Atheist Commandments

Right. This thread is meant to be ab attempt to set out a group of rules that Atheists can follow. 613 is, as much as I admire people who can remember them, NOT an easy figure to use, solet's stick with 10-20, please.

Here's a few I think are good. Add more/feedback, please. They go in decreasing order of priority

1. Thou shalt obey all laws. This doe not validate the Nurenburg Defence.
   
2. Thou shalt obey all orders given in authourity, unless that contradicts rule 1
   
3. Thou shalt not harm humanity as a whole, unless that contradicts rule 1 or 2
   
4. Thou shalt do no harm to a human, unless that contradicts rule 1 2 or 3
   
5. Thou shalt take these laws as intended. I think we all know what it means, and so no loophole-dodging
   
6. Thou shalt learn all that is possible
   

How about The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Right. This thread is meant to be ab attempt to set out a group of rules that Atheists can follow. 613 is, as much as I admire people who can remember them, NOT an easy figure to use, solet's stick with 10-20, please.

Here's a few I think are good. Add more/feedback, please. They go in decreasing order of priority

1. Thou shalt obey all laws. This doe not validate the Nurenburg Defence.
   
2. Thou shalt obey all orders given in authourity, unless that contradicts rule 1
   
3. Thou shalt not harm humanity as a whole, unless that contradicts rule 1 or 2
   
4. Thou shalt do no harm to a human, unless that contradicts rule 1 2 or 3
   
5. Thou shalt take these laws as intended. I think we all know what it means, and so no loophole-dodging
   
6. Thou shalt learn all that is possible
   

---

Why do atheists need a set of rules to follow? To be atheist merely means you believe that there is no God/gods/divine force, and as religion does not hold a monopoly on morality there is no reason that atheists would require a set of rules such as The Ten Commandments. We have laws, and though many ignore this people also have their own personal moral compasses.

I am an atheist and see this to be a silly mental exercise, especially considering that as atheists share no mythology or common background they are not a unified group upon which you can suggest/dictate a set of moral principles. Personally I think atheism follows to some extent the existentialist/humanist schools of philosophy, wherein individuals should make their own decisions or judgments. Though people of faith can certainly be existentialist or humanist as well.

Let us each come up with our own morals/rules to follow and live by, if you wish to write up your own personal moral code please do, if you wish to have others make suggestions or exhibit their own personal moral codes please do that as well, but saying you wish to set out a group of rules that atheists can follow seems to suggest a misunderstanding of what it is to be atheist and the organization (or lack thereof) of atheists around the world.

Personally I try to follow my heart, and believe that when such action is not to the harm of the group within which I live (family, friends, state, humanity or whatever) it is almost invariably the best way to go. I don't really feel a need to set down morals though. I am by nature quite loyal to my friends, and value loyalty to friends quite highly, so you could say one of my personal moral codes is to always be loyal to one's friends and always there for them in times of need. I can't really think of any other personal moral rules which I like to follow, but if I do I will update you on them.

By the way if the beginning of my post seems a bit harsh I may be overreacting, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. Please don't be offended.

:yes::yes: What he said....

The only think you group atheists by is thier lack if belief... they may have more similarities but Atheism is not an exclusive club, its simply a lack of belief in God...

1. Thou shalt contribute to the Babe Thread.

1. Thou shalt nothing. Whatsoever. Cool it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

1. Thou shalt nothing. Whatsoever. Cool it.

---

I sense Adrian is jockeying for a position in the mod staff ~;)

Quote:

---

# Thou shalt obey all laws. This doe not validate the Nurenburg Defence.
# Thou shalt obey all orders given in authourity, unless that contradicts rule 1

---

I don't understand why this would have to be applied to atheists alone as a rule and not everyone. But also, they are terrible rules anyway.

*senses this going to the backroom anyway*

I'm curious why an atheist would begin a phrase with "thou shalt".

Backroom? Maybe. But for the moment we would do well to heed Pannonian's advice.

Thou shalt for the idea and tradition. Really, atheists need them more than godly people because they have no God to tell them what i good or not. With a religion you can just ry to please God, without a set of rules is required

Need isnt really important. The idea was to set out a 'code of morals' without a mention of god. These do not only apply to atheists!

@JAG, it doesn't only apply to atheists, butit's a really good one (I think) because there are always some people who claim 'my religion told me to commit this crime/ I can't do this because God says...'

Empathy.

(I would post more, but I am about to have dinner).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Thou shalt for the idea and tradition. Really, atheists need them more than godly people because they have no God to tell them what i good or not. With a religion you can just ry to please God, without a set of rules is required

Need isnt really important. The idea was to set out a 'code of morals' without a mention of god. These do not only apply to atheists!

@JAG, it doesn't only apply to atheists, butit's a really good one (I think) because there are always some people who claim 'my religion told me to commit this crime/ I can't do this because God says...'

---

Ok firstly, what you are talking about and getting at with the whole topic is something which has been debated for centuries and is debated in the mind of everyone - religious or not - everyday; morality.

Just because there is no written code, like the ten commandments, for atheists - like me - it doesn't mean that they cannot find their own morality, without having some written document labbeled 'Atheist commandments', to tell them what to believe. Part of the point of being an Atheist is the fact that when you say 'there is no God' you are also free to state to yourself 'there is not God and thus all the religious morality can either be rubbish to me or still mean something, it is my choice'. So

Quote:

---

atheists need them more than godly people because they have no God to tell them what i good or not.

---

that point, is irrelevant.

Secondly, need is important - as it is the fundamental point. For Atheists there is, quite simply, no need for things to be written down, morality - like with religious people - comes from various and varying means, because one of the options and inputs isn't there - the ten commandments - doesn't mean a supplimentary one needs to be invented.

Thirdly, People claim many things lead them to commit a crime, ultimately it is always a choice, regardless of pressure put on you any which way, and thus the responsibility is always your own.

A few quotes from Sartre seem apt for this whole thread -

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.

Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterward. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.

From his play No Exit -

GARCIN: I "dreamt," you say. It was no dream. When I chose the hardest path, I made my choice deliberately. A man is what he wills himself to be.

INEZ: Prove it. Prove it was no dream. It's what one does, and nothing else, that shows the stuff one's made of.

GARCIN: I died too soon. I wasn't allowed time to - to do my deeds.

INEZ: One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else.

I'm an atheist too, and I think you're missing the point. It could be a secular code or WHATEVER, just something that people on this forum think is a good idea SUPPOSING a written code was created.

I actually use the firstt two with a third: Do nothing of dishonour, unless that contradicts rule 1/2. I've never had a 'gut reaction' against that.

The Doctor has the right idea, as did Jesus. If you behave to everyone else as you would like people to behave to you, you can't go far wrong, until you join the army...

What are you are proposing whether its good or bad is a certain way of living combined with a non belief in God, atheism is oly a non belief in God it is misuse of the label atheist to apply other criteria..

https://img395.imageshack.us/img395/...rashcatpo4.jpg


Methinks only one single commandment is needed: logic and rational thinking. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Methinks only one single commandment is needed: logic and rational thinking. :whip:

---

Amen, Brother. :yes:

Drive by post :smg:, not in as often as I would like... should be studying right now...

Law does not equal justice.
Justice does not equal morality.

To obey the law does not by default make ones life just or moral.

When driving in Taiwan I obey the laws of physics first. Which meant while I drove a scooter I avoided those large trucks. Sure I had mans law on my side, but that did not mean a fig if I was a smear on the road. Nor do I think it would have been moral to die with my wife on the back seat because 'I obeyed the law'.

Law of man is a codex made by politicians with vested interests. On the occasion that the law itself is in alignment with justice and morality it is a beauty to behold. We need judges & lawyers to help make those rules just.

So from an atheists point of view my belief system is short and sweet:

'Do as you please, please as you do.'

Back to the books...

I like that. Concise and clear, and little room for nit-picking lawyer types

I think it's a poor choice to approach the issue of atheist morality as 'commandments.' The word implies a commander, a source of such commands, which must be obeyed. This is a very theistic concept, and feels out of place in an atheist context. What is the source of atheist 'commandments,' and why does it deserve an atheist's respect? Is it Flying Pig?

Ajax

I think:

Thou shalt do massive Area of Effect damage with every strike. (DotA commandment)