Aren't commandments intended for believers to follow?

[trotsky]

Why would an atheist be obligated to follow a commandment?

[safeinOhio]

1. I'm an Atheist and I don't like

to work on Sunday, or any other day.

[guillaumeb]

17. Do what you like and it is not work.

Unless you get paid to do it. But you would still like it.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, in the cases where a commandment is similar to a law of society,

it's best to follow those. In the case of the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, only four are reflected in our laws, so atheists can safely ignore the rest of them, I think.

[trotsky]

3. Agreed.

Just seems odd to me where if someone had created a new commandment with the purpose of claiming that atheists HAD to follow it, the whole construct kind of falls apart at a very basic level. I'm an atheist - I'm not trying to impress any god by following its commandments. Why on earth would I be obligated to follow another one that was made up?

[MineralMan]

4. Well, assuming an existing deity, it's the height of arrogance to

create additional "Commandments," I'd think. Perhaps even dangerous, should that deity be jealous of its authority.

The deity described in the Old Testament is supposed to have declared itself a "jealous god."

Exodus 20:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

and

Deuteronomy 6: 14-15 King James Version (KJV)
14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Were I a believer, I think I'd avoid making additional Commandments. You wouldn't want to piss off the deity, after all. Bad-tempered deities are scary!

[The Genealogist]

7. So much for "smile God loves you"

No deity that punishes successive generations for an ancestor's failings deserves reverence and praise.

[MineralMan]

8. So you'd think, right?

That's not the only place where the deity is recorded as saying something like that. In the Old Testament, the deity was to be feared. After all, it supposedly wiped out every living thing on the planet in a fit of pique, save one family and some animals. That's not a deity to be toyed with, I'd think.

Of course, that deity is supposed to have repented from its vicious nature at a later time, or so it is written. It's hard to sell worship of an angry, vengeful deity, I suppose. So, a change of heart was in order to make the religion more palatable, I suppose.

[The Genealogist]

10. Somehing sure changed with that deity

He went from flooding the world is a fit of pique to loving the world in John 3:16. Maybe he finally got tired of all that messy smiting he used to love so dearly. What a softy!

[MineralMan]

11. Yah, well, maybe. See, the thing is that

for Christianity to survive, it had to be softened up for the Roman audience. So, the angry, mean deity had to be toned down in some way to have any appeal at all to people who had formerly worshiped a bunch of slapstick deities full of human failings. I mean, those Roman gods were always getting up to all-too-human shenanigans, and some of them had a mean streak, besides.

So, it was better if the new deity were a more loving, kindly sort of deity you could believe in and be sure of a reward after death. When the Biblical Canon was finally edited down and finalized, it was a perfect fit for Roman sensibilities. It was something they could carry with them as they conquered the Western world.

Genius!

[marylandblue]

38. God is only jealous of other gods

Minions who speak in his name seem to be okay, since so many do it without any bad consequences.

[Sneederbunk]

5. No, you cannot murder, steal or lie just because you are a nonbeliever.

[trotsky]

6. The notion that those activities are undesirable is far, far older than any religion.

The point is, atheists who refrain from doing those things aren't doing so in order to follow religious commandments.

[MineralMan]

9. Such rules are common to all human societies.

No deities are needed for such commonsense rules.

[safeinOhio]

22. I feel responsible for my actions.

Can’t wash it away by praying for forgiveness.

[rurallib]

12. does that go for Trump also?

[edhopper]

18. You can lie all you want

except for specific legal situations. look at the current President. All he does is lie and there is no ramifications.

So that leaves two commandments that are illegal.

And those are not original to the Bible.

So the 10 Commandments can be thrown into the dustbin of history.

I mean graven images, what kind of crap is that?

[Pope George Ringo II]

21. See, that's the good part.

The problem is all the people who think they can murder, steal, and lie because they are believers.

[marble falls]

13. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Why do some people feel its their responsibility...

to troll others over their beliefs?

[MineralMan]

14. You left out the beginning of that rede.

"An it harm none..."

[marble falls]

20. I get covered by for that with "live a guiltless life."

[guillaumeb]

16. I agree.

But some do seem to feel it is their responsibility to attack beliefs.

[edhopper]

19. It's more of a meta thread

commenting on a made up bullshit 11th Commandment posted here.

That said, believers are free to follow whatever silly thing they want. but there is a strong faction in thei country, and they currently are in power, who want to make Christian Law the law of the land.

So there is a larger discussion on how the 10 Commandments should be seen today.

[trotsky]

24. I don't know why some people have to troll others by creating fictitious commandments...

and then insist that people who are simple voicing their opinions are only doing so because they MUST follow such.

Perhaps there is another person who can answer your question.

[guillaumeb]

15. Sometimes people seem compelled to engage in certain

behaviors. But calling it a commandment has a certain resonance for the religion group.

[trotsky]

25. Says who?

What gives you the right to judge whether someone is "compelled" to post versus just offering their opinion?

More importantly, why does it matter? Why do you insist on making this an issue? Is it because you can't address their arguments, so instead you're attacking their imagined motivations?

[guillaumeb]

28. Why does it matter to you?

Did you feel that people were unaware of what was and is happening here?

Did you feel that others were unaware of the evident hostility of some few non-theists for positive remarks about religion?

An interesting response on your part.

[MineralMan]

29. What people?

Can they not post their opinions here? About what people are you speaking? Have you been appointed to speak for such people? Do tell...

[guillaumeb]

34. So no response to my assertions?

Good move.

[MineralMan]

35. My question is the response.

You made unsupported claims. Please support them.

[trotsky]

44. What about the evident hostility of some few theists...

whenever a negative opinion about religion is posted?

Or is that OK?

How about we just not give a flying fuck and let people post their opinions on a DISCUSSION BOARD?

[marylandblue]

37. You seem to feel others are unaware of it

Because you point it out on almost every thread.

[trotsky]

43. Because you're making DU suck.

You don't engage in actual dialog, you just try to shame people who are presenting a different point of view than you.

You assign imagined motivations (hostility?) simply because someone has a DIFFERENT OPINION and VOICES IT.

Fuck your "interesting response" bullshit. Fuck your "11th commandment" nonsense. Fuck all the attacks you are leveling at people for simply disagreeing with you about religion.

[Major Nikon]

45. ... and the donkey they rode in on

[guillaumeb]

48. What an insightful response.

Be what you wish to see.

[trotsky]

49. I am.

I have sincerely reached out to you MANY times, trying to coax actual dialog out of you.

You've spat in my face every single time.

Ball's in your court, gil.

[guillaumeb]

50. What a bizarre assertion.

SO which do I believe, this assertion, or your private messages to me?

Because the 2 are very contradictory indeed.

Your serve.

[MineralMan]

54. Please stick with the public thread.

Your references to unseen private messages are irrelevant to the conversation.

I strongly encourage you to drop such references. They are unseemly.

[guillaumeb]

57. What is unseemly is when the public face does not match the private one.

If a poster wishes to send private messages strongly expressing one sentiment, and then publicly expresses a far different sentiment, what response should one make?


This approach speaks to tactics. What I encourage the poster to do is to make public all of the personal messages and we can then discuss the substance of the issue.

[MineralMan]

58. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Private messages are, you know, private. If you are, for some reason, tempted to reveal someone else's private messages, though, I caution you not to do such a thing. It is anathema in forums like this one. And if you're not thinking of doing that, there is no point in mentioning it at all.

You're treading on unsafe ground here. There is quicksand. You're walking right toward it, too.

[guillaumeb]

64. I ahree with your self-assessment.

You seem to have missed the point.

If any poster were to claim to want dialogue, in public, but sent many private messages to indicate the exact opposite desire, how would you respond to the public approach of conciliation?


And given that you were not a party to any of the private messages, what inspired you to respond?

[MineralMan]

66. Just giving you something to consider.

What you do is up to you, as always. Consequences are difficult to predict.

One thing is certain, though. There will never be a private conversation between you and me.

[guillaumeb]

67. Anything that another says to me in private will always remain so.

But even though I would never reveal what is/was said in private, that glimpse into the other person's private feelings will weigh heavily when I consider the public response.

Thank you for the advice.

[Voltaire2]

69. The worst sort of gossip.

[guillaumeb]

71. And given that you were not a party to the exchanges,

what qualifies you to comment?

[Voltaire2]

72. It is a discussion board.

Not a private exchange.

[guillaumeb]

73. So no real insight into the exchanges,

but you felt it necessary to offer something insulting.

[Voltaire2]

74. I offered my insight.

It is just about the lowest form of gossip. Reminds me of a certain senator from the 50s waving his secret lists.

[trotsky]

76. Which is exactly what you're doing.

OK for you, but not for others.

That's why so many people have a problem with you, gil.

[guillaumeb]

81. And your tactics?

Nothing to say?

[trotsky]

83. What do you wish me to tell you?

Is there a punishment you wish to mete out upon me, sir?

What can I do to earn dialog from you?

[guillaumeb]

84. Reconcile your publicly expressed desire for dialogue

with your private messages.

Which is the operative "t"?

[trotsky]

86. Since you continue to insinuate things about me to try and badmouth me in public,

it seems clear what your motivation is here.

My private messages to you attempted to determine whether you were actually interested in dialog, or if you only wanted to harass and intimidate. Because I'm willing to give ANYONE a chance, even you.

So let's dialog, gil. Answer my questions. Let's do this.

[guillaumeb]

88. We both know what your private messages were.

And we both know what you are saying publicly.

[trotsky]

89. If this is your new tactic, so be it.

Anything to avoid dialog.

I'm telling you right now, let's do it.

Why are you afraid? You claim to want dialog, but you refuse to engage in it.

[guillaumeb]

90. So put it all aside?

Forget all that was said?

Okay.

[trotsky]

91. Whatever it takes for you to actually engage in the dialog you claim to want.

I'm waiting for you to give it a try. I've been waiting for a very long time.

[MineralMan]

70. That's a wise policy.

[trotsky]

63. As I've told you, I stand by everything I've said.

Do you? Everything you've said to me in PMs?

[guillaumeb]

65. But if you say one thing in private,

and quite another in public, is there a private trotsky and a public trotsky?



And if so, and I respond to public t, will private t understand?

I am quite confused.

[trotsky]

75. You have confused yourself, I guess.

Try behaving like a decent person, and stop trying to dehumanize atheists and delegitimize their opinions.

[guillaumeb]

80. So no answer to the question?

I understand.

[trotsky]

82. I'm sure you think you do. n/t

[Lordquinton]

68. That's a common occurrence

He'll engage in miles of empty posts, but the second some substance is interjected he disappears.

I've tested it many times.

Also worked on other theists, most of them have been banned over time.

[trotsky]

77. "...most of them have been banned over time"

Quite true. It takes some longer than others, though.

[Heddi]

85. more correct to say "banned time AFTER time AFTER time AFTER time

in the case of rug and justin, at least....

rug making an appearance just this weekend, stating that his own menstrual flow caused him to be an atheist.

ah well. Some people choose better, more meaningful hobbies than others I suppose.

[trotsky]

87. LMFAO

Poor old rug.

[Lordquinton]

92. Ambien might make me Catholic

[NeoGreen]

23. Cogent point...

...

[beachbum bob]

26. much of the intent of almost all of commandments are codified in law...

such as stealing
lying
and
others are relevant to being a moral and ethical person with being respectful, not committing adultery....honoring your parents, etc


if you an evangelical, you can break all sorts of the commandments and be sorry and "be born again" on a weekly basis

[MineralMan]

30. Only four of them are reflected in our laws.

The others are not, and some are expressly prohibited by our Constitution from being enacted by laws. Have you even read them?

[Mariana]

31. No, they aren't. Let us review:

1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have any gods before me.
Directly contradicted by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
Freedom of religion again.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Directly contradicted by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Freedom of religion again.

5. Honor your father and your mother.
Not required by the law, and only moral if the parents deserve it.

6. You shall not murder.
Here's one.

7. You shall not commit adultery.
Technically illegal in some places, but not enforced.

8. You shall not steal.
Here's two.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
Here's three.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
This is not a crime.

So, we have more Commandments contradicted by the law than upheld by it. So much for "Much of the intent of almost all of the Commandments are codified in law".

[MineralMan]

32. Thanks. I'm on a tablet right now,

So posting is more difficult. I included adultery in my four, because it is still illegal in the UCMJ. Not enforced, generally, but still illegal. Everywhere else, of course, it is almost a virtue, it often seems...

[Mariana]

33. You're welcome.

That lie gets on my nerves in the worst way.

[MineralMan]

36. Mine, too.

[Voltaire2]

40. What just happened is an example of the

effectiveness of right wing theocratic propaganda.

The poster has ingested the bullshit unexamined, and will likely not change his mind when confronted by the evidence that his belief is false, but will instead go away upset with the nasty atheists.

[edhopper]

39. Graven images?

The Lord's name...?

What is moral about those commandments?

[DetlefK]

27. That's the difference: Atheists don't let some "God" define what is moral.

Atheists don't abstain from theft and murder because somebody told them that they are bad and threatened them with punishment.

Atheists abstain from theft and murder on their own accord, without being forced to, because they have come to the conclusion that it's better that way, for themselves and for society.

You don't need to threaten an atheist into being a good person.

[Voltaire2]

41. Not all atheists are good.

And you do need to threaten some people, atheists included, or they will do bad things anyway. And we have people who are just bad, and regardless of threats do bad things.

Oddly enough, religiosity in prison is far higher than in the rest of the population.

[NeoGreen]

42. Steven Weinberg...

...
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Address at the Conference on Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. (April 1999)

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham.

Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Above comment is modified in a later article derived from the 1999 talks

[DetlefK]

47. That is true, but the difference is WHY most atheists are good people.

Atheists do not accept some higher authority telling them what is moral and what is not. They decide on their own.

What do you think why we have man-made laws? Because we decided that we need them if we want society to be how we want it to be.

[Major Nikon]

46. Religious morality is a joke to begin with

The bible is apathetic and/or encourages rape, child molestation, selling children into sex slavery, killing your children for insolence, forced religious conversions, and murdering heretics. Meanwhile it prohibits things like masturbation, eating pork or shellfish, mixing fabrics, wearing torn clothing, cutting your beard, getting a tattoo, or working on the sabbath.

[vlyons]

51. depends on the commandment and

on one's point of view. Thou shall not kill, steal, or bear false witness seems pretty good to me.

[thucythucy]

52. I imagine this has been posted before

but given the context the temptation was too much for me to resist:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. If God metes out consequences for not obeying them, but you don't believe in God,

I suppose you're off the hook.

[MineralMan]

55. Considering Hitler and Pol Pot, why should anyone be concerned

about such consequences from an absent or non-existent deity? It doesn't appear to be meting out anything at all, somehow.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. Exactly. If you aren't playing the game you don't have to follow the rules.

[MineralMan]

59. And, clearly, even if you are playing the game,

you don't have to follow the rules, either. That's been proven throughout the history of the Christian Era.

More evidence that it's all just another fable. Even genocide has gone unpunished, and in multiple cases over the past 2000+ years.

And yet, people are still following that goat...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Exhibit A: Donald Trump.

Add to the Ten Commandments the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, anger, malice, gluttony, sloth, envy, and greed (note also the Oxford Comma). He's nailed them all.

Maybe he'll get his just desserts, but they'll have to come from people. I'm not expecting a divine reckoning, as much as I'd like to be able to imagine him in one of the more unpleasant circles of Hell.

[MineralMan]

61. Sorry. When he eventually dies, his chemistry will become part of

the environment, just like everyone else. Every glass of water you drink likely contains molecules of the historical Jesus's urine. I assume Jesus pissed, anyhow. Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Shakespeare's, too. That's the true immortality, actually.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

62. I hope none of Trump's molecules come my way, but I suppose it's hard to know.

[vlyons]

78. Think in terms of ethical behavior, not commandments from a God.

All people want to be happy and free of suffering. But how do we accomplish that? Ethics attempts to answer that question by proposing virtuous and non-virtuous behaviors of human conduct. Even an atheist can practice the golden rule. I highly recommend the Dalai Lama's book on Ethics, "Beyond Religion." Appropriate for everyone.

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Religion-Ethics-Whole-World/dp/054784428X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527684894&sr=1-1&keywords=ethics+dalai+lama

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51-W1m2z4WL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[TimeSnowDemos]

79. It truly depends

I've met atheists who consider them to LARGELY be reasonable rules for people to follow, to be decent. They play an oversized role in US society and - a bit like saying 'goddammit' - exist beyond the minds or religious types.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I am saying that non-Christians often acknowledge them as largely reasonable guidelines for behavior.

And sure, if everyone followed them, aside from maybe the Sabbath and idols and other gods ones, would the world be a better place?

Hard to see how it would make things worse.