Problems with the atheist Ten Commandments
One would presume the atheists needed to organize or structure their likeminded brothers and sisters under the same tenants which God constructed His chruch. The need for a “secular” or atheist Ten Commandments would otherwise seem irrelevant since you have the free will to believe what you wish without the constraints of a Higher Power.
From initial statement to the actual Ten Commandments, there are so many erroneous presumptions beginning with the first quote by John Figdor, Humanist Chaplain at Stanford University: “There is often a misconception that nonbelievers don’t share strong ethical values…no matter where you are from, or what your faith tradition has been—or hasn’t been—there are some things we can all agree on as being important and vital to a rich and fulfilling life.”
The “Atheist Ten Commandments” make me scratch my head. public domain
Sorry John, that is not true.
First, there are cultures all over the world who engage in heinous acts, violate human rights or commit evil without the guidance of God. Moreover, Christians assert that you can choose to “share strong ethical values” but there is no moral compass to what that direction is….God gave you free will, but without Him, good and bad becomes releative.
Now to the “Ten” which I’d like to tackle in a different order beginning with “God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.” – It was strange to see God pointed out and excluded, but again – you have free will to choose to do good, live a meaningful life, but there is no reason to if there is no accountability when you die.
“There is no one right way to live” – So, why bother with this “Secular” Ten Commandments? You’re arguing that everyone can still do what ever they choose, so then why would someone constrain themselves by the Richard Dawkins led edicts?
Frank Turek’s “I Dont have enough faith to be an atheist” finished off my skepticism of a God
“Every person has the right to control over their body” – More free will questions arise. By the way, God may have given instructions on how to live, but you are responsible for how you execute those instructions.
Also, if this is suppose to green light abortions, I’d question how the humanists feel about that.
“The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world” – I don’t disagree, but you believe in a ton of “evidence” which cannot be validated through scientific experimentation. (e.g. origins of universe, multiverse)
“Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them” – this is very contradictory to me. You don’t want to accountable or responsible to God, so who are you accountable to: society? government? Mr. Dawkins? fellow atheists? AND, if I’m an athest, why should I care?
“Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective” – this one is the Golden Rule borrowed directly from Jesus Christ.
Christians by and large live out these two: “We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations” and “Leave the world a better place than you found it.”
“Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence” and “Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true” are the two that atheists are being intellectually dishonest about.
For me, Darwin pointed to a massive fossil record, nearly impossible to differentiate between intermediate forms – we didn’t find this, we found the Cambrian Explosion.
The field of cellular biology points to an amazing design which contradicts the “randomness” and timeline needed for life, from single cell to massive specialization of cells (Stephen Meyer’s work has blown this up) – there is a ton of new evidence, but a clinging to old ideas, theories.
Secularists can have their Ten Commandments, but there is still reason to follow them. “To each their own” is part of their message and yet, the religious community is the “bad guy” not their own who don’t/won’t follow their new edicts.
Good luck atheist church…
Regarding Jesus Christ as the source of the golden rule: 500 years earlier, Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC.) said, “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”.
In fact people have been independently reinventing the golden rule for thousands of years. It’s in in the sacred texts of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and many other religions. The bottom line is that human beings are social. So reciprocity works as one of the ethical principles on which to build cooperation, respect and social order.
Regarding Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.: It doesn’t logically follow from “I see no reason to believe God exists” to think “Therefore I must kill these people”. It makes no sense.
Whereas it does make sense to go from “My God tells me to kill these people” to “Therefore I must kill these people”. There’s a perfect deadly logic to it.
The multiple universe theory IS provable, namely because it IS possible to go through time as well as space and for a few reasons, namely, it IS possible to build space craft that CAN withstand the ability to go faster than light speed, that an experiment with NASA astronauts in the 1960s and 1970s proved that they DID go through time and ended up a few seconds behind other people, and not merely just due to something like, say, going through a different time zone or two (though that could also happen as another way in which to go backwards or forwards through time), that portals through time AND space HAVE been recorded NUMEROUS times by people, as well as parallel dimensions, and the simple fact that people CAN and DO make things like choices and that these choices that they make could potentially alter the future and if they interfere in the past, then they could also potentially alter the past, thus there IS a multiple universe.
“God is not necessary to be a good person” Ha! Tell that to Stalin, Pol Pot and the atheists dictators of the past century. They were the worst mass murderers in history.