Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[sealybobo]

More sanctimonious BS from our resident egotist.

Yet another ad hominem attack from our resident irrational fanatic.

Are we somehow supposed to believe that this fantastical set of rules is the answer? Are YOU God?

**** off, idiot. Read the thread title, then read the OP - all of it - then attack me, again, since you are clearly incapable of a rational response...

First, I read it all ....

Second, I am appalled at the hubris of those who think they are so much more gifted than anyone else that they have the moral authority to try to dictate how people live their lives.

Third, I find your inflated sense of self-importance to be offensive in the extreme. I am stunned that someone who put this list together thinks that others should fall to their knees in blind obedience to the obviously superior intellect demonstrated by 10 lines of bullshit. You offer these as if you are some superior level of intelligence, deigning to pass on the fruits of your wisdom, when, in fact, the ignorance is virtually dripping from every word. The whole thing is a poorly veiled attempt to further specific political values by elevating them to the level of "commandments".

Fourth, you offer no rules - you offer "suggestions" There isn't a concrete piece of logical or philosophical merit in a single one of those "commandments", much less in the package as a whole. You tout the simplicity, but intentionally ignore the outward consequences. Simplicity would seem to be appropriate, but maybe simplistic is more germane.

Your "suggestions" are nothing more than a feeble attempt to demonstrate some level of intelligence you have yet to attain.

Rational response? Drivel like this doesn't deserve a rational response - it deserves ridicule and contempt, and must be dismissed by all adult rational thinkers.

Regarding your third point. I feel the same way about the Ten Commandments. So obviously man made up

 

[sealybobo]

More sanctimonious BS from our resident egotist.

Yet another ad hominem attack from our resident irrational fanatic.

Are we somehow supposed to believe that this fantastical set of rules is the answer? Are YOU God?

**** off, idiot. Read the thread title, then read the OP - all of it - then attack me, again, since you are clearly incapable of a rational response...

First, I read it all ....

Second, I am appalled at the hubris of those who think they are so much more gifted than anyone else that they have the moral authority to try to dictate how people live their lives.

Third, I find your inflated sense of self-importance to be offensive in the extreme. I am stunned that someone who put this list together thinks that others should fall to their knees in blind obedience to the obviously superior intellect demonstrated by 10 lines of bullshit. You offer these as if you are some superior level of intelligence, deigning to pass on the fruits of your wisdom, when, in fact, the ignorance is virtually dripping from every word. The whole thing is a poorly veiled attempt to further specific political values by elevating them to the level of "commandments".

Fourth, you offer no rules - you offer "suggestions" There isn't a concrete piece of logical or philosophical merit in a single one of those "commandments", much less in the package as a whole. You tout the simplicity, but intentionally ignore the outward consequences. Simplicity would seem to be appropriate, but maybe simplistic is more germane.

Your "suggestions" are nothing more than a feeble attempt to demonstrate some level of intelligence you have yet to attain.

Rational response? Drivel like this doesn't deserve a rational response - it deserves ridicule and contempt, and must be dismissed by all adult rational thinkers.

What a jackoff

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Sounds like a good purposeful person

According to Spare Change it's "sanctimonious BS". Of course, Spare change thinks that the 10 commandments are the perfectly rational rules for living handed down directly from God to Man, so his opinion is clearly contributive.

Are we taking a poll?

Well, that makes two idiots .....

If a priest handed you his Ten Commandments you’d take it on your knees. Funny you will listen to anything a guy says if he’s wearing a robe

 

[Bonzi]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

 

[sealybobo]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

Huh?

 

[Bonzi]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

Huh?

His #9 says there are no other rules, yet, aren't these basically 10 rules?

 

[Bonzi]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

Huh?

His #9 says there are no other rules, yet, aren't these basically 10 rules?

well, not THAT funny when I have to explain it!

 

[Czernobog]

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

That's kinda the point of #8. No one dictates morality, as morality is a personal issue. Now, this might lead some to incorrectly conclude that laws are meaningless. However, this is because many people make the mistake of believing that legally, and morality are interchangeable. They aren't. Laws are not designed as a set of morals so much as sets of agreed upon social structures to allow people to exist together in a society. This is why laws vary from culture to culture; because, those are the set of rules that culture agreed to abide by to get along.

As to "rewarding" good, and evil, if you're talking about what I think you are, that is a function of neurology, and, I would assume, evolution. If you think about most "good" acts, they are acts that encourage survival of the species. As such, the body, over time, developed an internal system to encourage positive behaviours. Now, this is only a theory, mind you, however the theory does seem to be supported by the fact that aberations do exist. Sociopaths, and other aberrations receive the serotonin "feel good" jolt from behaviours that are entirely different from the "norm". Now, bear in mind, this, again, offers an opportunity for misunderstanding. For many the term "aberration" carries with it a negative connotation. Such is not meant. Rather, it is only meant to imply a genetic, or evolutionary outlier.

As to "affirming" the truth, I refer to you points 1, and 2. There are, of course, thruths that cannot be 100% certain. At such times, it is more rational to attempt to understand what is the most likely to be true, and proceed from there.

 

[Czernobog]

Incidentally, Spare_change , the one thing you got right is that the 10 Rational positions are suggestions. After all, #8: There is no right way to live. That position, alone, dictates that no one has the moral authority to dictate to anyone else how they have to live. The fact that they are suggestions, alone, makes them light years better than the 10 commandments, which presumes that anyone has the authority to dictate a set personal morality to anyone else.

Relativism is now your goal??? Interesting ... it all depends on who is doing what to who, right?

To some degree, sure. If I shoot you in the face, I have committed murder, and an "evil act", right? But, If you are in the process of raping my sister, when I shoot you in the face, that rather changes the moral calculation a bit, now doesn't it?

 

[Czernobog]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

They aren't rules. They are rational positions. I'm sorry you are having a hard time understanding the difference. I get you. You spent your whole life being told how to behave, that you are incapable of thinking for yourself, and deciding for yourself how to live, and behave. So, any set of positions you presume are dictates. It never occurs to you that they may just be suggestions to provide you an origin from which to plot your own journey to your own moral code. Now, you might argue that you have your "own moral code", but if you are a theist - particularly a Christian theist - that is simply not true. Your moral code is not one that you arrived at independently; it is a code that was delivered to you.

The "10 rational positions" are a template to allow one to critically examine the world around them, and to arrive at their own moral code.

 

[Czernobog]

There is no right way to live.

Except for the other 9 rules....

Huh?

His #9 says there are no other rules, yet, aren't these basically 10 rules?

No, they're not. I have already explained, repeatedly, that they are not.

 

[sealybobo]

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

That's kinda the point of #8. No one dictates morality, as morality is a personal issue. Now, this might lead some to incorrectly conclude that laws are meaningless. However, this is because many people make the mistake of believing that legally, and morality are interchangeable. They aren't. Laws are not designed as a set of morals so much as sets of agreed upon social structures to allow people to exist together in a society. This is why laws vary from culture to culture; because, those are the set of rules that culture agreed to abide by to get along.

As to "rewarding" good, and evil, if you're talking about what I think you are, that is a function of neurology, and, I would assume, evolution. If you think about most "good" acts, they are acts that encourage survival of the species. As such, the body, over time, developed an internal system to encourage positive behaviours. Now, this is only a theory, mind you, however the theory does seem to be supported by the fact that aberations do exist. Sociopaths, and other aberrations receive the serotonin "feel good" jolt from behaviours that are entirely different from the "norm". Now, bear in mind, this, again, offers an opportunity for misunderstanding. For many the term "aberration" carries with it a negative connotation. Such is not meant. Rather, it is only meant to imply a genetic, or evolutionary outlier.

As to "affirming" the truth, I refer to you points 1, and 2. There are, of course, thruths that cannot be 100% certain. At such times, it is more rational to attempt to understand what is the most likely to be true, and proceed from there.

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

Who do you think dictates what is moral or immoral?

Pope Francis explains 'who am I to judge' in his new book

This Vatican adviser is moving Catholics toward LGBT inclusion

More Catholics support gay ‘marriage’ than ever before. Here’s why

 

[Czernobog]

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

That's kinda the point of #8. No one dictates morality, as morality is a personal issue. Now, this might lead some to incorrectly conclude that laws are meaningless. However, this is because many people make the mistake of believing that legally, and morality are interchangeable. They aren't. Laws are not designed as a set of morals so much as sets of agreed upon social structures to allow people to exist together in a society. This is why laws vary from culture to culture; because, those are the set of rules that culture agreed to abide by to get along.

As to "rewarding" good, and evil, if you're talking about what I think you are, that is a function of neurology, and, I would assume, evolution. If you think about most "good" acts, they are acts that encourage survival of the species. As such, the body, over time, developed an internal system to encourage positive behaviours. Now, this is only a theory, mind you, however the theory does seem to be supported by the fact that aberations do exist. Sociopaths, and other aberrations receive the serotonin "feel good" jolt from behaviours that are entirely different from the "norm". Now, bear in mind, this, again, offers an opportunity for misunderstanding. For many the term "aberration" carries with it a negative connotation. Such is not meant. Rather, it is only meant to imply a genetic, or evolutionary outlier.

As to "affirming" the truth, I refer to you points 1, and 2. There are, of course, thruths that cannot be 100% certain. At such times, it is more rational to attempt to understand what is the most likely to be true, and proceed from there.

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

Who do you think dictates what is moral or immoral?

Pope Francis explains 'who am I to judge' in his new book

This Vatican adviser is moving Catholics toward LGBT inclusion

More Catholics support gay ‘marriage’ than ever before. Here’s why

Well, that's easy. They would say "God".

 

[sealybobo]

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

That's kinda the point of #8. No one dictates morality, as morality is a personal issue. Now, this might lead some to incorrectly conclude that laws are meaningless. However, this is because many people make the mistake of believing that legally, and morality are interchangeable. They aren't. Laws are not designed as a set of morals so much as sets of agreed upon social structures to allow people to exist together in a society. This is why laws vary from culture to culture; because, those are the set of rules that culture agreed to abide by to get along.

As to "rewarding" good, and evil, if you're talking about what I think you are, that is a function of neurology, and, I would assume, evolution. If you think about most "good" acts, they are acts that encourage survival of the species. As such, the body, over time, developed an internal system to encourage positive behaviours. Now, this is only a theory, mind you, however the theory does seem to be supported by the fact that aberations do exist. Sociopaths, and other aberrations receive the serotonin "feel good" jolt from behaviours that are entirely different from the "norm". Now, bear in mind, this, again, offers an opportunity for misunderstanding. For many the term "aberration" carries with it a negative connotation. Such is not meant. Rather, it is only meant to imply a genetic, or evolutionary outlier.

As to "affirming" the truth, I refer to you points 1, and 2. There are, of course, thruths that cannot be 100% certain. At such times, it is more rational to attempt to understand what is the most likely to be true, and proceed from there.

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

Who do you think dictates what is moral or immoral?

Pope Francis explains 'who am I to judge' in his new book

This Vatican adviser is moving Catholics toward LGBT inclusion

More Catholics support gay ‘marriage’ than ever before. Here’s why

Well, that's easy. They would say "God".

But that's just silly. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

Why there is no god

 

[Czernobog]

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

That's kinda the point of #8. No one dictates morality, as morality is a personal issue. Now, this might lead some to incorrectly conclude that laws are meaningless. However, this is because many people make the mistake of believing that legally, and morality are interchangeable. They aren't. Laws are not designed as a set of morals so much as sets of agreed upon social structures to allow people to exist together in a society. This is why laws vary from culture to culture; because, those are the set of rules that culture agreed to abide by to get along.

As to "rewarding" good, and evil, if you're talking about what I think you are, that is a function of neurology, and, I would assume, evolution. If you think about most "good" acts, they are acts that encourage survival of the species. As such, the body, over time, developed an internal system to encourage positive behaviours. Now, this is only a theory, mind you, however the theory does seem to be supported by the fact that aberations do exist. Sociopaths, and other aberrations receive the serotonin "feel good" jolt from behaviours that are entirely different from the "norm". Now, bear in mind, this, again, offers an opportunity for misunderstanding. For many the term "aberration" carries with it a negative connotation. Such is not meant. Rather, it is only meant to imply a genetic, or evolutionary outlier.

As to "affirming" the truth, I refer to you points 1, and 2. There are, of course, thruths that cannot be 100% certain. At such times, it is more rational to attempt to understand what is the most likely to be true, and proceed from there.

Who dictates what is moral or immoral? What makes good rewarding and bad evil? How do you affirm this to be true?

Who do you think dictates what is moral or immoral?

Pope Francis explains 'who am I to judge' in his new book

This Vatican adviser is moving Catholics toward LGBT inclusion

More Catholics support gay ‘marriage’ than ever before. Here’s why

Well, that's easy. They would say "God".

But that's just silly. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

Why there is no god

I don't disagree. However, that's the problem with theistic mythology. Because of the belief that certain rules were "handed down" directly from "God" that makes them inviolate, and absolute. Religion encourages slavery, and absolute obedience. Indoctrination into religion makes the possibility of critical analysis of the religion nearly impossible, because it teaches, and encourages blind acceptance, and obedience to the dogma of the religion. Moreover, it demands that evything that would, to the rational mind, create doubt in the veracity of the dogma to be either ignored, or, somehow, twisted in such a way that it still fits the dogma.

 

[Bonzi]

So, what % of the world's population is going to live like this of their own free will?

Any guesses?

 

[Czernobog]

So, what % of the world's population is going to live like this of their own free will?

Any guesses?

I have no idea? Are you implying that a moral code requires force to be adopted? If so, you realise that you are admitting that Christianity does just what they are accused of, right? Propagating the riligion through force, and coercion.

 

[featherlite]

If you need to live by your own moral code, go on wit' yer bad self. Why even compare & compete with the 10 commandments at all. Do "rational positions" sound more self actualized?
...and how many atheists actually would live that list? Not many or theyed live a few but ignore the rest.

 

[Bonzi]

So, what % of the world's population is going to live like this of their own free will?

Any guesses?

I have no idea? Are you implying that a moral code requires force to be adopted? If so, you realise that you are admitting that Christianity does just what they are accused of, right? Propagating the riligion through force, and coercion.

Why do we have law enforcement and jails? The US has never had mandated religion, and I could be wrong, but don't think anyone on this board would support that.

I think a belief in God or even a thought he could exist keeps people in check

 

[Czernobog]

If you need to live by your own moral code, go on wit' yer bad self. Why even compare & compete with the 10 commandments at all. Do "rational positions" sound more self actualized?
...and how many atheists actually would live that list? Not many or theyed live a few but ignore the rest.

I would think the reason would be self explanatory. In spite of the fact that many of the "commandments" are pedantic, vague (Do not murder.kill), rigid, and gratuitous (Sabbath), Christians continue to hold up the 10 commandments as a valuable, universal code of morality that should be absolute.,

The 10 reasonable positions, are a rational alternative. None of them speak to specific behaviour, and all of them suggest a rational, reasonable way to act in one's own life, and how to behave towards others.

I notice that no one has tried to deconstruct any of the actual positions, but have instead expressed indignation that someone would dare suggest that there might be a better set of behavioural suggestions than the 10 commandments.