one atheist's ideal "ten commandments"

[beyondbukshot]

Where does the extent of "each other" end?

Our race? Our species? Our family? Our country? All life?

[galenjr]

the bible's 10 commandments are a joke.

the first 4 are to satisfy "god's" vanity. The next 6 cover murder, stealing, adultery, lying, parental respect, and jealousy.

A lot of loopholes in there. Maybe thats why so many priests are fucking little boys. It's not in their commandments.

The golden rule covers everything. 10 commandments are a joke.

[jjKickerK]

galenjr,

Your post seems a bit self-defeating, considering that our most common expression of the golden rule comes directly from the Bible itself. You also attribute to God the idea of vanity, a concept which, if you presuppose the existence of a God, certainly could not exist. God, by very definition, could never overestimate his own attributes. Supposing that there were a God, the first 4 commandments would make perfect sense.

[jjKickerK]

gyratedotorg,

Just wanted to say I found your video very interesting. I was reading in Matthew the other day and you reminded me of a certain passage. Jesus was asked which of the commandments was the greatest. His response was "love your neighbor as yourself". So to me it seems like your rule "be excellent to each other and yourself" wouldn't really add anything new to the current understanding of Biblical morality. Seems to be more of an affirmation than a correction.

[gyratedotorg]

unlike the bible, my video does not promote hatred or injustice.

[jjKickerK]

It might if someone completely misinterpreted it. But in what ways do you see the Bible as promoting hatred and injustice? In my opinion, it seems like our western idea of justice has borrowed heavily from the Bible historically.

[gyratedotorg]

skepticsannotatedbible[dot]com­/cruelty/long.html

[jjKickerK]

Throwing up a link in place of a response is truly the coward's way out. I guess I could link you to any number of sites that provide alternative interpretations and/or explanations to all of those supposed Biblical problems, but I choose to do my thinking for myself. On the other hand, you can't possibly expect me to take the time to response to that entire thing. I tell you what, pick out 2 or 3 of what you consider the best examples from that list, and I'll gladly discuss them.

[jjKickerK]

Of course, before I'll even agree to take you seriously on that, you'll have to show me how you even derive values of justice and non-hatred from an atheistic worldview. In other words, if you're going to point to immoralities in the Bible, you'll have to show me what kind of objective moral standard you're using to make those judgements. Otherwise, you really have no ground to stand on.

[gyratedotorg]

but morals are not derived from an atheistic world view. actually, morality and religion have nothing to do with each other. that's why it's so easy for you to dismiss things like leviticus 20:9-10. like you said, you choose to do your thinking for yourself. if you really got your morals from the bible, you would have *no choice* but to support the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children.

[jjKickerK]

I see where you're coming from on that, but let me throw a couple points at you. First off, I didn't mean that your morality flows directly from atheism itself, but simply that you're using some kind of moral standard not based in religion. I'm simply asking where you are coming up with that moral standard. So, for example, if you criticize the Bible for condoning capital punishment in certain situations, I want to know how you are determining if that edict is moral or immoral.

[gyratedotorg]

ok, im rewriting this reply, because i dont think i directly answered your question with the last one. simply put, i know something is immoral when it causes more harm than good.

[jjKickerK]

But aren't you still begging the question here? The real issue is in how you define goodness and harm. And furthermore, you'd still have to explain why your definition of "good" and "harm" should hold in any objective fashion. Hitler, for example, would obviously have a very different understanding of what is "good" and what is "harmful". Unless you're simply talking about physical injury, how could you claim that your moral system is any better than his?

[gyratedotorg]

there is no such thing as "objective morality." the universe itself doesn't care about us. "good" and "bad" are just labels that we (human beings) apply to things.

[jjKickerK]

So then in what way can you argue that the Bible is immoral? Would it not simply be a different perspective just as legitimate as your own?

[gyratedotorg]

completely depends on your chosen perspective. from the perspective of an endangered animal, the extinction of the human race might be thought of as a good thing. from the perspective of a white plantation owner in the early south, slavery might be thought of as a good thing. my problems with the teachings of the bible (and religion in general) come from *my* chosen perspective as a citizen of the world who tries to have compassion and respect for all living things.

[jjKickerK]

If thats the case, though, you have no grounds with which to claim that your perspective is better than anyone else's. Correct? So if we were discussing someone like Hitler, you wouldn't really be able to say that he was a "bad" guy, he was just a guy that had a different perspective than you. Also, on a somewhat separate point, doesn't your edict of "compassion and respect" seem to fly in the face of the darwinian mantra "survival of the fittest"?

[gyratedotorg]

it sounds like you're trying to define "good" and "bad" from a purely objective point of view. like i said before, i don't think there's any such thing.

in regards to your comment about "survival of the fittest," i think you're confusing the theory of evolution with the "might makes right" mentality of "social darwinism" (which i do not agree with).

[beyondbukshot]

And YOUR own, and isn't your own personal perspective a bit more fundamental to you?

[jjKickerK]

Now as to those passages themselves, I disagree with your assertion that a Christian should have *no choice* but to kill adulterers and disobedient children. While I can definitely see where you would think that, you need to understand 2 things. First, Christians don't view the Bible in such simplistic terms. Biblical morality is based on the complete theology presented in all of scripture. Second, Christians view the Old Testament laws as being completely reinterpreted in the New.

[jjKickerK]

So if I were looking at an issue such as adultery, I would not simply pull out leviticus 20:10.  In order to stay true to the overall view of scripture, I would have to look at the rest of the Bible as well. And when I look in John 8:7 what I see is that Jesus himself refused to kill a woman caught in adultery. He instead chose to set an example of forgiveness. A similar passage concerning disobedient children is found in Luke 15.

[gyratedotorg]

how do you know which passages are moral and which are not?

[jjKickerK]

Its not really about one passage being more moral than another, its about the overall picture that is being presented. On the other hand, though, it is true that Christianity places more weight on the direct teachings of Jesus, which are seen as the correct application of Old Testament laws. You also have to realize that much of the law in Leviticus is a social contract meant to apply specifically to that group of people, whereas the teachings of Jesus are explicitly meant to be universal.

[gyratedotorg]

no, it is about some passages being more moral than others. whether or not you want to admit it, simply looking at the "overall picture" means you are choosing to ignore some things. incidentally, jesus clearly states that this is a big no-no in matthew 5:17-19.

secondly, jesus advocates the death penalty for disobedient children in matthew 15:4. so if jesus' teachings are "correct," then i guess a lot of parents will be going to hell for not murdering their kids! haha

[jjKickerK]

Well, with respect, of the two of us I'm the one who actually studies the Bible consistently and I'm being honest when I say I don't see Leviticus as being any "less moral" than Matthew. I don't ignore that passage at all, I see it as reminder of the seriousness of adultery and honoring one's parents. Matthew 5:17 shows that Jesus didn't even see himself as being "more moral" than Leviticus, but that his teachings were linked with the Old Testament.

[jjKickerK]

As to your second point, if you read the entire passage you see that Jesus isn't advocating anything. He's quoting a verse from the Old Testament in order to show the religious leaders of his time an inconsistency in their own beliefs. I think it would be quite a stretch to say that Jesus was actually teaching that belief.

But look, even if I were to grant you that, can you say definitively that killing a child for disobedience is even a bad thing, given that morality is not objective?

[gyratedotorg]

these comments say a lot about your world view.

a punishment is justified when it fits the crime. i have trouble thinking of any crime that a child could commit (let alone simple disobedience, which your god himself seems to have programmed into children!) that would justify a death sentence.

[jjKickerK]

But you're simply begging the question again. How are you determining what kind of punishments are "justified" and which ones are not? Who determines whether or not it fits the crime?

[gyratedotorg]

it sounds like you're asking for some sort of perfect mathematical equation to determine the correct amount of punishment for a given crime. we both know it doesn't work that way. wouldn't you agree that this is one of the functions of a society? that's why during legal trials, we select a jury that (theoretically) represents the diversity of opinions in the community. nobody in court consults the bible for correct punishments.

[beyondbukshot]

A tip if you want it, talking about Bible quotes probably closes this discussion off further then addressing the issue of require a book to fill a moral hole.

That is a very scary position for me to see in anyone, and causes my trust levels to lower significantly.

"For the same reason you reject all other gods but your chosen one, I reject the idea of god."

[HighShippu]

Smart answer gyratedotorg, lighted up an excellent answer for your question, how come you believe in atom since no lousy human being has ever saw it? Hmm?

[gyratedotorg]

the same reason i believe in air. we have evidence for it.

[HighShippu]

You don't see air's molecules, yet, you believe in them as if you have seen them. YET, you disrespect beliefs of others while you believe in Aliens, which of course, you haven't seen neither anyone did.

Get my point?

[gyratedotorg]

who said anything about aliens?

[HighShippu]

I am saying, it was nothing but a product of your likes imagination.

[HighShippu]

If god doesn't exist, who maintains the order in this universe?

If god doesn't exist, what is the purpose behind this existence? Do we exist just to die?

Search for the truth, it is very near.

[jeffwolfheart]

perfect, I really like that awancer.

peace out and great video, short, sweet, perfect!!