Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Good OP.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it." - Hillel

 

[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.

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.

See? I already addressed this. This is part of the problem with "10 commandments"; it blurs the line between legality, and morality. The two are not interchangeable. Laws are not designed as a set of personal moral constructs 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.

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

The irony is that you don't even recognise how disturbing that statement is. I don't choose to not kill your do, boil your wife in a giant pot to eat, while raping your daughter because I am afraid some invisible Sky Mage is going to send me to the Land of Ickiness for all time. I do so, because I am not a sociopath, and such behaviour is cruel, and reprehensible. If you need a fGod to fear to keep you from doing these kinds of things, that says a whole lot more about your lack of morals, than it does anyone else's.

Now, of course you'll ask, "How do you know it is cruel, and reprehensible," Well, I would simply refer you to rational position #7. Knowing how horrified, distraught, and devastated I would be if someone did that to me, it is only reasonable that another would feel just as horrified, distraught, and devastated, were I to do that to someone else. See? Reasonable moral position without the need for any vengeful invisible Sky Mage.

 

[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

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.

I have questioned enough Christians to know that ultimately they know they have blind faith in the unbelievable. What they don't realize is that it's more about wishful thinking than it is belief.

 

[LittleNipper]

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?

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

 

[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?

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

Okay, first. Rape. Is. Not. A. Sexual. Act. It is an act of control, and violence. So, if a woman forced you to the ground, ripped off your clothes, and forcibly fucked you up the ass with a strap-on, you wouldn't feel violated, or angry? Unless you're a sociopath, of course you would. Well?!?!? What makes you think it is any different for women? So, why would you think that it is perfectly okay to do something to a woman that you would not want done to you?

As to the execution question, I understand that I was not being exact enough in my example. Executing a criminal is, for me, a grey area. I personally think that the burden of proof for execution should be required to be higher than for any other punishment. Because with every other punishment, if we get it wrong, we can release you, pay you fuck-tons of money as recompense for our error, and send you on to the rest of your life. Once you're executed, if we were wrong, well...you're still kinda executed. Sucks to be you. So, in my mind, the death penalty should require not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it should require "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you cannot prove to that level of certainty that an accused person did that of which they are accused, then you should not be able to execute them.

That being said, execution is a matter of meting out justice, and should be performed by an uninvolved party. When an aggrieved party does the executing, it is no longer about justice; it has become an act of vengeance. And vengeance is an unhealthy pursuit.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have questioned enough Christians to know that ultimately they know they have blind faith in the unbelievable. What they don't realize is that it's more about wishful thinking than it is belief.

I don't know about that. One of the realities of the 1950's was that Faith and Church attendance were running high. The reason being that the men who came home from the war felt blessed that they were still alive ----- somehow----- when so many other their comrades died all around them. We won a war that seemed unstoppable. We were the ones who got the bomb when there was no altogether rational reason that the Germans or the Japanese could not have and applied it to us! Was it all a series of accidental blunders or Divine Providence? Could prayer have played the factor? Was all Germany praying to GOD to win or were they believers in their own superiority and Hitler's divine power --- and reaped the terrible consequences of their own self-righteous audacity.

God provides the faith! And when things seem their blackest, GOD demonstrates that HE is truly in charge. You are simply so engrossed in cyber space (worship of technical materialism), you cannot see the miracles happening all around you everyday.

 

[LittleNipper]

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?

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

Okay, first. Rape. Is. Not. A. Sexual. Act. It is an act of control, and violence. So, if a woman forced you to the ground, ripped off your clothes, and forcibly fucked you up the ass with a strap-on, you wouldn't feel violated, or angry? Unless you're a sociopath, of course you would. Well?!?!? What makes you think it is any different for women? So, why would you think that it is perfectly okay to do something to a woman that you would not want done to you?

As to the execution question, I understand that I was not being exact enough in my example. Executing a criminal is, for me, a grey area. I personally think that the burden of proof for execution should be required to be higher than for any other punishment. Because with every other punishment, if we get it wrong, we can release you, pay you fuck-tons of money as recompense for our error, and send you on to the rest of your life. Once you're executed, if we were wrong, well...you're still kinda executed. Sucks to be you. So, in my mind, the death penalty should require not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it should require "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you cannot prove to that level of certainty that an accused person did that of which they are accused, then you should not be able to execute them.

That being said, execution is a matter of meting out justice, and should be performed by an uninvolved party. When an aggrieved party does the executing, it is no longer about justice; it has become an act of vengeance. And vengeance is an unhealthy pursuit.

Maybe you should be asking some of the Muslim Extremest this question? The Bible records, "Vengeance is Mine!" says the Lord. However, He also expects the officials that He has placed in power to do their duty when required! And it seems to me that Hollywood talks out of both sides of its mouth. It releases smut and then wonders how on earth can people perform such nasty things? It presents sex in the most vulgar and demeaning light and then expects those dishing out such trash to behave morally straight! Clearly, even you should observe that one reaps exactly what one sows!

 

[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?

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

Okay, first. Rape. Is. Not. A. Sexual. Act. It is an act of control, and violence. So, if a woman forced you to the ground, ripped off your clothes, and forcibly fucked you up the ass with a strap-on, you wouldn't feel violated, or angry? Unless you're a sociopath, of course you would. Well?!?!? What makes you think it is any different for women? So, why would you think that it is perfectly okay to do something to a woman that you would not want done to you?

As to the execution question, I understand that I was not being exact enough in my example. Executing a criminal is, for me, a grey area. I personally think that the burden of proof for execution should be required to be higher than for any other punishment. Because with every other punishment, if we get it wrong, we can release you, pay you fuck-tons of money as recompense for our error, and send you on to the rest of your life. Once you're executed, if we were wrong, well...you're still kinda executed. Sucks to be you. So, in my mind, the death penalty should require not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it should require "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you cannot prove to that level of certainty that an accused person did that of which they are accused, then you should not be able to execute them.

That being said, execution is a matter of meting out justice, and should be performed by an uninvolved party. When an aggrieved party does the executing, it is no longer about justice; it has become an act of vengeance. And vengeance is an unhealthy pursuit.

Maybe you should be asking some of the Muslim Extremest this question? The Bible records, "Vengeance is Mine!" says the Lord. However, He also expects the officials that He has placed in power to do their duty when required! And it seems to me that Hollywood talks out of both sides of its mouth. It releases smut and then wonders how on earth can people perform such nasty things? It presents sex in the most vulgar and demeaning light and then expects those dishing out such trash to behave morally straight! Clearly, even you should observe that one reaps exactly what one sows!

Oh, what an irresponsible, finger-pointing load of shit! Movies are not responsible for ;people being assholes. Music is not responsible for people being assholes. Video games are not the reason for people being assholes. Books are not the reason for people being assholes. The devil didn't make any of them "do it". People are assholes because they choose to be assholes. Position #6: Take fucking responsibility for your fucking choices! Don't wait for God to kiss your boo-boo, and make it all better. Don't blame others for your choices. Make your fucking choices, and fucking own them!

 

[Spare_change]

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

Stupid is as stupid says .... and you said something REALLY stupid.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Gotta love the circular logic .... "of course, in some cases it isn't true, which, of course, proves that IS true"

 

[Spare_change]

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

Why is it so important to you that there be no God?

Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?

You just might be wrong .... in which case, you are .... as we say ... royally fucked!

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Kinda like being an atheist, don't you think?

 

[Spare_change]

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.

I can think of no reason to facilitate your mental masturbation when the very premise of your argument is flawed. One does not try to refute sheer stupidity and egotism - one can only marvel at the effrontery.

 

[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.

Gotta love the circular logic .... "of course, in some cases it isn't true, which, of course, proves that IS true"

Wow...this is really your level of intellect? Since the only thing you got out of my post was something I didn't even suggest, I will just let you continue to pat yourself on the back for your ignorant arrogance.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Kinda like being an atheist, don't you think?

Quite the opposite, actually. Thanks for asking.

 

[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.

I can think of no reason to facilitate your mental masturbation when the very premise of your argument is flawed. One does not try to refute sheer stupidity and egotism - one can only marvel at the effrontery.

That's adorable. Every response you have posted here has been an eruption of arrogant stupidity coated in condescending pontification. The only one engaged in mental masturbation here has been you. I presented a proposal for discussion. You have been jerking yourself off over how "smart" you are, and how "dumb" I am.

But, hey. Go ahead. Rub out a load. Don't let me stop you.

 

[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

Why is it so important to you that there be no God?

Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?

You just might be wrong .... in which case, you are .... as we say ... royally fucked!

The real question is, why is it so important to you that there is a God? If you woke up tomorrow, and discovered, with absolute certainty, that God does not exist, would anything really have changed? Would the earth spin any differently? Would the sun shine any less brightly? Would anything in the natural universe really stop running as it always has?

See, the only people who fear that they are wrong, are the theists. Because, if they have to admit that they are wrong, then they have to admit that they have denied themselves countless opportunities at pleasure, and personal experiences all in the name of living up to the standards of a God that never existed.

 

[Tuatara]

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

Why is it so important to you that there be no God?

Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?

You just might be wrong .... in which case, you are .... as we say ... royally fucked!

Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

 

[Tuatara]

More sanctimonious BS from our resident egotist.

Please explain in detail why the list is BS. Would you rather leave the world worse off than you found it?

 

[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

Stupid is as stupid says .... and you said something REALLY stupid.

As a Christian did you like Roy Moore? Do you like trump? If you do like them maybe you need a few more Commandments. Though shall not vote for scum