Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Czernobog]

There is no evidence that most our founders were diest vs theist, that’s all conjecture and the evidence points to the contrary outside of Thomas Paine and franklin, maybe some other not so popular ones. EVEN IF THAT WAS THE CASE. Deism IS STILL A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. More importantly natural law, is a largely religious belief/ religiously motivated. And it’s the belief that there is a natural order to the world (usually carried out by a creator) and that natural order should not be trifled with, ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT.

The Founding Fathers were in a precarious position when it came to public profession of their personal faith. These men were trying to establish a nation free from religious constraint and open to all faiths, they couldn't very well do that while maintaining a perception of alliance with any one faith in particular so they often opted to identify as "deist" or keep that to themselves altogether. And as you pointed out, deism is not atheism, far from it.

It's also a far cry from theism,.

 

[Boss]

It's also a far cry from theism,.

Not by YOUR criteria... you count spiritualism as theism. Remember?

 

[Czernobog]

Sorry, a fetus is not a person. And abortion isn't about eugenics.

Sorry, but your political viewpoint doesn't negate actual science and biology. Until you can show me how a fetus is NOT a living human being, it remains a living human being in the fetal stage of development. If it weren't a living human being, there would be no termination through abortion necessary.

And YES.. abortion was most certainly devised and promoted as a form of Eugenics by Margaret Sanger. Denying that a human fetus isn't human is no different than denying Jews, slaves or infidels are human. And this is the entire problem with your moral relativism and "rational positions" argument.

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

 

[Czernobog]

It's also a far cry from theism,.

Not by YOUR criteria... you count spiritualism as theism. Remember?

No, I don't. I just don't believe you when you insist that you are a spiritualist.You "spiritualism", as you describe it, tastes an awful lot like theism.

 

[sakinago]

And religion gave us the Inquisition, the Witch trials, the Crusades, and Jihad. Your point?

Jihad is the radical fanaticism of a false religion. The Inquisition, Crusades and witch trials resulted in a whopping 2,300 deaths total. Eugenics has killed millions.

The inquisition, alone, was responsible for over 3,000 deaths. Do better.

Stop with your collectivist BS. The inquisition in Spain 1000 years ago does not define the rest of the religious world...just like the rawandian genocide doesn’t encompass and account for the entire African continent.

It’s wrong to call all Muslims terrorist, it should be equally wrong to blame all Christians today for the inquisition.

 

[Czernobog]

And religion gave us the Inquisition, the Witch trials, the Crusades, and Jihad. Your point?

Jihad is the radical fanaticism of a false religion. The Inquisition, Crusades and witch trials resulted in a whopping 2,300 deaths total. Eugenics has killed millions.

The inquisition, alone, was responsible for over 3,000 deaths. Do better.

Stop with your collectivist BS. The inquisition in Spain 1000 years ago does not define the rest of the religious world...just like the rawandian genocide doesn’t encompass and account for the entire African continent.

It’s wrong to call all Muslims terrorist, it should be equally wrong to blame all Christians today for the inquisition.

Why? You want to blame all atheists for Eugenics, even though Eugenics has nothing to do with one's theological position.

 

[sakinago]

Sorry, a fetus is not a person. And abortion isn't about eugenics.

Sorry, but your political viewpoint doesn't negate actual science and biology. Until you can show me how a fetus is NOT a living human being, it remains a living human being in the fetal stage of development. If it weren't a living human being, there would be no termination through abortion necessary.

And YES.. abortion was most certainly devised and promoted as a form of Eugenics by Margaret Sanger. Denying that a human fetus isn't human is no different than denying Jews, slaves or infidels are human. And this is the entire problem with your moral relativism and "rational positions" argument.

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

“Person” or “personhood” is an complete abstract term. There is no single definition of it. There is no single definition of it in science. You’re belief in a “personhood” is no better than a belief of god.

Again YOURE A FAKE ATHEIST. Let me put this in different terms that are regionally based. You are like a cowboys fan who is born and raised in philly, because all you’re friends are eagles fans and you just wanted to be different. And rooting for the cowboys who were doing well at the time was a slap in the face to the rest of your friends. When I say you might as well be a satanist, in the sports terms I’m using in this metaphor, you might as well be a patriots fan. You are not an atheist, you are just counter to Christianity.

 

[Czernobog]

Sorry, a fetus is not a person. And abortion isn't about eugenics.

Sorry, but your political viewpoint doesn't negate actual science and biology. Until you can show me how a fetus is NOT a living human being, it remains a living human being in the fetal stage of development. If it weren't a living human being, there would be no termination through abortion necessary.

And YES.. abortion was most certainly devised and promoted as a form of Eugenics by Margaret Sanger. Denying that a human fetus isn't human is no different than denying Jews, slaves or infidels are human. And this is the entire problem with your moral relativism and "rational positions" argument.

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

“Person” or “personhood” is an complete abstract term. There is no single definition of it. There is no single definition of it in science. You’re belief in a “personhood” is no better than a belief of god.

Again YOURE A FAKE ATHEIST. Let me put this in different terms that are regionally based. You are like a cowboys fan who is born and raised in philly, because all you’re friends are eagles fans and you just wanted to be different. And rooting for the cowboys who were doing well at the time was a slap in the face to the rest of your friends. When I say you might as well be a satanist, in the sports terms I’m using in this metaphor, you might as well be a patriots fan. You are not an atheist, you are just counter to Christianity.

**** off. And please know that I am telling you that with no anger. You presume to tell me what I believe, and why, and you don't even know me. I wasn't aware you were a psychic. Please. Tell me this weeks winning LOTTO numbers. Or, just quit pretending you know what my thoughts are better than I do, and **** off.

As to your rant about personhood, personhood is the foundation of our concept of rights, and responsibilities. Someone who is not a person cannot be afforded rights. This is why anti-abortionists are trying so desperately to have laws passed declaring personhood for fetuses; because they know that only a person is afforded the rights, and protections of the Constitution.

 

[sakinago]

And religion gave us the Inquisition, the Witch trials, the Crusades, and Jihad. Your point?

Jihad is the radical fanaticism of a false religion. The Inquisition, Crusades and witch trials resulted in a whopping 2,300 deaths total. Eugenics has killed millions.

The inquisition, alone, was responsible for over 3,000 deaths. Do better.

Stop with your collectivist BS. The inquisition in Spain 1000 years ago does not define the rest of the religious world...just like the rawandian genocide doesn’t encompass and account for the entire African continent.

It’s wrong to call all Muslims terrorist, it should be equally wrong to blame all Christians today for the inquisition.

Why? You want to blame all atheists for Eugenics, even though Eugenics has nothing to do with one's theological position.

I never once did that. Never. And don’t try to deflect from what you’re doing and try to drag me into it when I have never done it. What you just tried to accuse me of, is 100% what you have been doing. Own it. Don’t deflect.

 

[Marion Morrison]

And religion gave us the Inquisition, the Witch trials, the Crusades, and Jihad. Your point?

Jihad is the radical fanaticism of a false religion. The Inquisition, Crusades and witch trials resulted in a whopping 2,300 deaths total. Eugenics has killed millions.

The inquisition, alone, was responsible for over 3,000 deaths. Do better.

Castro, one atheist dictator, killed an estimated 16,000.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-deaths-was-Fidel-Castro-responsible-for

 

[Boss]

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

The difference is semantics. Prior to the Civil War, some people favored the rights of actual persons who were white over non-persons who were slaves. Personhood is an arbitrary distinction with an artificial threshold of "viability". A newborn infant is also "not viable" in that, it cannot sustain life on it's own. In fact, it will be several years before it could reasonably be expected to take care of itself... it's still a human being.

But look man... you're making my case beautifully. This is exactly where atheist "rational positions" devoid of actual morals and ethics always leads us.

 

[Boss]

It's also a far cry from theism,.

Not by YOUR criteria... you count spiritualism as theism. Remember?

No, I don't. I just don't believe you when you insist that you are a spiritualist.You "spiritualism", as you describe it, tastes an awful lot like theism.

Well I'm sorry you don't believe me but I doubt I'll lose sleep over that.

 

[Czernobog]

And religion gave us the Inquisition, the Witch trials, the Crusades, and Jihad. Your point?

Jihad is the radical fanaticism of a false religion. The Inquisition, Crusades and witch trials resulted in a whopping 2,300 deaths total. Eugenics has killed millions.

The inquisition, alone, was responsible for over 3,000 deaths. Do better.

Castro, one atheist dictator, killed an estimated 16,000.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-deaths-was-Fidel-Castro-responsible-for

In the name of atheism, or in the name of solidifying political power? Sorry. Another swing and a miss.

 

[Czernobog]

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

The difference is semantics. Prior to the Civil War, some people favored the rights of actual persons who were white over non-persons who were slaves. Personhood is an arbitrary distinction with an artificial threshold of "viability". A newborn infant is also "not viable" in that, it cannot sustain life on it's own. In fact, it will be several years before it could reasonably be expected to take care of itself... it's still a human being.

But look man... you're making my case beautifully. This is exactly where atheist "rational positions" devoid of actual morals and ethics always leads us.

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

 

[sakinago]

Sorry, a fetus is not a person. And abortion isn't about eugenics.

Sorry, but your political viewpoint doesn't negate actual science and biology. Until you can show me how a fetus is NOT a living human being, it remains a living human being in the fetal stage of development. If it weren't a living human being, there would be no termination through abortion necessary.

And YES.. abortion was most certainly devised and promoted as a form of Eugenics by Margaret Sanger. Denying that a human fetus isn't human is no different than denying Jews, slaves or infidels are human. And this is the entire problem with your moral relativism and "rational positions" argument.

I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. there is a difference. I will always favour the rights, and desires of the actual person over that of the non-viable fetal potential person every time.

“Person” or “personhood” is an complete abstract term. There is no single definition of it. There is no single definition of it in science. You’re belief in a “personhood” is no better than a belief of god.

Again YOURE A FAKE ATHEIST. Let me put this in different terms that are regionally based. You are like a cowboys fan who is born and raised in philly, because all you’re friends are eagles fans and you just wanted to be different. And rooting for the cowboys who were doing well at the time was a slap in the face to the rest of your friends. When I say you might as well be a satanist, in the sports terms I’m using in this metaphor, you might as well be a patriots fan. You are not an atheist, you are just counter to Christianity.

**** off. And please know that I am telling you that with no anger. You presume to tell me what I believe, and why, and you don't even know me. I wasn't aware you were a psychic. Please. Tell me this weeks winning LOTTO numbers. Or, just quit pretending you know what my thoughts are better than I do, and **** off.

As to your rant about personhood, personhood is the foundation of our concept of rights, and responsibilities. Someone who is not a person cannot be afforded rights. This is why anti-abortionists are trying so desperately to have laws passed declaring personhood for fetuses; because they know that only a person is afforded the rights, and protections of the Constitution.

I’m telling you what you are by your own actions. If you don’t want to be called out as a person who generalizes...then don’t generalize, it’s that simple.

“Persons” should not be a legal term, because it is an abstract term with zero definition. Unless you want law being defined by terms that have no meaning, not even lacking in a philosophical definition but even an scientifical one, then stop calling yourself an atheist. You are just someone who opposes Christianity. The fucked up thing is, we have a scientifical definition of life that YOU choose to ignore as an atheist. You do not care about life, you care only about what you can relate to.

 

[Boss]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

 

[Boss]

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

I'm just stating a biological fact. Human life begins at conception. There is no other time it "becomes" what it already is. When it obtains sentience or capacity for thought, that's debatable and we can certainly entertain that debate, but there is no debating it's a human being in the fetal stage of development.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

 

[sakinago]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.