Atheist 10 commandments

[finglobes]

Individually I know good atheists. The atheist groups though are pretty silly. They complain about "religious wars" while waging one. They complain about religious codes while imitating one they are supposed to be against. If there is no supreme being there is no ultimate truth or right vs wrong. Everyone is free do think what they want. Cannibals, rapists, murderers etc are just like the religious abolitionists.

 

[Greenman]

Why ten commandments? Atheists always talk about how smart they are, why couldn't they get the job done with just five? Or is this a case of trying to prove that their commandments are better than the originals? If so, they need better writers.

 

[justoh]

Not only is it stupid to generalize about atheists based on the embarrassment that is the OP and any supposed atheist who said anything other than, "this thread is ridiculous," it always must have been the case that it was stupid to generalize about atheism, anyway, due to the should-not-have-to-be-continuously mentioned fact that an atheist is one who simply doesn't believe in gods.

So, these are bad representatives of something that can't meaningfully be represented in the first place, due to how easy it is to satisfy the basic condition of atheism. And the people celebrating their stupidity must also be stupid, because the correct response is actually sadness and frustration.

 

[shira]

I'd prefer not to have any commandments.

#9 seems to negate all the rest. This is becoming a religion.

Which is why these are being called "non-commandments." Guess you weren't paying attention. Maybe you let some ideological thing get in the way.

By the way, that would have been my non-commandment: "Don't let dogma get in the way of paying attention."

 

[Rakehellion]

Which is why these are being called "non-commandments." Guess you weren't paying attention. Maybe you let some ideological thing get in the way.

By the way, that would have been my non-commandment: "Don't let dogma get in the way of paying attention."

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

 

[Moonbeam]

Not only is it stupid to generalize about atheists based on the embarrassment that is the OP and any supposed atheist who said anything other than, "this thread is ridiculous," it always must have been the case that it was stupid to generalize about atheism, anyway, due to the should-not-have-to-be-continuously mentioned fact that an atheist is one who simply doesn't believe in gods.

So, these are bad representatives of something that can't meaningfully be represented in the first place, due to how easy it is to satisfy the basic condition of atheism. And the people celebrating their stupidity must also be stupid, because the correct response is actually sadness and frustration.

You are saying that it is stupid to generalize about atheists based on atheists that don't know what atheism is when most atheists are atheists because they have generalized about who God is based on the beliefs of people who have no idea who He is. Isn't that pot calling kettle......?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Can the OP at least fix the spelling in the thread title?

 

[pcgeek11]

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! ^^^

 

[Ventanni]

Well here's a tidbit from the Bible which is interesting to consider.

All Is Vanity
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

If you don't understand what the word "vanity" means in this context it properly translates as "meaningless"

I want to comment on this, but before I begin,I want to comment on the OP's 10 commandments of the atheist first.

I think as a good thing. Yes, even as a devout Christian, I think establishing 10 commandments is a good idea for a very good reason. To us Christians, we have God, and God doesn't change. He's the same yesterday and he'll be the same tomorrow, and with that His moral code doesn't change either. I'm commanded to love, to honor, to serve, and to live a life of responsible stewardship so that I may be a [positive] witness to others. And any Christian behavior that doesn't fall into that category is not Christ-like behavior. But what that also does is protect us where others may try and persuade us that certain behaviors are okay. Essentially the question to the atheist is, without a moral code to be guided by, do you want someone else telling you what's right and what's wrong? No, you don't, and I think this is where both atheists and Christians alike can agree that ethical decisions of what's right and wrong must be done at a personal level. I'm commanded to question even the statements my pastor makes, because that leads to further understanding and knowledge of what's right and wrong.

Now, as for what you've quoted, yes, I think it's interesting you would bring this particular passage from Ecclesiastes (chapter 1) to a discussion involving atheists. The book is written by King Solomon of Israel who was known for his great wisdom. Many sought his council, and even his father, King David, recognized his wisdom at a young age. But King Solomon wasn't a perfect man. In the book of Ecclesiastes, he essentially admits to squandering his younger and middle aged years to living for himself. Now you have to realize, Solomon was a very wealthy, educated, powerful, and influential man; a great critical thinker, leader, and philosopher of his time. But it's in his later years that he realizes that a life without God is meaningless. He's essentially asking "What's the point of man's labor? The sun goes up, the sun goes down, children are born, and our parents eventually die. Rivers flow and the seas fill the sky with rain. And when we die we will eventually be forgotten. But the works of God last forever." And throughout the book of Ecclesiastes, he's going into more detail and logical reasoning as to why. This passage that you've quoted is just the most famous portion.

But anyways, that's what Solomon is referring to when he's using the word "vanity" in this case. "All is vanity, all is meaningless," he's stating, "without including God in your life."

(to paraphrase for you guys)

 

[child of wonder]

To us Christians, we have God, and God doesn't change. He's the same yesterday and he'll be the same tomorrow, and with that His moral code doesn't change either.

This is contrary to what most Christians believe -- that in the old Testament God was OK with slavery, murder, genocide, rape, women as property, and so on then gentle Jesus comes along and *POOF* God is all loving, caring, etc.

If this doesn't constitute a change of moral code, I don't know what does.

And let's not get into the tired discussion of "God was just adapting his message to the cultural mores of the time." Is slavery wrong or isn't it? Is rape wrong or isn't it? Was Lot, the one "decent" man in Soddom God chose to spare, behaving morally or immorally when he offered up his daughters to be gang raped by the mob in place of the angels?

You can't have it both ways -- either morality is not absolute and objective or it is. Either God condoned atrocities in the Old Testament or he simply changed morality itself to suit his whims.

As for Solomon, it doesn't take religion to notice how puny one is compared to the eternal, vast, enormity of the cosmos and how even the most glorious accomplishments or devastating tragedies are merely a grain of sand falling through the hourglass of time on a small, pale blue dot in an insignificant solar system, in an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant local cluster, in an insignificant supercluster of galaxies, in an indifferent universe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now, as for what you've quoted, yes, I think it's interesting you would bring this particular passage from Ecclesiastes (chapter 1) to a discussion involving atheists. The book is written by King Solomon of Israel who was known for his great wisdom. Many sought his council, and even his father, King David, recognized his wisdom at a young age. But King Solomon wasn't a perfect man. In the book of Ecclesiastes, he essentially admits to squandering his younger and middle aged years to living for himself. Now you have to realize, Solomon was a very wealthy, educated, powerful, and influential man; a great critical thinker, leader, and philosopher of his time. But it's in his later years that he realizes that a life without God is meaningless. He's essentially asking "What's the point of man's labor? The sun goes up, the sun goes down, children are born, and our parents eventually die. Rivers flow and the seas fill the sky with rain. And when we die we will eventually be forgotten. But the works of God last forever." And throughout the book of Ecclesiastes, he's going into more detail and logical reasoning as to why. This passage that you've quoted is just the most famous portion.

But anyways, that's what Solomon is referring to when he's using the word "vanity" in this case. "All is vanity, all is meaningless," he's stating, "without including God in your life."

I understand what you are saying and I get your point, including the last. What I'm saying is that if one rejects entirely the possibility of a higher being there are natural consequences. What follows is merely a chain of reasoning, not a summation of my thoughts and beliefs.

If there is nothing more than the reality we see, if there is no being who has access to wisdom beyond ours and therefore more capable of defining right and wrong then there is no such thing. They are merely constructs, artifices with absolutely no more validity than any other. Why not be a mass murderer? The suffering, the consequences, all are meaningless. From the very first moment the universe popped out of the vacuum to where it fades into oblivion at the end of all things and all in between, nothing has meaning other than the arbitrary values we assign and none of those are any more or less valid than any others. It's merely a consensus and the power to enforce it that causes a thing to be right or wrong. Literally everything is meaningless because there cannot be meaning except for the things we assign value to and that isn't lasting in any case. You can make "commandments" and argue they are good for society, but that's a construct too. It's what we come up with to make us feel better. Slavery? It was right then and wrong now, but that's opinion and nothing more. There is no such thing as morality in the fabric of the universe and all options and opinions are equally valid, or invalid as they are all ultimately meaningless in any possible objective sense.

Depressing isn't it?

 

[zinfamous]

Again, another lefty advocating destruction of values. You should have had a staring role in that movie, Gremlins. Nothing good comes of your existence on this earth. Did you swing so far left, so fast, that it put a dent on your skull, when you hit the other side, or did you spread it out a little bit?

I think Jesus came about to preach against people like yourself.

 

[zinfamous]

It's not a strawman -- I just don't (and perhaps wrongly, admittedly) draw a distinction between atheists and atheism.

It's time I should.

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.

 

[child of wonder]

If there is nothing more than the reality we see, if there is no being who has access to wisdom beyond ours and therefore more capable of defining right and wrong then there is no such thing. They are merely constructs, artifices with absolutely no more validity than any other. Why not be a mass murderer? The suffering, the consequences, all are meaningless.

Are you saying if a god didn't exist you would consider mass murder? I think that morality is merely a human construct speaks volumes for those who live moral lives without thinking it comes from some authority. As I tell my kids "do right because it is the right thing to do not because you expect something in return."

And of course the suffering and consequences are not meaningless. What an awful thing to say. Without a supreme dictator in the sky, taking away someone's life or inflicting suffering on them is "meaningless."

From the very first moment the universe popped out of the vacuum to where it fades into oblivion at the end of all things and all in between, nothing has meaning other than the arbitrary values we assign and none of those are any more or less valid than any others. It's merely a consensus and the power to enforce it that causes a thing to be right or wrong. Literally everything is meaningless because there cannot be meaning except for the things we assign value to and that isn't lasting in any case. You can make "commandments" and argue they are good for society, but that's a construct too. It's what we come up with to make us feel better. Slavery? It was right then and wrong now, but that's opinion and nothing more. There is no such thing as morality in the fabric of the universe and all options and opinions are equally valid, or invalid as they are all ultimately meaningless in any possible objective sense.

Depressing isn't it?

Not in the slightest. To me, an eternal, supervising parent who forces our worship through threat of infinite torture is far more depressing.

Why must everything have an absolute meaning? If we simply are a brief speck of consciousness in an ocean of time and space, why must it mean something? Why can't we enjoy it for what it is in the sliver of time we have it? Why can only a supreme being or something "higher than ourselves" give anything true meaning? Isn't a supreme being's "meaning" also simply a construct, a whim on its behalf on what it feels is moral? Could god change his mind on murder tomorrow and, if he did, would you agree that murder is moral?

 

[Retro Rob]

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

So what? That's your prerogative.

All religious people are fundamentalist batshit insanos, right?

According to modern-day atheism, yep.

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

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you saying if a god didn't exist you would consider mass murder? I think that morality is merely a human construct speaks volumes for those who live moral lives without thinking it comes from some authority. As I tell my kids "do right because it is the right thing to do not because you expect something in return."

And of course the suffering and consequences are not meaningless. What an awful thing to say. Without a supreme dictator in the sky, taking away someone's life or inflicting suffering on them is "meaningless."



Not in the slightest. To me, an eternal, supervising parent who forces our worship through threat of infinite torture is far more depressing.

Why must everything have an absolute meaning? If we simply are a brief speck of consciousness in an ocean of time and space, why must it mean something? Why can't we enjoy it for what it is in the sliver of time we have it? Why can only a supreme being or something "higher than ourselves" give anything true meaning? Isn't a supreme being's "meaning" also simply a construct, a whim on its behalf on what it feels is moral? Could god change his mind on murder tomorrow and, if he did, would you agree that murder is moral?

What you opine is fine with me. It doesn't really matter now does it?

 

[ivwshane]

Can the OP at least fix the spelling in the thread title?

Good lord! Was the spelling throwing you off?!

 

[ivwshane]

I understand what you are saying and I get your point, including the last. What I'm saying is that if one rejects entirely the possibility of a higher being there are natural consequences. What follows is merely a chain of reasoning, not a summation of my thoughts and beliefs.

If there is nothing more than the reality we see, if there is no being who has access to wisdom beyond ours and therefore more capable of defining right and wrong then there is no such thing. They are merely constructs, artifices with absolutely no more validity than any other. Why not be a mass murderer? The suffering, the consequences, all are meaningless. From the very first moment the universe popped out of the vacuum to where it fades into oblivion at the end of all things and all in between, nothing has meaning other than the arbitrary values we assign and none of those are any more or less valid than any others. It's merely a consensus and the power to enforce it that causes a thing to be right or wrong. Literally everything is meaningless because there cannot be meaning except for the things we assign value to and that isn't lasting in any case. You can make "commandments" and argue they are good for society, but that's a construct too. It's what we come up with to make us feel better. Slavery? It was right then and wrong now, but that's opinion and nothing more. There is no such thing as morality in the fabric of the universe and all options and opinions are equally valid, or invalid as they are all ultimately meaningless in any possible objective sense.

Depressing isn't it?

I agree but I don't find it depressing at all. It's empowering. I get to create the meaning of life for myself, as opposed to trying to find out what that meaning is and whether or not I'm living up to life's expectations. It means I'm required to focus on the here and now and not what might be when I die.

 

[ivwshane]

So what? That's your prerogative.



According to modern-day atheism, yep.



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

I think you've created a boogeyman. Sure there might be some atheists that have the mentality that you described but that doesn't mean they all think like that. Where exactly are you getting your info from to come to that conclusion?

 

[alzan]

I think you've created a boogeyman. Sure there might be some atheists that have the mentality that you described but that doesn't mean they all think like that. Where exactly are you getting your info from to come to that conclusion?

And it's taken him a long time to create that boogeyman.

All of his years away from the confines of the church and a belief system were spent in his mental laboratory, meticulously shaping his creation; a little Richard Dawkins here, a little Sam Harris there, some Christopher Hitchens thrown in for good measure. As well as his own mistranslations of what was taught to him in the classroom; the "lie" of evolution.

Now he's back in the church and his belief system, which he never truly left; with his Christian armor shiny and new, he dutifully battles against the boogeyman.

Never quite realizing or wanting to admit that he really battles only against himself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree but I don't find it depressing at all. It's empowering. I get to create the meaning of life for myself, as opposed to trying to find out what that meaning is and whether or not I'm living up to life's expectations. It means I'm required to focus on the here and now and not what might be when I die.

And for you that's fine, note I said at the outset that nothing I said should be construed as my perspective, which I try to avoid giving. I do however try to approach things from different viewpoints and I know that many people independent of religion believe that they can make a real objective lasting difference. They believe they are doing "good" while others are doing "evil". Well from their perspective I have no argument whatsoever. You know I rant against things I consider immoral and wrong, but in the end my opinion of what is good and that of ISIS is no more "right" or "wrong" than any other. We decide what these things are, but in a thousand years it will mean nothing. Some people would like to be right, but there really is no such thing. The universe is the ultimate laissez-fare entity.

So I'm not saying you are correct or not. That's not my place if I where Christian or a complete hardline atheist. It would either be job of someone who by definition knows better or there is no authority whatsoever other than artificial construct we agree upon in any given society.

In the end it really is meaningless from any possible objective standard. That however does not mean I think you should go out and bomb someone

 

[Rakehellion]

To us Christians, we have God, and God doesn't change. He's the same yesterday and he'll be the same tomorrow, and with that His moral code doesn't change either.

Morality changes. Things like slavery, rape, and murder are condoned in the Bible. And then you have all the passages that contradict the others. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[ivwshane]

And for you that's fine, note I said at the outset that nothing I said should be construed as my perspective, which I try to avoid giving. I do however try to approach things from different viewpoints and I know that many people independent of religion believe that they can make a real objective lasting difference. They believe they are doing "good" while others are doing "evil". Well from their perspective I have no argument whatsoever. You know I rant against things I consider immoral and wrong, but in the end my opinion of what is good and that of ISIS is no more "right" or "wrong" than any other. We decide what these things are, but in a thousand years it will mean nothing. Some people would like to be right, but there really is no such thing. The universe is the ultimate laissez-fare entity.

So I'm not saying you are correct or not. That's not my place if I where Christian or a complete hardline atheist. It would either be job of someone who by definition knows better or there is no authority whatsoever other than artificial construct we agree upon in any given society.

In the end it really is meaningless from any possible objective standard. That however does not mean I think you should go out and bomb someone

Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I agree with your points, the only part I disagreed with was the part that you thought it was depressing (not that I think you are wrong or that my view matters).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If there is nothing more than the reality we see, if there is no being who has access to wisdom beyond ours and therefore more capable of defining right and wrong then there is no such thing. They are merely constructs, artifices with absolutely no more validity than any other.

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

Why not be a mass murderer?

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.

The suffering, the consequences, all are meaningless.

Is beauty meaningless because it lacks objective validity?

From the very first moment the universe popped out of the vacuum to where it fades into oblivion at the end of all things and all in between, nothing has meaning other than the arbitrary values we assign and none of those are any more or less valid than any others.

So what?

It's merely a consensus and the power to enforce it that causes a thing to be right or wrong.

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

Literally everything is meaningless because there cannot be meaning except for the things we assign value to and that isn't lasting in any case.

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

You can make "commandments" and argue they are good for society, but that's a construct too. It's what we come up with to make us feel better. Slavery? It was right then and wrong now, but that's opinion and nothing more.

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

There is no such thing as morality in the fabric of the universe and all options and opinions are equally valid

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.

...or invalid as they are all ultimately meaningless in any possible objective sense.

Why does it need to have objective validity?

Depressing isn't it?

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

 

[child of wonder]

What you opine is fine with me. It doesn't really matter now does it?

When it's discarded without any thought because it conflicts with your beliefs, yes, I agree, it doesn't matter.