becomes real. It is the love of others that makes self love possible and the love of the self that makes it possible to love others. These two things are one and the same.

Compassion for kin is the probable origin of compassion generally, the survival of the genes one has in oneself by promoting the survival of those same genes in relatives. Compassion is older than humanity, evolutionarily speaking. It seems to be that love is a law of the universe. Life seeks for life to live. The genes mission is to replicate itself by creating compassionate beings as carriers. So this feeling of love for life inside of our being is a reflection of the laws of nature. We call God love and were created in His image. But the perfection of that mirror state is lost with the delusion of self hate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just what do I believe? Do I think killing everyone is right? Where have I explicitly said this?

Where have I said that you have said this?

You implied quite clearly that you lack any personal, internal reason not to be a mass murderer. If you had such a reason, you would not have to ask the question "why not be a mass murderer." Moreover, you *did* state explicitly that "slavery was right." I must ask again:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Because I have an intellect and ask uncomfortable questions and make points which offend you doesn't mean all that much.

You points do not offend me. Your apparent total lack of human empathy is what is appalling.

I challenge, no dare you, to demonstrate with objective scientific incontrovertible proof that your emotional outburst has any more validity woven into the fabric of space time than my hypotheticals.

What the fuck are you on about now? Care to actually address my points? If you'd taken the time to consider them you'd understand that your silly "dare" is nonsensical.

 

[ivwshane]

In defense of hayabusa, he didn't say slavery was right. He was saying that right and wrong is merely a consensus of society at any given point in time and in the grand scheme of things our morality, decisions/actions are pretty much inconsequential. His comment on slavery was simply an example to highlight that our values change change and because they change they really have no value.


Thinking about it more though, it could be argued that our individual actions, while seemingly insignificant when viewed individually, could have a rather large cumulative affect whose total sum of actions over time leads to a rather significant events, even when viewed on a scale as large as the universe.

Kind of like how a single drop of water has no effect on a solid stone but but a trillion drops can be enough to carve a canyon.

Where have I said that you have said this?

You implied quite clearly that you lack any personal, internal reason not to be a mass murderer. If you had such a reason, you would not have to ask the question "why not be a mass murderer." Moreover, you *did* state explicitly that "slavery was right." I must ask again:

What the fuck is wrong with you?


You points do not offend me. Your apparent total lack of human empathy is what is appalling.


What the fuck are you on about now? Care to actually address my points? If you'd taken the time to consider them you'd understand that your silly "dare" is nonsensical.

 

[Moonbeam]

In defense of hayabusa, he didn't say slavery was right. He was saying that right and wrong is merely a consensus of society at any given point in time and in the grand scheme of things our morality, decisions/actions are pretty much inconsequential. His comment on slavery was simply an example to highlight that our values change change and because they change they really have no value.


Thinking about it more though, it could be argued that our individual actions, while seemingly insignificant when viewed individually, could have a rather large cumulative affect whose total sum of actions over time leads to a rather significant events, even when viewed on a scale as large as the universe.

Kind of like how a single drop of water has no effect on a solid stone but but a trillion drops can be enough to carve a canyon.

Hay seems to me to me to be saying that if morality is relative then it seems illogical that there can be no absolute standard as to what morality is, not that he himself doesn't have moral belief. What Cerpin Taxt is saying is harder for me to determine. He seems to be saying that morality can't be objective but that slavery is always wrong and to me if you say something is always wrong then it is objectively wrong. He seems to imply that morality is instinctual or that if you trusted your instincts you would know what it is, maybe? I would agree with that. The problem I see with that, however, if I have expressed it correctly, is in knowing what your instincts are. I would think, for example, that slave owners would have called their opinions instinctive that they were superior to black people and had the right to make them slaves, The problem is always the ego. How does a person with ego know what being egoless is?

 

[Atreus21]

Which parts of christianity are original in your opinion?

The incarnation.

 

[Atreus21]

In defense of hayabusa, he didn't say slavery was right. He was saying that right and wrong is merely a consensus of society at any given point in time and in the grand scheme of things our morality, decisions/actions are pretty much inconsequential. His comment on slavery was simply an example to highlight that our values change change and because they change they really have no value.

Seems to me that's very confused thinking. That our values change is an indictment of humanity, not of the values themselves. Murder, slavery, and rape remain wrong no matter how many people delude themselves of their rightness.

 

[MongGrel]

All religions are basically appeals for compassion and the fact that the consideration of the other leads to transformation, the disappearance of the self and that the acquisition of this state produces happiness. One is always happy in love and if one loves the other as one would wish to be loved, the love of self becomes real. It is the love of others that makes self love possible and the love of the self that makes it possible to love others. These two things are one and the same.

Compassion for kin is the probable origin of compassion generally, the survival of the genes one has in oneself by promoting the survival of those same genes in relatives. Compassion is older than humanity, evolutionarily speaking. It seems to be that love is a law of the universe. Life seeks for life to live. The genes mission is to replicate itself by creating compassionate beings as carriers. So this feeling of love for life inside of our being is a reflection of the laws of nature. We call God love and were created in His image. But the perfection of that mirror state is lost with the delusion of self hate.

I'm not even sure I'd agree there, Scientology for one still looks from the outside more of a Corporation than an appeal for compassion.

My wife grew up a pretty devout Catholic till her mid teens, my Italian mother-in-law even stopped going after they become more engrossed with financial things than religion at one point.

Are a few others won't go into.

 

[zinfamous]

So what? That's your prerogative.



According to modern-day atheism, yep.



Should you? That's up to you, bucko!

I thought I was expanding on your comment...but I guess not. You really take every goddamn thing way too personally.

 

[Retro Rob]

I thought I was expanding on your comment...but I guess not. You really take every goddamn thing way too personally.

I was being sarcastic, Sherlock.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In defense of hayabusa, he didn't say slavery was right. He was saying that right and wrong is merely a consensus of society at any given point in time and in the grand scheme of things our morality, decisions/actions are pretty much inconsequential. His comment on slavery was simply an example to highlight that our values change change and because they change they really have no value

Thank you for thinking about what I was saying. I believe you understand what I was getting at, especially about slavery. I would have thought my comments would be understood as being about "in the eye of the beholder" statement. By the time of the Civil War, strong moral arguments against slavery were common and "of course it's wrong". Thousands of years ago however it was seen as how things were. It was part of their economic system. It didn't make things more pleasant by any means, but it was a societal norm in some cultures. In order to have any understanding of how people thought and felt, in other words a collective empathy, one needs to attempt to look at how people living in those times might have seen the world. To them it was how it was. Chances are the moral arguments we make today would not have occurred to them. I didn't think the statement and consequences thereof was that complicated but evidently I was mistaken. I'd argue that our perceptions have value, but there is no fixed absolutes that can be fairly applied when we could not have possibly walked in their shoes. That in no way implies we have to approve of slavery or a host of wrongs, but to reflexively assign our values today to Egypt three thousand years ago isn't very useful in understanding the world at that time.

Hay seems to me to me to be saying that if morality is relative then it seems illogical that there can be no absolute standard as to what morality is, not that he himself doesn't have moral belief. What Cerpin Taxt is saying is harder for me to determine. He seems to be saying that morality can't be objective but that slavery is always wrong and to me if you say something is always wrong then it is objectively wrong.

I'd say that slavery is wrong. I would rather it never have been, but to be outraged or haughty in our moral superiority automatically condemns all or most of all people in all past ages as evil, or at least so accepting of it that they might as well have been. Well I suppose one could, but that blocks any understanding or empathy of what people lived with at that time. I wonder Cerpin Taxt would say if in 500 years he was condemned because he lives a comfortable life while much of the world suffers or he sat by while the sixth major extinction event happened. By their "superior" moral enlightenment he just might tacitly support evils they consider as egregious as slavery. What would his defense be to someone who wonders "what the fuck was wrong with him"? I wonder.

But in the end it's been said that our collective morality to do actually do what is good, and throughout the ages being of aid to others would be an enduring example. Does it automatically make it correct in an objective sense. Ultimately I can't know but I choose to consider that not nearly as important as making the effort to do good as I see it.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, atheists. I would be embarrassed to admit I was an atheist, it's mostly a bunch of neckbeards sitting around and making lame jokes about the FSM, trying to convince themselves they're smarter than everyone else.

I'm agnostic. I don't know, and more importantly I don't care. The existence or non-existence of god does not affect my life. The theists and atheists who argue about this shit constantly are all just a bunch of pathetic douchebags.